What's with the shield against criticism Nintendo gets?

[Chewster]

They are the oldest company in this industry and one that still stands out as having a strong in-house development team (depending on how you look at it), and without doing any research at all, I assume that they have the largest fanbase, or at the very least, people who are old enough to get misty eyed with nostalgia now and then. This means stronger and more widespread fanboyism for what is essentially a giant, unmovable monolith. And it won't change until they start loosing large swathes of scratch.

What's more is that, at least from a game play standpoint (at least before the Wii) they made games that are really fun to play. This is still true on the Wii to a degree, but they've now begun recycling their properties even further by releasing more sequels and remakes that are identical to the originals, unfortunately. Since their target audience is everyone, it stands to reason that their stories need to be simple, repetitive and innocent, lest younger games get confused, or your grandparents get offended or something. So really, they do make good games, but for the more advanced gamer, they are shallow in some respects, if you ask me. Many people seem to like them though and as is with any media, it takes all kinds.

Not that I approve necessarily. With the in-house talent pool they have, they could do some really amazing things, coupled with the solid game play they provide, but like Disney, they are too paranoid to use their properties in new ways, and definitely too paranoid to let others use them in any way at all, really. Traditionally, they have always been rather controlling, dating all the way back to the Famicom and NES.

What really chaps my ass is how their games still cost a king's ransom to buy even used, even though they've been out for yonks, while a good portion of the rest of the Wii is used up by shovelware and games from children's television shows and other assorted garbage. Oddly, most of the games I own for the Wii are of the bloody, adult variety, as I refuse to pay fifty dollars CAD for a game that has been out for four fucking years. Nintendo can go piss up a rope on that one (though that may be the fault of game retailers too, not too sure).

 

[LordXel]

Nintendo controls me. I am ordered to eat your brains. BRAAAAAAAAINS!

Joking aside, I don't care if people critise Nintendo because Nintendo is a big boy now. Super Mario Galaxy 2, was more of the same, but is that a bad thing? Really? Not to me. Just to make me a hypocrite I'm not all giddy looking forward to the new Zelda because I've played it before 13 times. (Haven't played Four Swords and Link's Awakening) Yes I love Zelda, but to me, getting excited for the next Zelda game only works once, to me, Twilight Princess was the last game I couldn't wait for. All of the Zelda games were good aside from the unholy triforce but I'm more into other games. Uh my mind is blank. End.

 

[the-kitchen-slayer]

The general point AzrealMaximillion is this: Nintendo's one of the older companies who helped set up gaming as what it is today. They add enough new every game to make it different, but leave the formula the same to keep the game fun. Nothing more, nothing less, and they've been doing it since the 64 (as far as I'm aware). We're used to it, and let's face it, if they went and changed things now, they'd probably get panned for "changing the formula" or something like that.

Nintendo makes what we're used to, which is what we've all come to expect of them. And they do it well, and sometimes I think that's all we ever really want. What we're used to.

Now, as for other companies and why they get panned so hard, they're new, meaning they have yet to establish themselves in the world of gaming yet. If they just go and copy someone, they're already losing points there, unless they somehow manage to do it well enough that it doesn't look like they're copying someone. But the problem is, it's impossible to not copy someone out there nowadays, because of the sheer volume of games that's out there. You want to do something new in a game? So does everyone else. 360 degree's of freedom? Descent's thing, just an example.

So the point I'm trying to make with that is that in order for you to not get panned by them is to build your games so they don't look like blatant ripoff's. Darksiders didn't do that terribly well (gunning sections even reminded ME of Gears Of War, too many callouts to Zelda...), and paid the price in it's reviews. At least it's story was pretty damn unique, and that's where it shined for me.

Edit: After a cig break, I decided to sum it up best this way

Critics review games based on what the game is designed to do. With Nintendo, they make games to just generally be fun. Square-Enix (or whatever they're called nowadays) make games for a good story. FPS producers make shooter games with a plot that's designed to give you a good reason to go kill people, and guns to go kill people with.

So, don't read what critics say, they're only there to give you a "good" idea on how well a game was made based on how well people made it, not necessarily on if it was good or not to be honest. I liked X-Blades, I loved Darksiders, hell, I quite enjoyed Terminator Salvation. All "bad" games. Play games because you find them fun, not because they got good reviews

 

[RandV80]

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.

Well try this. Within a year how many similar games to Darksiders has been released (God of War 3, Bayonetta, Castelvania, Dante's Inferno, etc). Get's even worse if you look at FPS'ers. Now try to do it with Super Mario Galaxy or Donkey Country? I know that isn't specifically what Darksiders got lightly critized on reviews, but the difference is those are established franchises doing what's expected of them vs a new IP taking a little bit from everything.

The above though is what's important in regards to Nintendo. I know there is a large group of the gaming community that are pretty vocal online about their percieved shortcomings of Nintendo and for some reason wish they would stop making Mario's and Zelda's. But as these are popular, sell extremely well, and get critically acclaimed, perhaps the question should be what's wrong with them? It's a simple fact, lots of people still like playing Mario games, with the market usually being those under 12 or over 25. If Nintendo stopped making Mario or Zelda, what would we have to replace it? Activision could stop making Call of Duty and there are a dozen different titles it's fans can pick up instead. Or do you expect everyone to just fall in line and start playing Halo instead? Because for some reason better graphics, 3D supposedly, and 'gritty mature' content equal innovation?

 

[veloper]

TLDR

yeah the gaming press is terribly inconsistent. It's more than just Mario though.

