Topic: PSA for Nintendo

Isn't Lego City Undercover 3rd party (seriously I'm confused when it comes to 1st, 2nd and 3rd party discussion)? As for the triforce hunt, it's because people hate water (also explains why Hoenn and the Kalos Pokemon League stage are unpopular)

Open up your wallet and buy a Wii U. Otherwise enjoy your Nintendo-less systems. This PSA brought to you by the Get N or Get Out Foundation

This would be a totally valid complaint if there weren't a valid reason Nintendo games stayed on Nintendo systems. But there is. NintendoLand wouldn't work on the PS4. Nor would Skyward Sword or Super Mario Galaxy on 360. So when you buy a Nintendo system, you are purchasing technology that makes certain gameplay possible.

If you don't like the unique gameplay offered, that's your problem, not Nintendo's.

What do you mean? Far Cry and Zelda are both action adventure games. regardless of how many platforms Far Cry was released on. Is Ocarina of Time not the grandfather of 3D action-adventure games? It's not like comparing CoD to battlefield because their the same genre but different kind of game. Working with 3D Zelda games, in both series you have a map that you can freely explore for the most part, a story to follow that gradually opens up more of the map for you, and side quest that get you great rewards. That doesn't affect whether Skyward Sword reaches critical acclaim or not. SS was a pretty good game but not on par with Majora's Mask or Wind Waker.

I remember when the Wii U was announced and I was pretty psyched. As time passed, however, I realized that it had no good games at launch. Same with PS4, yet I was still compelled to buy one, having been giving the prospects of new and expansive worlds, greater depth to games, and higher immersion. Face it Nintendo's marketing was terrible, this is coming from someone whose owned a Super Nintendo, an N64, Gamecube, Wii, every Nintendo handheld till the 3DS, whose first game was Pokemon Red and whose favorite game of all time is Legend of Zelda Majora's Mask.

Also I'm not saying to take games already on Wii U and such and redesign them for other platforms. I mean gradually make a move to 3rd party. Nintendo has proven to be able to make more than just fun little party games you can play with friends and family. They've made games with deep and immersive storytelling. Why not shift that to their main focus now? With new IP and better marketing. Sure we all love our plumber and his cast of characters but why not make something more ambitious. Even if it was still only on Nintendo consoles, I'd totally play into their palm with an OoT or MM level of adventure/epic. But probably start with a new franchise if things ever came to that.

Because innovation doesn't sell very well. Give me an example of a big innovative game that's not an overglorified shooter or another genre

Portal (A new take on puzzle games), CoD 4 (set new standard for FPS games), Goldeneye 007 (basically paved the way for all FPS's to come after it) Silent Hill (best psychological horror games, how do you think Amnesia got here?), Shadow of the Colossus (no explanation needed), hell even Super Mario 64, one of the dopest 3D platformers ever. Also there's Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time which battles Half-Life 2 for the best game of all time spot. Nintendo brought 2 of the games that I listed to the table.

To put it bluntly: no, for the sake of healthy competition.
Nintendo may be very much the underdog right now, but their games often leave much more lasting and unique impressions than most successful titles on Sony/Microsoft platforms, which tend to have impressive games you play through once and then never again.
But that's only possible because Nintendo does their own thing, because they know their innovative consoles, and make the most of it. Going third-party would be their end in no time, because Sony/MS have no innovation.
KINECT? Nice idea, but even Microdoft themselves dropped it, and it's far too exhausting and buggy. PSMOVE? Sorry, WiiMote came first - and there's only a small handful of games which support it.
There's nothing that makes Sony/MS consoles unique, they're just plain powrrhouses. But smart developers only need ideas to make good games, not power, so the very approach is more manipulative than anything, and encourages technical laziness.

That, and also Nintendo would lose money by going 3rd party.

I love those kids like @CrazyJae trying to be serious analysts knowing nothing about how the world works. Just demanding and thinking it's that simple. Like that guy with Disney buying Nintendo would make gold...

Most of your examples are from a while ago. It's hard to count them as more recent examples

They don't call him CrazyJae for nothing.

To be fair, we are at the start of a generation.

I think innovation kind of has a cycle.

-1st, a platform launches with pretty average, by the books games.
-Then the really innovative stuff come out a bit after. This is your CoD4's, your Mario 64s, your Final Fantasy 7's for consoles, and your Super 3D Lands, Kirby Canvas Curses, Doodle Jumps, and Plants vs Zombies for other platforms.
-Then the industry sees the success of these games, and their genres explode with mixed results. Innovation takes a dive in favor of safe bets of what has already been successful
-Concurrently with the former, install based explode, this minimizes the risk of low budget or uninspired games.
-Last, genres that have been overlooked due to previous innovative games begin to really adapt. This gives us our second wave of innovation. This is your Xenoblade Chronicles, Pokemon RBY, and the explosion of 2D platformers towards the end of the 7th gen
-Rinse and repeat.

Obviously there are exceptions. The worst thing that can happen is the "big innovative game" of the second step isn't innovative at all, or it has severely negative elements. That's what happened with smartphones. Zynga and Rovio were successful in blatantly stealing ideas, and the horrible practice became all the rage.