Nintendo's quality output as a third-party developer

General and high profile video game topics.
BanjoPickles1
Posts: 1321
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Nintendo's quality output as a third-party developer

Postby BanjoPickles1 » November 20th, 2014, 11:36 pm

First off, I know that people are probably getting burnt out on Nintendo-focused threads, so allow me to apologize in advance.

Since the days of the GameCube, there has been a constant rumbling about Nintendo going the Sega route and bringing their games to MS and Sony. Even then, this made no sense to me.....for a very specific reason.

Howard Lincoln once said something along the lines of if you want first-class software, you can't rely on other companies to make them for you. He's right. Look at Sega, as a perfect example of that. During the 16-bit era, they had:

-Sonic 1-3, Knuckles
-Streets of Rage 1-3
-Virtua Racing
-Eternal Champions
-Joe Montana Football
-Comix Zone
-Phantasy Star 2-4
-Ristar
-Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine
-Toejam and Earl 1-2
-Shining Force 1-2
-Golden Axe 1-3

They had some misfires (Virtua Fighter 2? Sonic 3D Blast?), but they hit more often than they missed. Most of the best games on Saturn were made by Sega (Nights, Panzer Dragoon, Sega Rally, Virtua Fighter 2), and many of Sega's best games were made for the Dreamcast (Shenmue, Jet Grind Radio, Sonic Adventure, Skies of Arcadia, Phantasy Star Online). They, like Nintendo, knew the value of software when it came to selling hardware.

Since going third-party, it seems like they miss far more than they hit. Most Sonic games seem to be generic and cheaply-made; their update of Golden Axe was awful; the Vectorman reboot never saw the light of day; Nights: Journey Into Dreams was boring. They just don't seem to put the same effort into their games as they did when they had something greater at stake.

This makes me wonder why people would want Nintendo as a third-party developer. I remember the time when I regarded Sega as second only to Nintendo when it came to consistency. It's sad how far a company can fall. Who wants a third-rate Mario? A Mario Kart with awful controls? Nintendo takes their sweet time on their games because they have something greater to protect.

Do any of you see where I'm coming from. Sega isn't the only guilty company. When's the last time Atari made a great game (Tempest 2000-Jaguar)?

Vexer1
Posts: 883
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Nintendo's quality output as a third-party developer

Postby Vexer1 » November 21st, 2014, 3:33 am

I disagree, I think Sega have made some damn good games since going third party, and I wouldn't call the post-Dreamcast Sonic games "generic" at all.

Leo1
Posts: 2325
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Nintendo's quality output as a third-party developer

Postby Leo1 » November 21st, 2014, 7:21 am

Not many...

For every Outrun 2 that we've seen over the better part of the past 15 years, I bet we've had about a dozen mediocre games. And it has felt like years since Sega produced something genuinely great. Most of what little output from them that has been worth playing in recent years has been when they've revisited their back catalog like Daytona USA HD on XBLA/PSN.

Their business situation backs this up. We have a very troubled company that has struggled to succeed and find its way again. It's so bad that they've had to ratchet down their console and handheld support and are now focused on mobile where the risks are minimum. And they do very little in-house development these days, preferring instead to serve merely as a software publisher. 

The Sega we loved basically doesn't exist today. It's a brand with a large catalog of IP and little else. I for one hope it doesn't happen to Nintendo since I'm confident if it does, it will similarly mark an end to their magic just as it has done for Sega.

scotland171
Posts: 816
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Nintendo's quality output as a third-party developer

Postby scotland171 » November 21st, 2014, 10:06 am

[QUOTE=BanjoPickles]... This makes me wonder why people would want Nintendo as a third-party developer...Nintendo takes their sweet time on their games because they have something greater to protect. [/QUOTE]

Ever do any QC/QA work, or take any classes/training on Quality Control?  You'll hear a lot about Japan, about people like Deming and Juran, and Japanese concepts like Kaizen - a quality concept that engages everyone in the organization to constantly look for ways to make improvements, even if minor.  Contrast that to the idea of making occasional, but drastic changes.