 

[Patton662]

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

...do you know what a weeaboo even is? I don't think you do, if you call anyone who likes Nintendo a weeaboo.

OT; Because even though the games are indeed very similar, they're still really fucking good.

You either are an idiot or can't read.

 

[Hoplon]

A lot of the gaming press, though no one round here, oh no! really have a thing for Nintendo despite the fact they keep on doing unspeakable things to their long term fans.

Yes, the ones over the age of Five ;P

I really have no idea why they don't get called on it more.

 

[TAGM]

See, here's the issue - there are about three kinds of people who play the wii:
1) The Casual gamers, who got sucked in by Nintendo's marketing of days past,
2) The Nintendo fan, who's been with Nintendo so long that they can now do know wrong, and thinking as such is sacrilige, and
3) People who think like You.

I used to fall into the 2nd catagory, but now I'm pretty much in the 3rd. I personaly don't mind the copy-paste - this is, after all, the company that made Pokemon, and then more Pokemon, and then more, and then... Well, you get the picture. I'm guessing it's that "Touchscreen! Wiimote!" thing that makes it feel JUST different enough to most for it not to pick up on their "rip-off" radar.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes - just about every game releace of a nintendo franchise in the past three years has been an absolutly cheep-ass fuckfest, and I'd rather have my head caught in a blender then play them again. Super Mario Galaxy 2, DKCR, Super Mario All Stars, all of them felt cheap - either in difficulty (See SMG2 and DKCR) or in just being lying bastards (See Super Mario All Stars.) I don't even know myself why I haven't sold the wii and just brought an XBox or something.

Oh, wait... My mum likes the wii games. The irony is superb.

 

[Warachia]

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?

you missed the point, he's going by what people say, not the numbers. In that regard Metroid other M nor Epic mickey should count as neither were made by Nintendo, and many critics praised all others for doing what they did 10+ years ago.

Also, he points out that YES MW2 IS THE SAME, AS IS THE HALO SERIES. His question was, if they're panned for doing the same, why aren't Nintendo games?

My answer is because they got away with it too long, and now that's all they can do.

 

[Warachia]

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.

You know what happend to Sonic after he tried not to be a side scroller? I think we all know. And guess what, Team Sonic finally wants to go back to 2D side scrolling. That's a good thing.

I know what happened, he made Sonic adventure 2, and it was awesome. Oh wait, sonic is not a nintendo property, there goes any argument you might have had.

 

[RatRace123]

They're not immune to criticism, you're criticizing them.
The way I see it, Nintendo gets away with not making drastic changes to their IPS because they work fine as is. It's not like they let the games completely stagnate, they make changes where appropriate and don't take too many big risks.

Some companies don't need to change up their game formulas to be successful, not just Nintendo, look at Hudson's Bomberman, that formula hasn't changed since its inception and the one time that it did get a massive overhaul it sucked.

 

[Cheesepower5]

Because their games are fun, well made and polished? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Lots of companies are like that, Bioware, Bethesda, Valve, Activision, etc. As long as the companies never go completely creatively bankrupt it's fine. Mario Galaxy introduced a new gravity scheme, Paper Mario and Mario RPG shake things up relatively often and Kirby's Epic Yarn got rid of the core mechanic of the series. Just like MW2 added RPG elements or Mass Effect's shooter mechanics are just other changes that make the industry all the sweeter.

 

[badgersprite]

I guess because people expect this from Nintendo. Their business model has basically been "remake the same games and franchises over and over again" and since most of the games they're remaking are good, there's not an awful lot to complain about. However, mark my words that people WILL start complaining once any of these games go the Sonic route and start releasing bad games or making bad decisions about the franchise.

 

[Netrigan]

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?

Might as well ask why Halo, Grand Theft Auto, and Call Of Duty get a pass from criticism.

The most popular franchises tend to get reviewed by people most enthusiastic to be reviewing it. What ends up happening is they gloss over some serious criticisms of the game play. To take Halo: Reach as an example, the campaign was likened to a Greatest Hits package of all the best Halo levels. At which point, unoriginality becomes a virtue... and for a lot of players, it is.

With the major franchises, I suggest paying more attention to user reviews. Once you sift through the fanboys and haters, the more obvious issues come to the fore. Then it's merely a case of deciding if such issues are a deal-breaker for you.

 

[jpoon]

They make games for children, that's about it anymore. At one time I loved Nintendo's consoles the most but those days have passed. As my tastes have matured, Nintendo didn't, they continue to make games for children while the other consoles now cater to me more fittingly. I don't hate or even dislike Nintendo personally but I think they have lost their way somewhere down the line (starting with the Gamecube).

 

[TheSchaef]

I seriously doubt Nintendo is being shielded from anything, given their constant criticism as being a "kiddie console", how motion control is a joke, and how their third party support is pitiful.

If rehashing old themes and controls is a flaw, then about 90% of the industry deserves no better than a 4 out of 10, and EA should never be allowed to make a video game ever again.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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

That good will ran out decades ago, roughly at the time that Nintendo was ruling the industry with an iron fist.

 

[Dimbo_Sama]

Moviebob put it really well in this video here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73toAMJ7rqY

Worth a watch.

I will say this, New Super Mario Brothers Wii, has been out for just over a year, New Super Mario Brothers on the DS has been out since the DS came out almost, and they're both still, full price, everywhere. That, is bullshit.

 

[WorldCritic]

The problem with Nintendo is that they did so many things right back in the 80s and 90s that today people feel so appreciative to the comppany that they seem to forget that they've made mistakes.