What's with the shield against criticism Nintendo gets?

[AzrealMaximillion]

Now based on the title, I know what you're thinking. "Oh shit. Another anti Nintendo zealot who's never played anything past the N64 trying to flame Nintendo." That's not the case here. I'm asking why Nintendo today gets a free pass on doing things that other game companies get chastised for. I've actually played and owned all the Nintendo consoles up until current with the exception of the DS and the Virtual Boy. I've noticed that anytime a first party Nintendo game comes out these days there's usually nothing but critical appraise from reveiwers. For example Super Mario Galaxy 2 is one of the highest scored games of all time. Why? Now what I'm about to say isn't opinion, but fact. SMG2 uses several bosses that are literally ripped from SMG1. And it's literally the same intro story as the first one :"Every hundred years, a comet passes over the Mushroom Kingdom and rains down magical stars and stardust."

Yet this game somehow got mass critical acclaim. I can't name another company that can get away with copy/pasting bosses and levels and calling them "new". Reveiwers gave shit to Darksiders for being too similar a whole bunch of games. Another thing that people give Nintendo leeway on is lack of innovation for most of it's games. The first DK game we see on console in 11 years goes right back to being a side scrollers. The first main series Kirby game we see in 10 years is also a console side scroller. Any other company who'd make a side scrolling video game and charge $50 would be called lazy.

Now in no way am I calling any of Nintendo's games bad, but no reveiwer seems to call them out on this stuff, yet are more than ready so give hell to games like Yakuza 3 for being to similar to it's previous generation predecessors. In my opinion anyways.

What do you think. Does Nintendo get a seemingly free pass on some critisism?

 

[John the Gamer]

They've got everyone hypnotised (sssh, act like you know nothing!)

 

[Mike Laserbeam]

Umm... Zero Punctuation SMG2 video... Seen it?
I know Yahtzee's critical of everything, but it's not like your observation there was entirely original...

 

[teh_Canape]

maybe the fact that it pretty much saved the industry from the video game crash?

 

[Meggiepants]

It's called nostalgia. It's difficult to criticize the giant who brought many of us into the gaming fold.

There are some critics out there, but I think people are hesitant to roast that sacred cow as they say.

 

[Patton662]

Weeaboo fanboys ? That's the only explanation I can think of now, might be more to it tho

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

They're generally seen as more kid games. I mean, what was the last thing they published that was a 15 or 18 game (or the non-UK equivalents)?

And they brought most of us into gamingdom as kids, no one criticises nostalgia.

 

[SomeLameStuff]

Usually the reviewer's nostalgia talking. A lot of people can't bring themselves to burn Mario and other things from their childhood.

Just stay away from IGN and Gamespot and you'll be fine (mostly).

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Umm... Zero Punctuation SMG2 video... Seen it?
I know Yahtzee's critical of everything, but it's not like your observation there was entirely original...

I didn't sat that it was. But it is a point that stands in more than just SMG2. There's a seeming lack of innovation in Nintendo's software. I mean the biggest things they added to Super Smash Bros Brawl were Smash balls and Tripping.

 

[RandallJohn]

My guess? Nostalgia. People grew up with the big N, so they get sensitive about the franchises they played as a kid.

As far as SMG2 goes, I think it got acclaim because quite simply, it was fun to play. People overlooked the copypasta bosses and identical story (which I'd argue is actually NO story compared to SMG1) because it brought Yoshi and Luigi to the table. Unfortunate, but I think it's true.

On a related note, Miyamoto claimed in a 2009 interview that "More than 90 percent of what you will see in Super Mario Galaxy 2 is all brand new. Maybe even 95 percent." :/

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

A decent amount of people are stating that it's nostalgia It's a decent point but I grew up on Mario too. I guess it's because I grew up right when they started milking Mario with the "Party" games and the "Sports" games so on.

 

[DustyDrB]

What's with this topic coming up so often recently?

Nintendo makes certain types of games.
Bethesda makes certain types of games.
BioWare makes certain types of games.
Square Enix makes certain types of games.
I can go on like this...

Nintendo focuses on pure gameplay at the expense of story. If you want to argue against Mario on the basis of story, then you've missed the point. If you don't like the gameplay mechanics then it's understandable why one wouldn't like it, but criticizing a Mario game because of its story is just a hollow argument. Super Mario Galaxy 2 follows the design and core gameplay of the first game (not an unusual thing for a sequel to do) and adds new elements and completely different puzzles and platforming. If you loved Super Mario Galaxy, then you'll probably love the second game as much if not more.

As for why other developers get knocked for their games being too similar to others...
Darksiders, from what I remember, got points off for poorly imitating elements from other games. That's what I read at least, so don't take my word for it. The art design for that game keeps me from wanting to play it.

 

[Telekinesis]

First of all, you're just looking at "professional" reviews which are about as valid as my ex-wife. If you actually sniffed around on forums you'd notice that they get a LOT of heat.

That said, what was wrong with Galaxy 2? OH NO IT RECYCLED A BOSS [did it?] and OMG STORY IN MARIO GAEM WAS BAD!!
Really? That's your best complaints? I think that it's actually deserving of its scores considering the level design was superb, original, and most importantly, fun.