Back in the 80s, the quality of Japanese goods as compared to American goods were in stark contrast, or at least that was the perception.  The American Video Game crash of '83 was in part due to the poor quality of games on the Atari 2600 - some made by Atari themselves (hello, E.T.) rushing out a product.

Along came Japanese Nintendo, and their Nintendo Seal of Quality and their 10NES lockout chip, and the NES grabbed America by giving a guarantee of family friendly and functional video games.  There could be stinkers (LJN's Major League Baseball), but by and large, non buggy games.  The first party Nintendo games were usually okay (although Baseball again).  So, they had a Golden Seal, a Japanese name, and generally backed up their claims, and Nintendo made its brand in the US. 

Times have changed a bit though.  The Seal of Quality is now just a Seal of Brand, and no guarantee.  The Wii became associated with third party shovelware.  But first party games (with some stinkers like the maligned Wii Music) seem to still have a reputation for being at least competent and fun, if retreads and banking on nostalgia.

I don't see a third party Nintendo being much different from what they are today.  I think their style is ingrained in their culture.  Is Sega the counter point to that belief?  Maybe.  Yet how much turnover has Sega had in 20 years compared to Nintendo?  Did Sega ever have the commitment to their brand like Nintendo.  Is the word "Sega" even on the Dreamcast anywhere?  How much of a presence did Sonic have for the Saturn?  All very non-Nintendo things there.

scotland171
Posts: 816
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Nintendo's quality output as a third-party developer

Postby scotland171 » November 21st, 2014, 10:27 am

Another thought on quality is how much is appropriate?

A franchise like Assassins Creed is producing new titles like a television show.  These are big games, produced by big teams, with an eye toward a schedule.  Being too focused on quality, especially when online updates are an easy fix.   One definition of quality is 'fitness for use' - and given that a week or so after launch an update comes around, by that time they are quality games.     

A typical non-Nintendo AAA game takes what, about 2 years to create? Something less than AAA takes less time.  Maybe making your movie tie-in game only takes 6 months.  Expectations about those games are lower, as part of the enjoyment is playing with the characters - being Green Lantern and not Generic Glowing Guy in Space.

Schedules are important.  New television shows start in September, comics come out every month, a video game tie in should be out before the movie, a bestselling author might want a new book out each May for summer reading, etc.  Better late than never is not always true.   Schedules matter.  Better to be on time to the ball with dirty shoes then delayed because you spent time polishing your boots. 

Nintendo, on the other hand, may disagree.  Was it Miyamoto who said "A delayed game may eventually be good, but a bad game is bad forever"? Better to be late with shiny boots, then on time with muddy ones.  They may take 5 years between a new Zelda game.   That's a long time.   Yet Nintendo has also gained a reputation for development delays, something that hurts their investment cred. A year ago Iwata said something like "We decided to take time to add the final touches to ensure that consumers fully feel that they are valuable titles" when commenting on delayed games for the WiiU.  That sounds bad actually, like the process got away from them, or they had poor change control.

Also with delay comes enhanced expectations, and its to expectations that games are measured.  Hello, Duke Nukem Forever.  No one expects much of a movie tie in made in six months using some earlier game's engine, but a new Zelda?  A flop would be a belly flop.

So, its a matter of choice.  Nintendo seems to have a philosophy of delay and polish, where others prioritize schedules and take advantage of relatively quick online updates to correct a manageable number of programming issues.

Oltobaz1
Posts: 1605
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Nintendo's quality output as a third-party developer

Postby Oltobaz1 » November 21st, 2014, 11:15 am

All of you Sega nostalgics, I encourage you to visit
Japan someday, and step in one of their arcades.
Still one of the coolest companies in my book due to
that, even though a lot of their current console gaming releases
aren't that great. It's all part of their secret plan.. Let's flood
the market with average games, let's unleash mediocrity
at sonic speeds so that we may undermine Sony, Microsoft
and Nintendo! Only way they could return in the console hardware
scene! Yeah, right...

