What's with the shield against criticism Nintendo gets?

[Ordinaryundone]

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

Wii Music was pretty much made straight up for people who like the concept. Some of that innovation you said Nintendo doesn't have. Sure, its not great, hell I don't even think its good. But it sold well because its something different, its easy to play, and if you are in the right mindset, its fun. Kinda like Wii Sports.

 

[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.

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.

Fair enough, but the criticism that Nintendo does get is usually reserved for monumentally bad games like Wii Music. Most othe companies' games get knocked down points onn issues that Nintendo routinley get away with.

 

[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.

Fair enough, but the criticism that Nintendo does get is usually reserved for monumentally bad games like Wii Music. Most othe companies' games get knocked down points onn issues that Nintendo routinley get away with.

You mean [http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/halo-3] games [http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/gears-of-war-2] like [http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/mass-effect-2] these [http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2]?

 

[Telekinesis]

Fair enough, but the criticism that Nintendo does get is usually reserved for monumentally bad games like Wii Music. Most othe companies' games get knocked down points onn issues that Nintendo routinley get away with.

Don't bother giving examples and citing sources, this slew of generalized statements is totally getting us somewhere!

And anyway, it's not just Nintendo, it's all the big name companies that don't get enough flak for "rehashing" while low-profile games get a harsher criticism, from my observations at least. [Which are probably irrelevant since I stopped paying attention to reviews some years back]

 

[The Night Shade]

Yes they re-use the same ideas over and over so? they make good games

I prefer an unoriginal but good game instead of an original bad game

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

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?

I want to seem them get critisized for the same things that other games get critisized for. Lack of innovation, lack of difference, things like that. Most other companies get burnt for things like that. Hell, Darksiders was a prime example. Great game but essentially was a combo of God of War, Legend of Zelda, and Portal done with the mythos of the 4 Horsmen. It lost points because of lack of innovation. Donkey Kong Returns can come out with it's sub par controls and it's going back to the early 90s side scrolling formula and get critical acclaim. I can't see Sega getting away with making a sequal to Streets of Rage that is a side scroilling beat em up in today's world of gaming.

 

[Dexiro]

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.

They had a boss rush galaxy with bosses from the first game. Definitely not something worth making a fuss over when the game had like 60 other original levels that were all brilliant.

 

[Telekinesis]

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?

I want to seem them get critisized for the same things that other games get critisized for. Lack of innovation, lack of difference, things like that. Most other companies get burnt for things like that. Hell, Darksiders was a prime example. Great game but essentially was a combo of God of War, Legend of Zelda, and Portal done with the mythos of the 4 Horsmen. It lost points because of lack of innovation. Donkey Kong Returns can come out with it's sub par controls and it's going back to the early 90s side scrolling formula and get critical acclaim. I can't see Sega getting away with making a sequal to Streets of Rage that is a side scroilling beat em up in today's world of gaming.

http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/942006-darksiders/index.html
http://www.gamerankings.com/wii/997764-donkey-kong-country-returns/index.html

This is the difference between getting panned and receiving critical acclaim to you? Four measly points?
That aside, the way I see it is that you don't get marked down for being unoriginal provided that you do this shit well. Which Darksiders presumably didn't.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

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].

I think we have a winner.

Nintendo can without a doubt be blamed for milking all its franchises, but the problem is that most of the time they're so damned good at making these games. Most of their franchises like Mario, Zelda, etc... have gameplay that has stood the test of time really well and if it aint broke, why fix it? They also tend to add just enough new stuff with each new iteration to prevent the formulas from becoming stale.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

Nintendo have been at this whole re-making, re-tweaking games for ages now. Fact is when you re-make the same game over and over you make them good. I find them fun, and rate them highly. I've never owned a Nintendo console (apart from a Game Boy Colour) and never owned a Mario game, but when I have played them I find them fun. So I can see why they get high reviews. As for how they get away with copy-pastes? They've been doing it for so long people are used to it.

My guess? Nostalgia.

*Looks at Avatar*

 

[Telekinesis]

Nintendo have been at this whole re-making, re-tweaking games for ages now. Fact is when you re-make the same game over and over you make them good. I find them fun, and rate them highly. I've never owned a Nintendo console (apart from a Game Boy Colour) and never owned a Mario game, but when I have played them I find them fun. So I can see why they get high reviews. As for how they get away with copy-pastes? They've been doing it for so long people are used to it.

My guess? Nostalgia.

*Looks at Avatar*

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.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

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?

