Topic: Which is a better strategy for Nintendo. Do everything differently, or try to do what everyone else is doing?

Because for them innovation is only related to gameplay.... it is a great thing, but it is only a piece of the whole cake.... for everything else, they are light years behind.... even combining handeld and home console, Sony already does that with ps4 and Ps Vita....they could have planned the off play the same with 3ds and wiiu, instead of putting an expensive mandatiry peripheral such the gamepad

That's it EXACTLY. This is what I've been trying to say. Nintendo, by adding or omitting certain things to their consoles, are essentially telling us, the consumer what we want. It's not only extremely arrogant, it's extremely stupid, from a business stand-point.

Remember when Sony said "The next-generation doesn't start until we say it does" and "Everyone will want a PS3, if you can't afford one now, get a second job" ? Those were very stupid things to say and do. It cost Sony huge, with the PS3. They made a product, told the consumer what they should want, and assumed that everyone would do what they said.

Nintendo, to a much lesser extent, did similar things by omitting features that gamers want. Gamers want unified online services, HD visuals, and powerful hardware. I don't think the gamepad is a bad idea for the Wii U, as long as the gamepad isn't replacing other components or features that other systems have; the gamepad should enhance the experience, not try to replace it.

dude(or dudette) your posts are too funny! XD

@Bolt_Strike It's not about what matters to consumers, but what actually influences them. Being able to see which direction shots are coming from before you're getting targeted, however, makes an immense difference. Players can see if there's someone shooting around the corner, so they can try to outmaneuver the opponent. The opponent, at the same time, has to consider this a possibility, and decide whether he should try and hold position, move away, attempt a trap, or even use visible shots as a means of distraction. All of that gives the game nearly endless possibilities with very few requirements except for the players ideas. And this one element of visible shots compliments the concept perfectly. Even if players don't care, it WILL affect their gameplay if they aim for cometitive levels of gameplay.

As for the Mario Kart thing: that's my fault for not explaining. I wasn't trying to sell that as innovative, but as another example of gameplay depth from Nintendo that is barely visible and thus hard to display without explaining it thoroughly. And yes, @unrandomsam is absolutely right, the differences are way too small to be truly noteworthy, but these differences do exist. It's a minor detail that can affect gameplay to a decicive end. but only for the few millisecond speed demons. Nonetheless, it's these details Nintendo always adds to their games, and these minor differences, but moreso the general settings and themed mechanics, make many Nintendo games genuinely different, but on a gameplay-level that non-Nintendo-players (and especially haters) cannot see, but also don't want to test, instead branding Nintendo games (regularly Mario games) as "always the same".

No console maker is telling the consumer what they want. They are offering a particular combination of features that they THINK a consumer would want. Sony and Microsoft do this too. If you don't download AAA games digitally, there is no reason you need a 500GB HDD. 32-64 GB is plenty for DLC, indie titles, etc.

And this sort of differentiation is a good thing. Not all gamers want the same thing. For example, I'd give up HD visuals for a robust experience with motion control any day. Now, it's always better to add to the experience rather than replace it. But that's not always possible. Game consoles are designed to be a mid-level piece of technology. That is, not super cheap and featureless, and not super expensive and featureful. This is why no console since the 3rd generation of consoles has seen success at a price over $450 adjusted for inflation today (The PS3 and XB1 both got price drops prior to seeing moderate success). So if you believe you have an expensive unique piece of technology that is revolutionary enough that it can offer an equally impressive experience to better online services, HD visuals, and powerful hardware, then replacing it is fine.

Where the Wii U trips up is that the Gamepad isn't an equally impressive experience to better online services, HD visuals, and powerful hardware.

Games Consoles are normally designed cheap and nasty. With a few exceptions.

(3DO / Neo Geo AES / PC Engine LT).

Probably the fully backwards compatible PS3's could count as done properly.

I think Nintendo should take the middle road: part innovation, but also cover the basics (especially on the hardware power front), stacking everyathing on innovation (like the early WiiU and 3DS) is quite risky, since if the innovation falls flat (like 3DS's 3D and arguably the tablet controller of Wii U), what's left is a meh console that has big trouble dealing with competing consoles that are doing nothing really new, but "cover the basics" really well.

I think the Wii U and 3DS are the middle road. More Innovation was Wii and DS.

DVD player is no big deal at all. Even ten years ago my lap top had a DVD player- and for the most part, I was MAYBE watching a dozen a year, mainly b/c movies are so bad these days, there's just not much I want to watch.