BanjoPickles1
Posts: 1321
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Nintendo's quality output as a third-party developer

Postby BanjoPickles1 » November 22nd, 2014, 12:36 am

Scotland, I believe Sega still has Yu Suzuki, who was once considered to be Sega's answer to Miyamoto.

The point is this: Sega has made good games since going third party (Super Monkey Ball, Billy Hatcher, Outrun 2), but when's the last time they made a GREAT game that could be seen as a system seller? If Sega was still in the hardware business? Would they try selling Sonic Unleashed as the reason to buy a Dreamcast 2? Based on everything I'm hearing about Sonic Boom, it's another in a long line of letdowns for what was once their sterling franchise.

They created more great games in the two year span of the Dreamcast than they have in the thirteen years since. Going third party had to have something to do with that. I mean, their quality didn't slowly taper off, it plummeted fast!

I'll use Sony as a reversed example. When they first got into game development, their 16-bit titles, for the most part, ranged from being ATROCIOUS to simply mediocre. Then with the PS1 they created Grand Turismo, Twisted Metal, Warhawk, Syphon Filter, etc. With the PS2, they had God of War. Now they have Little Big Planet. They have terrific third party support, but they've stepped up their game in a big way since becoming a hardware developer.

Orion1
Posts: 598
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Nintendo's quality output as a third-party developer

Postby Orion1 » November 22nd, 2014, 1:24 pm

I agree with the OP.  Sega does not output as as many great games as they used to.  They should have just stayed in the console business.

It's hard to say if the Nintendo's situation would end up the same as Sega's.

BanjoPickles1
Posts: 1321
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Nintendo's quality output as a third-party developer

Postby BanjoPickles1 » November 22nd, 2014, 3:33 pm

There are a few more things to take into consideration:

-with very few exceptions, Nintendo has always created their consoles to be very controller centric. How fluid would Mario 64 be had Nintendo gone the route of the competition and stuck to a d-pad? Would Wii Sports be anything more than a bargain bin title without the motion controls? Nintendo has always been the captain of their own ship when it comes to how a game is played, and how it shapes the landscape. If they were to go third-party, it would be like going from owning the factory to simply being a worker on the assembly line. They would be at the mercy of Sony and MS's respective designs.

-would the release of Smash Bros, a new Zelda, Mario Kart, etc. be heralded as even half the events that they are if they were merely third party releases? There's a certain value that comes from knowing that you're not going to get Mario Kart 8 on any other system but the Wii U. I could be wrong, but I don't think that the sales of Nintendo's top-tier would translate if they were to release their games on multiple platforms.

-risks. Say what you will, but Wii Sports was a gamble! Some people criticize Nintendo for sometimes being too reliant on their big franchises, but they do take big risks. Some of them pay off (the wiimote) while others don't have the same commercial impact (the gamepad, awesome as it is). The shift to being a third-party developer, I fear, would kill those risks. Suddenly, it would be more about commercial survival than reinventing the wheel.

Sut1
Posts: 789
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Nintendo's quality output as a third-party developer

Postby Sut1 » November 23rd, 2014, 4:19 am

Some great posts on here, from a selfish point of view I would love Nintendo to become a third party publisher so I could play their games. The Wii U library doesn't have enough game variety for me to warrant buying I would just miss Metal Gear,GTA and Uncharted too much.

I was (and still am) a massive Sega fan, I loved their fast paced arcade style but since they went third party I've only picked up an handful of titles, to be fair their PS2 output was pretty good (OutRun 2, Shinobi). But PS3 onwards the only game that appealed to me was Sega Rally Revo which was very good but certainly not Sega at their best.

Back to Nintendo I read an article recently saying they are going to quietly kill the Wii U and move on, but not to another console, but to create fitness products ala Wii Fit as that's where they see more profit rather than trying to compete with Sony and Microsoft in the console arena. It makes sense as a sideline but I can't see them making it their main focus. I'll try and post the link if I can remember where I read it.

EDIT: It was Gamespot 'speculating' or Nintendo baiting depending on your point of view.


Return to “Video Games General”