Topic: Is Nintendo really innovative?

Is Star Fox innovative and something that perfects what shooters are suppose to be? Or is it something that devs already did before Star Fox even showed up? Was the non-linear Super Metroid not enough for Nintendo's respect of entertainment that only Nintendo could do something like that?

I'm asking this because people don't seem to respect the innovation techniques that Nintendo has and as such claim that someone could have done better? I know I made a thread like this a while ago but that was for interms of respect. This one deals with the innovation wise whether Nintendo's creativity truly matters or not. So what are your thoughts on this?

The problem is that your examples are ~20 years old. In terms of games, Nintendo is certainly not very innovative anymore, at least from what I'm seeing. Nintendo used to make innovative games, and then it milked sequels out of them for the next couple of decades. The Wii U console itself is quite innovative, but the games for it are really not. Taking a look at some of the top games for it;

• Super Mario 3D World - it's a great Platformer, but there is certainly nothing innovative about it. It's as predictable as you can get for Mario. (If anyone argues that a new suit is what counts as innovation in games nowadays I'll laugh)
• Mario Kart 8 - they've made 8 of the things, its nothing innovative. New features? Tracks that go upside down; doesn't even affect gameplay.
• New Super Mario Bros. U - I don't think I even need to justify this one.
• Nintendoland - now this was actually somewhat innovative, but only because it was a pack-in to show what the system could do. If anything it just shows the lack of innovation Nintendo is actually putting into its Wii U titles.
• Pikmin 3, Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze; more sequels, nothing innovative added on.
• Wind Waker HD, Monster Hunter 3G; remakes, zero innovation.

I think Rogue Squadron 2 : Rogue Leader is better than any Star Fox game.

Nintendo used to when somebody else did something (Like Sega for example) up their own game. Now they just keep doing exactly the same over and over. (Ignoring other improvements that are better).

Examples - Swing Mechanics in the 3DS Mario Golf are still the same as Toadstool Tour. The motion controls are good for Golf games but the analog stick back and forth motion is much better than just pressing a button.

F-Zero GX if that can do 60fps - 4 Player nobody at Nintendo should have accepted Mario Kart 8 not doing so.

If they were innovative about half the games at least would be like e.g Kid Icarus: Uprising (Full amount of resources and a new idea.)

I agree, Nintendo has not been that innovated in all. I don't want to sound like Bleep but there not as what they were before. Half of the stuff they made over the past couple of years hasn't been Nintendo they were mostly remakes or sequals of the same thing.

Capcom made Monster Hunter, not Nintendo.

Everything else, I agree. Hence why I am looking forward to games like Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker and Project Guard. That however doesn't mean the Wii U games listed are bad by any means; they are just not new and/or unique games.

3D World I think is quite innovative there is loads of new types of level. More than the whole NSMB series put together.

It also could count as a version of 3D Land that actually works properly. (Which is also ok - what won't be is if there is another that just looks nicer but doesn't raise the bar).

Wii Sports / Nintendoland etc are like tech demo's not given the amount of resources that something like 3D World had. (Reserved mostly for sequels).

I think merging handheld and console was a bad idea. With handheld separate they could make more things and see what worked.

@Geonjaha I think you're missing the picture. Look at their technical innovation:

• NES, the device that started it all. A single controller for (almost) every game, not to mention how most of Nintendo's games were the very foundation of genres (Zelda for action adventures, Mario for platforming, Metroid for non-linear explorative action).
• SNES had Super Metroid, Super Mario World, Super Mario Kart, F-Zero, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, and StarFox as legends wich even now get mentioned as huge influences or inspirational sources for many impressive (and equally many embarrassing) game projects.
• N64 presented us The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, and Super Smash Bros., which all set new standards for their genres in 3D environments - not to mention how absurdly many people keep citing Ocarina of Time as the best game ever.
• GameCube had less innvative titles, but moved away from standard setups with the controller. The asymetric face button layout made for not only a unique decision, but also fora much quicker one, since the A button was the center, with all other buttons surrounding it. Though other games (especially PS2 ports) suffered from wonky controls when you needed X, Y, or B together. Sadly, this setup was much closer to an improvement than innovation, and so, the GameCube falls flat for this case.
• Wii. Mote. Need I say more? While Sony first came up with the motion control concept (EyeToy), it was unpolished and crude. Nintendo gave control back into the hands, which is what gaming still was about. ANd while Wii Sports wasn't really that awesome, games like Metroid Prime 3: Corruption and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess made great use of the motion controls.
• WiiU is the one console that has the innovation, but lacks the software to put it to innovative use. As such, I would rather wait with the 'innovation' praise on it until we've seen something actually innovative from a game. However, Splatoon already rises to the challenge of innovating the stale shooter genre of all things - and what was shown so far already throws the competition face forward into the dirt.