I worry about the be like others approach. I don't feel that stronger hardware is going to change the perception that Nintendo is geared towards kids and families. Even if the clouds parted and all third parties came back with fair and equal games (as in all dlc and online modes), what is the draw between picking a ps4 over a x1? exclusives and friends. Since both systems share multiplats and many indies the main pulls are on the exclusive games each system gets. People don't buy one system or the other based upon multiplats because sony and ms share them anyway. But uncharted and infamous are on ps and halo and sunset overdrive are on ms. Quite frankly the situation is still the same. Just because Nintendo joins the multiplat game doesn't alter the fact that nintendo's exclusives are different. the people that like the Nintendo exclusives are going to buy a system anyway...multiplats or not. It just means that they may not have just one system instead. Let's say that wiiu had launched as a x86 box like the others...it still would have gotten the same types of exclusives as it does now. I don't think that is going to sway a user who would then say..."sure Nintendo has Fifa or Dragon Age, but none of my friends used a wii or any Nintendo systems last gen and I don't like mario games". So rather than picking up a wiiu to play the multiplats, they will stick with the others and play the exclusives that they like on that system. For many gamers of younger generations (annnnd now i feel old) playstation and xbox are the systems they grew up with. That brand culture is what they know best, why would they abandon that even if Nintendo had many more multiplat games?

Don't get me wrong I have always said that third parties will help the system but I won't cause the mass exodus/ adoption that I think some people will hope for. I think that nintendo has to do what they did in the genesis and the snes days, they have to fill the void. NES and SNES had a deluge of games and that meant that everybody had something to play which also generated tons of exclusives. Nintendo I don't think can get the current franchises but the should get the spinoffs. For instance the AC Rogue game or the one that follows Shao Jun. I would have pitched to make those exclusive to WiiU even though that still means you are missing the "main AC" experience. Rather than getting call of duty try to finance a new version of shooter. Talk to devs that have a good rep but don't put out a ton of games. Get some contracts signed. Talk to the big devs and ask for side franchises. No Fifa? Maybe get a few games with the fifa engine that covers regions (MLS for the US for instance). Sure everyone will scoff...at first but how did these other devs break away from Nintendo in the first place? They filled the genre void on other systems...Crash and Sackboy came from a need to fill a void. Nintendo just needs to do that again. Obviously they can't do it themselves...they can't stretch themselves that thin but they can talk to others and publish to get them to fill the void.

There is no perfect simple answer to this. If the WiiU had been like the others it would have priced out their base customers. Without solid marketing Nintendo is no longer a household name synonymous for game system. This is where the real battle needs to be fought. If angry birds and flappy bird can become big enough to spawn movies and merchandise or EA can make the same games year after year with complaints but still get the SALES (which make the complaints worthless) then it isn't hardware that is the problem. Look at the gamecube. It was the second most powerful but it was beaten out by the least powerful system in the big three. In part for the dvd player but also because sony marketed the heck out of it. Which is why the dvd part even became popular in my opinion. Look at MS...they sent mixed signals that sent many of their fanbase to sony. Look at the ps3...it was super powerful but it often got crappy ports (skyrim! LOLOLOL) and even still the ports had to match the 360 anyway. Sony was arrogant and they lost a ton of cash on that system....it got better but last gen could have been amazing for them. Hearts and minds are what nintendo has to win...not the hardware race. 3ds proves that.

It materialized. But the hardware sales were lower than expected, and the attachment rate for 3rd party titles were low, so 3rd parties stopped the support after a few titles.

But what's the point of Nintendo even making a console in that case? Why not just make games for another console. It's not like Nintendo making a console adds anything to the industry or offers something different.

agreed. 3rd parties figured that Nintendo users would be so starved for games that they would take them no matter what. Problem is the mom and dad gamers don't care, the folks that wanted those games played them on other systems, and the one system only people bought some of them but many realized that they got a half baked product so they didn't buy.

That's fine and good, but the problem is that that never happened. For whatever reason, the Wii's motion controls never lived up to the potential (and there was SO much potential). By the time Wii Motion + came out, it was too late.

The point is that we shouldn't give up HD visuals for motion controls (that work). We should get HD visuals AND motion controls (that work). We didn't: we got no HD visuals (which to be honest, don't really matter in terms of gameplay, but are a nice touch, can we agree?) and we got motion controls that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't.

Where the Wii U trips up is that the Gamepad isn't an equally impressive experience to better online services, HD visuals, and powerful hardware.

That's one place where the Wii U trips up, yes. Although I like the gamepad concept (much like I liked the Wii motion controls), I think it had major flaws. I think it's brilliant in games like ZombiU, but falls short in games that don't utilize it properly, and is just completely useless and pointless in games that don't need it. And the battery sucks. The console should come with a Pro controller standard, as well as the tablet, but that's a different topic...