I want to seem them get critisized for the same things that other games get critisized for. Lack of innovation, lack of difference, things like that. Most other companies get burnt for things like that. Hell, Darksiders was a prime example. Great game but essentially was a combo of God of War, Legend of Zelda, and Portal done with the mythos of the 4 Horsmen. It lost points because of lack of innovation. Donkey Kong Returns can come out with it's sub par controls and it's going back to the early 90s side scrolling formula and get critical acclaim. I can't see Sega getting away with making a sequal to Streets of Rage that is a side scroilling beat em up in today's world of gaming.

http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/942006-darksiders/index.html
http://www.gamerankings.com/wii/997764-donkey-kong-country-returns/index.html

This is the difference between getting panned and receiving critical acclaim to you? Four measly points?
That aside, the way I see it is that you don't get marked down for being unoriginal provided that you do this shit well. Which Darksiders presumably didn't.

You still don't get it. I'm taling about what they get critisized on not what they scored. Not too many reveiws gave DK returns flack for lack of new ideas are lack of doing anything different form what DK games did 20 years ago. The mention it but ignore it as a flaw.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

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?

I want to seem them get critisized for the same things that other games get critisized for. Lack of innovation, lack of difference, things like that. Most other companies get burnt for things like that. Hell, Darksiders was a prime example. Great game but essentially was a combo of God of War, Legend of Zelda, and Portal done with the mythos of the 4 Horsmen. It lost points because of lack of innovation. Donkey Kong Returns can come out with it's sub par controls and it's going back to the early 90s side scrolling formula and get critical acclaim. I can't see Sega getting away with making a sequal to Streets of Rage that is a side scroilling beat em up in today's world of gaming.

http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/942006-darksiders/index.html
http://www.gamerankings.com/wii/997764-donkey-kong-country-returns/index.html

This is the difference between getting panned and receiving critical acclaim to you? Four measly points?
That aside, the way I see it is that you don't get marked down for being unoriginal provided that you do this shit well. Which Darksiders presumably didn't.

You still don't get it. I'm taling about what they get critisized on not what they scored. Not too many reveiws gave DK returns flack for lack of new ideas are lack of doing anything different form what DK games did 20 years ago. The mention it but ignore it as a flaw.

Counter-argument: then maybe it's not a flaw?

Reusing ideas isn't an inherently bad concept. Are cheap cash-ins bad? Yes. But games like DKC:R and SMG2 aren't cheap cash-ins on a popular franchise.

I mean, any variation on the seven main story archetypes should get flak for not using something original as the basis of a plot.

 

[Telekinesis]

You still don't get it. I'm taling about what they get critisized on not what they scored. Not too many reveiws gave DK returns flack for lack of new ideas are lack of doing anything different form what DK games did 20 years ago. The mention it but ignore it as a flaw.

For example Super Mario Galaxy 2 is one of the highest scored games of all time

You keep going back and forth between the two, it's getting confusing. So you're saying that on SOME SITES DKC wasn't panned for being the same as previous DKCs but Darksiders WAS for ripping shit off from other games?
Okay?

The mention it but ignore it as a flaw.

Where? In the magic formula that makes up the game's score? What does this even mean? Ignore it as a flaw how?

And anyway, again, they probably forgive DKC because it's similar to its predecessor, whereas Dakrsiders is a new IP that's ripping shit off [and presumably badly] from OTHER franchises, and because who's gonna complain about a game being alike to a game from 15 years ago? It's sort of what we want from it. Or because DKC's rehashed gamepaly is good and Darksiders isn't? I dunno.
Also, just because the basic gameplay is the same doesn't mean a lot, platformers are all about the level design and whatnot, which looks [ain't played it] pretty different from the SNES ones.

 

[Treblaine]

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?

I think it was because as similar as Galaxy 2 was to Galaxy 1 it is still so much different from any other game that is out there.

I think most critics reviewed it more as a Mario Galaxy Re-release, like MGS3: Subsistence, refined, improved and expanded. I think it was because it was just "Galaxy 2" while all previous Mario games had a completely unique subtitle made critics approach it this way.

And beyond Galaxy 2 there are no free passes:

-Metroid Other M = mercilessly panned, there are internet memes about how bad this flagship game is
-Donkey Kong Country Returns = mere 87%, not a lot for such a major return with such wide acclaim
-New Super Mario Bros Wii = 87%, compared to 360's Shadow Complex (88%) of the same year, that's not so unreasonable
-Epic Mickey = OK, not BY Nintendo but Wii-exclusive, only 72%
-Goldeneye Remake = 81%, for all the hype that is not a lot

Mario Galaxy IS good. Most critics do not recommend getting Galaxy 2 if you already have Galaxy 1 and have not 100% it, but for what it is, and how most critics treat Wii as a side console rather than main one playing every game in a series to completion... Galaxy 2's success makes sense.

And by the way... how is Modern Warfare 2 not just more of the same of COD4? How is Halo Reach not just Halo 3 with more stuff and a bit of a remix?