The handhelds are substitutes, for the most part. They are about gaming on the go, not really about innovation (though the very idea behind the GameBoy is more than innovative). The only innovation made here is a backlit display (GBA SP onward).

But, as you can see, Nintendo always has something up their sleeve to impress. Fresh ideas are their business, but not their sole reason for existence. Not everything they do is a revolution, but they revolutionize gaming even now, where the gaming industry as a whole has lost their sense of creativity.

[sarcasm] Glasses free 3D on portable devices is the way of the future! [/sarcasm]

Do people really care?

Nope, no one cared enough to make a thread, no one cared enough to create responses. So theres your answer.

Twilight Princess wasn't innovative it was changed for the sake of it (Removing the normal option as well for no good reason). The Gamecube versions of Mario Power Tennis and Twilight Princess are both better. The new controls Pikmin did seem to work better however the difficulty wasn't increased to account for how much of an advantage was gained by the new controls. Propellor Mario is worse with the motion control than it would have been using just the B button for it (Or an option to do so).

Motion Controls are good when the game is built around them but when it is just for the sake of it that is bad.

Yes and no. Yes, cause compared to Activision and EA, they're very, very innovative and don't just repeat the same series over and over. So they're ahead of them, as well as say, modern Sega or modern Capcom or modern Square Enix in the innovation stakes.

No, because their modern games in existing series aren't as innovative as they used to be. It's especially true of Mario, where any real innovation outside the spinoffs seem to have stopped altogether since the Wii era...

Is Nintendo innovative? Probably not
Does that make them a bad developer? No

Innovation does not make a good game. There are plenty of series that have a winning formula and don't need consistent innovation to keep it relevant

nah, not anymore
but Nintendo games are still fun so I'll still play them
but they should drop all the "we're innovative" facade and make a new F-Zero already! >:[

And there are plenty of games that are innovative but aren't really fun to play. Just look at Jason Rohrer - he made a bunch of games that few others would even think to try, but lord knows most of them weren't fun to play. Some could barely be called games at all. I like new things - I'm sure a lot of us do - but a game needs to be well excecuted first and foremost.

Show me a recent innovative game on any platform that has sold wel and is liked by gamers. I can't think of a single game .
Some of the Indie stuf tries to be different but even with stuff like No Man's Sky you can argue that will be just another version of Elite with more focus on exploration and beter detailed worlds.

The truth is gamers don't like innovative games. They like the ideas of innovation but still the somewhat improved know games are the ones that sell. Nintendo is a master in perfecting games and tweaking gameplay to perfection and thats the most important skill when it comes to making games.

Well, that was innovative, and I for one really really love that feature. I hope Nintendo doesn't drop it.

It was innovative, yes. It's just not the game-changer the entire media industry wants it to be. Those are big differences.

That was addressed to both parties, btw.

The only big-name game that Nintendo has made that comes off as innovative to me is Fire Emblem Awakening, and even then that's a pretty big stretch. Maybe it's my love of the human-breeding system.

Their smaller games feel pretty fresh, though. Pushmo in particular was a really cool take on the puzzle genre. NintendoLand may have been bare-bones, but it felt pretty different from just about anything out there, too.

I think the OP isn't very innovative when it comes to thinking up discussions.
Anyway as long as the game is fun you won't hear me complain. Also i would prefer it if they were not blinded by the desire to be different. They have created some winning formula's already. Would be quite a shame if they were to throw that away.