But what about the gamer on the other side of the fence? The one that says, "I want to play Mario Kart and Zelda, but I don't want to miss out on Mass Effect (or whatever). IF ONLY THERE WERE A CONSOLE THAT COULD DO BOTH..." Aaaaaaaaand there isn't one. The Wii U could be that console.

Obviously they can't do it themselves...they can't stretch themselves that thin but they can talk to others and publish to get them to fill the void.

I said this in another thread, and I couldn't agree more. If certain games/game-types are skipping the Wii U, Nintendo needs to step up and fill the void, either by developing those void-filling games, or publishing them, or getting someone to do it for them. I strongly advocate Nintendo buying certain 3rd party companies. Strongly.

The issue is that Nintendo shot itself in the foot with the complete lack of substantial marketing for the Wii U. The whole thing has been a fiasco. It's a great console, and it deserves better than what it has gotten, and things do seem to be looking up, but there were so many mistakes made with it that it's a fight just to get the ball rolling.

Marketing. Push out some TV ads. I want to see ads for Wii U and Wii U games.

I disagree. I've seen very few games where the motion control doesn't work. Yes, the nunchuck can be very finicky, and they really needed to put better tech in it, but the Wii remote was pretty solid. I thought the Wii absolutely lived up to it's potential. But yes, the Wii's situation was one in which they absolutely could have added to the HD/online experience rather than replacing it (as the Wiimote+Nunchuck was only about 10 dollars more than a 360 controller)

With the Wii U, the Gamepad was too expensive to build upon the standard. They had to take a risk and replace the standard, and but the risk failed. I don't see a point to including the Pro Controller and Gamepad though, as they have the same buttons.

I can give you plenty of examples where the motion controls were implemented poorly, or actually took away from the experience. I can also give you plenty of examples when the opposite is true, and the motion controls were done perfectly. The end result is that some games (and by extension, the developers) failed to help the Wii live up to the potential.

For the record, I love the Wii, and I in no way am I saying it was a bad console, or that motion controls were wrong/stupid/broken. I play my Wii all the time still (played it today, in fact).

As for the point about the Gamepad/Pro controller, yes, absolutely the Wii U should come standard with a Gamepad and a Pro. For starters, the Gamepad, as I mentioned, has laughable battery life. I've had my Pro controller for over a month, and I still haven't had to recharge it. Fact! It's heavier, and more unwieldy than the Pro. Look, I know those are petty arguments against the Pad (except for the battery life), but they're valid.

One reason I loved the Wii controller + nunchuck is that I could have my hands by my sides in a totally natural position when playing games, instead of grasping a controller in between my hands. It was so comfortable, I could play for hours and it wouldn't hurt my thumbs/wrists.

Nintendo should ALWAYS do their own thing. Sometimes their stuff can be hit or miss, but they never fail to surprise/entertain me. After last gen I decided I'm completely done with Playstation and Xbox. Sure, they're fine, but besides a few neat exclusives (very few IMO) they're mostly dumbed-down PC's that you have to pay to play online with. Most of the "Amazing" third party titles that everyone claims make the PS4 so "Amazing"...are 90% of the time on PC...and it's usually a much better version.

Not to say Nintendo can't try a few things other companies are doing (...online play in more games T_T). But if Nintendo decided that they wanted to be Sony Jr., I'd immediately transition in PC-only gaming. Imagine a world where:

-Smash Bros. was more like PS All Stars
-Mario Kart was more like Forza
-Xenoblade was more like modern Final Fantasy
-Splatoon was more like CoD
-Bayonetta 2 was more like Bayonetta one on PS3...
-Fire Emblem was more like the Tales of series

Shudder

No one is saying (at least not that I read) that Nintendo should emulate either Sony or Microsoft. Most of us that have said "both" to the thread title have also said "balance" between the two. No one wants Smash to become PS All Stars. Nintendo's software isn't the problem here. It's mostly their hardware/peripherals that have been questionable. And I don't necessarily think any of us want Nintendo to put out the most powerful, fast, expensive console out there. Just one comparable enough that we get multi platform games, instead of bad ports (Wii) or no ports (Wii U) of those games.

I'd argue that some of the software is too. They can't really innovate with games like NSMB or 3D World.

But yes, in general it's the hardware that's more to blame.

Well, until 2010, Nintendo was practically allergic to the term "Action RPG" (I believe by that point, Nintendo had published a grand total of 2 Action RPGs, being Zelda II and Super Paper Mario), so I would gladly drop one turn based RPG for an action based one.