What's with the shield against criticism Nintendo gets?

[RandallJohn]

My guess? Nostalgia.

*Looks at Avatar*

Didn't even think of that lol. Doug Walker is pure win.

I think it's insulting to call their games copy pastes. Sequels are gonna be sequels. If they aren't, why call them a sequel?
And I think the changes between each Zelda - or Mario or Metroid for that matter - are big enough for it not to considered "copy pasta" by any stretch of the imagination.

It's not Nintendo games as a whole that I'm talking about. Specifically, it's the Super Mario galaxy games (both of which I actually rather enjoyed.) A few bosses were in both games with no modification whatsoever to their models or methods of defeat.

-----

Y' know, while I do agree that nintendo deserves some criticism, I think that a lot of the criticism it gets is kind of misdirected, and that's why so many N fans "shield" it. In the rush to defend the Wii from people who automatically write it off, for example, some will defend it from legitimate criticisms.

As far as criticisms for the games themselves, I think it really depends on the franchise. Metroid: Other M, for example, seems to be the target of much criticism, and it's not defended as fervently (though, to be fair, most criticisms are directed at the undertones of sexism, and not at the gameplay.)

 

[warm slurm]

You're actually critising Mario on its story? Mario games aren't 'bout the story, man. They tried that with Super Mario Sunshine and it didn't work. Give it up.

 

[Telekinesis]

I agree.

However, it is accurate to call most of their sequels "just more of the same", which isn't a good thing unless you don't mind playing what is basically the same game over and over again with some small changes and/or improvements.

First of all, as I said, "why call it a sequel if it's not more of the same?".
Second, I think that saying it's "basically the same game over with small changes" is a bit condescending. Are you really gonna tell me Majora's Mask is Ocarina of Time with "small improvements"? Or of course more radical examples, such as 2D>3D transitions, Prime>Other M, etc.

Innovation should come with new I.Ps, or occasional gimmicks, I.E the sword motion+ shit in Skyward Sword. Completely changing the core elements will just upset your fans or end up with a shitty game. Like Other M, god what a piece of shit that was.

 

[Something Amyss]

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?

To put it simply: A lot of people are hypocrites. No reviewer will call out Nintendo amidst the fanboyism. But on the same level, this is true with most beloved franchises. Though Nintendo has brand fanboys like no other. Even the shovelware on its consoles seems to get a bit of a pass.

 

[Son of Detroit]

I always laugh at how devs "not taking risks" is a huge problem, but then Nintendo gets praised for playing it safe and deciding Zelda will never have voice acting because the fans might not like it.

 

[Telekinesis]

I always laugh at how devs "not taking risks" is a huge problem, but then Nintendo gets praised for playing it safe and deciding Zelda will never have voice acting because the fans might not like it.

Source on that statement? Sounds like a load of shit. I didn't see them bailing when Wind Waker received MASSIVE backlash.

Also good opportunity to mention that I do NOT get the obsession with voice acting...

 

[v3n0mat3]

I have noticed that, but I choose to ignore it. I am very critical about nintendo and the way they do things. I don't care how much flak I get.

 

[InnerRebellion]

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.

I agree with what this fellow said.

If it wasn't for Nintendo bringing us games like Mario, Pokemon and The Legend of Zelda, I doubt a good portion of us would have entered the gaming world when we did.

 

[beniki]

Nintendo is our Lord and Master. They can do no wrong. Hail to Mario! Plumber prophet and cake seeker! Hail to Link! May he acquire the Mirror Shield! Hail to Samus and Fox, they who travel the stars! Hail to Pokemon! May we never truly catch them all!

Really it's just because they make fun games that despite being close copies of their predecessors, are still fairly unique in our current brown and 'grown up' game market.

It's really more of a reflection on what other games developers are doing, rather than Nintendo what Nintendo isn't.

Put simply... name a game that's close to Mario on any of the current consoles. Then name a game that's close to Call of Duty. It's a lot easier to answer the second question, isn't it?

 

[SFR]

Reusing ideas from previous games aside, they still make really polished and fun games. I completely understand where you're coming from though. I loved SMG2, but because of the reasons you've mentioned, I really don't think it deserves as good a score as SMG1.

As for side scrollers, I don't think other companies would be called lazy for doing one, it's just not what's typical these days. Believe it or not, they still require A LOT of work, especially considering the amount of modeling and detail that goes into backgrounds you only see for a few seconds. As long as the game is still long, consumers will justify a side scroller. Losing one "dimension" doesn't automatically make a game twice as cheap to make.

 

[asinann]

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

Doesn't keep Guns and Roses from getting bashed constantly.

 

[The_Splatterer]

Well for one SMG 2 from the start was basically an add on. Shigeru Miyamoto said this at the start, it's not a new game, we just had so many ideas from SM1 that we had to share them with everyone. Of course they do use they're own stuff to death but they're always great i suppose. They're just always fun, your always left wanting more so in a couple of yours when you get more but with a Yoshi you're even happier. they always stick to the formula and only improve on it slightly. We've seen recently what happens if you try to go in a different direction with the new Metroid - delving away from the greatness of the Prime series and changing things up was a big mistake. They aren't ground breaking new games anymore, they're clever as they just keep doing what they do best, slightly different and better each time. I'm not sure why they're immune to it, maybe we've grown to accept it, or maybe because they've being doing it since Super Mario Bros 1 to then 3 then to World... They keep they're franchises rooted, then it's less risky, and is still gunna be a good game.

 

[Norix596]

Well I can only really speak about the Mario Franchise. I played 64, Sunshine and Galaxy (as well as the original and 3 a bit) and despite criticisms of reusing Mario, the three all felt like completely different games - that is to say, while the plot and characters were fairly constant, the actual game play felt original and unique in each. Now you probably noticed that I didn't say I played Super Mario Galaxy 2 - simply because, the title says it all. It looked (and according to reviews my impression appears to have been correct)just Super Mario Galaxy again; and I already played Super Mario Galaxy.

 

[WaffleGod]

I'll be honest. I don't care for Nintendo's products. They're good, but once you've played one of them, you've played them all.

Is it really too much to ask 1, just ONE new franchise from Nintendo? It seems they're in a position where they're too afraid to make a new franchise and instead just make 500000 sequels for their already existing franchises.

Can anybody get away with that besides Nintendo? Nope. It's sorta like Apple products... Except Apple actually makes new stuff to sell.

 

[lostzombies.com]

Because they are old, you don't go around telling old people that they smell of piss (even if they do) because they are old and have earnt the right to smell of piss if they want to.

Incidently, the N64 was the console which made gaming for me. The gamecube and Wii incidently smell of piss IMO and should never have left the drawing board.

 

[mykalwane]

Simple take a look at their history. For every screw up they make up for it later on. Even if you get burned by them, later on they will be back with something to heal the wounds.

 

[AdamRBi]

I will step in here to offer argument besides nostalgia, the games are just good. When you see some games adding too much to the sequels it often results in something not fitting in or being badly implemented, or at most not living up to hype. There are also story issues too to deal with that are often handled poorly. SMG1 had a simple story and had amazingly fun gameplay; critics couldn't rag on it because they had fun playing it. When SMG2 came by it added very little compared to SMG1, BUT it was still just as fun. I don't think it's hard for folks to criticize them because of nostalgia or the fact that it's Nintendo. I think it's hard to criticize the game because despite flaws it's just a really, really fun game.

That's usually the deal with most Nintendo titles, they are just really fun games to play.

 

[Ghhostface]

People seemed to hate Metroid other M a lot.