As I keep repeating, 'nostalgia' is such a cheap claim against games which is frankly just disrespectful and immature. I didn't grow up with Mario or Zelda, in fact I only really got into them in the past 3 years, yet they rank among my favorites of all time. Because they're just damn, damn good.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

It doesn't get a free pass on criticism. It gets a pass because most Nintendo titles are highly polished and, quite simply, fun to play. Many reviewers are willing to overlook a "lack of innovation" (lol) simply because of how tight Nintendo's games handle.

Besides, it's not like Nintendo is completely free from criticism [http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/wii-music].

EDIT: Also what the two posters above me said. Mario platformers have always been about the gameplay, not the story, and trying to judge them based on having a good story is simply missing the point.

And the copypasta bosses didn't come into play until the Bonus World in SMG, either. If you're going to make a case about reusing content, you're better off using the Throwback Galaxy as an example (for those who don't know, it's Thwomp's Fortress from 64).

 

[Ordinaryundone]

One of Nintendo's greatest strengths is that they fully recognize the concept of "If it isn't broke, don't fix it". They know that too much unnecessary innovation can do more harm than good, so they err on the side of caution and make each of their main franchises similar to each other. They know they've found a working formula for each of them, and this way they can have a guaranteed "sure thing" every few years, mostly by capitalizing on nostalgia and giving their fanbase exactly what it wants. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING.

That isn't to say Nintendo doesn't innovate. I can't think of any mainstream company that releases as many spin-offs that are only tangentially related to their main franchises. They've turned their adventure/platformers into everything from racing games to first-person shooters, and usually with some degree of success.

I know how this forum's opinion usually goes, but you do not have to create something entirely new every game for it to be good. Many people really do want to play the same game, just with improved graphics and gameplay mechanics, and changing too much would be off-putting, or even alienate their fanbase.

Nintendo gets their "pass" (which honestly isn't true, considering the high number of people saying the exact same thing as you) because that, despite their lack of innovation, their games are usually top-shelf. They have a very high standard of quality, and most importantly they know what works and what doesn't. The last game that they really tried something new with, Metroid: Other M, was something of a flop. They took a risk, and it didn't really pan out for them. On the other hand, SMG2 is more or less just more of the same, but its garnered massive critical and financial success.

And honestly? Innovation be damned, I'd rather play something that is sure to give me a good time like SMG2 than Other M any day.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

First of all, you're just looking at "professional" reviews which are about as valid as my ex-wife. If you actually sniffed around on forums you'd notice that they get a LOT of heat.

That said, what was wrong with Galaxy 2? OH NO IT RECYCLED A BOSS [did it?] and OMG STORY IN MARIO GAEM WAS BAD!!
Really? That's your best complaints? I think that it's actually deserving of its scores considering the level design was superb, original, and most importantly, fun.

As I keep repeating, 'nostalgia' is such a cheap claim against games which is frankly just disrespectful and immature. I didn't grow up with Mario or Zelda, in fact I only really got into them in the past 3 years, yet they rank among my favorites of all time. Because they're just damn, damn good.

That's not my issue here. It's because they don't get burned enough on the professional level that they don't think they need to change.

 

[Legion]

To be honest this kind of attitude is prevalent everywhere, not just Nintendo.

For example: Bioshock 2 was criticised as being an unnecessary sequel. Yet very few people have said the same thing about Portal, which (if you go by the original ending, before they changed it) was an extremely self contained game with no room or reason for any real continuation.

People criticise games such as Halo for changing very little when it comes to their sequels and yet Call of Duty can apparently get away with it.

Any "Triple A" title with more than two games is considered "milking the franchise" and yet slightly smaller games can get away with their total reaching the double figures.

The problem is usually down to childish fanboyism or nostalgia.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

It doesn't get a free pass on criticism. It gets a pass because most Nintendo titles are highly polished and, quite simply, fun to play. Many reviewers are willing to overlook a "lack of innovation" (lol) simply because of how tight Nintendo's games handle.

Besides, it's not like Nintendo is completely free from criticism [http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/wii-music].

Yet Wii Music still sold 2.5 million copies. It seems if it comes from Nintendo itself, it's sure to sell.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

It doesn't get a free pass on criticism. It gets a pass because most Nintendo titles are highly polished and, quite simply, fun to play. Many reviewers are willing to overlook a "lack of innovation" (lol) simply because of how tight Nintendo's games handle.

Besides, it's not like Nintendo is completely free from criticism [http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/wii-music].

Yet Wii Music still sold 2.5 million copies. It seems if it comes from Nintendo itself, it's sure to sell.

Except that's not the issue here. The issue the OP you brought up was whether or not Nintendo gets a shield against criticism simply because it's Nintendo. Sales figures have nothing to do with criticism of a company and that company's games.

 

[Telekinesis]

That's not my issue here. It's because they don't get burned enough on the professional level that they don't think they need to change.

The bigger issue here is that you actually give a shit about the collective joke known as "professional game critics". I mean come on. It's just a big mess of hype and bribes.
I mean really, GTA4 is the third best game of all time? Stalker Shadow of Chernobyl is only worth 80 points while every other big name sequel shooter is worth 95?

If you get off on people giving poor scores to Nintendo games then fish around, you can probably find some 60/100 review for Zelda because it's not up the reviewer's ally.
As a general rule though they make really good games so I don't see why you want to see them get burned so badly?