Topic: Am I the only one worried about post-2020 Nintendo?

At this point, I think that Nintendo has proven that they are fully prepared to weather the ebbs and flows of the industry. They survived the Virtual Boy pretty much completely unscathed (except, unfortunately, Gunpei Yokoi); the Gamecube is considered a failure, but why is the Xbox OG considered a success when it only sold about a million or so more units, and lost money on every unit sold? Even still, Nintendo rebounded beautifully with both the DS and Wii. The 3DS started off slow, but once they dropped the price and started releasing a slew of killer games, the sales shifted in the right direction (even though they came nowhere close to the lofty numbers of the DS). The Wii U tanked, but the 3DS kept them going pretty strong throughout those lean years, and the Switch has sold extremely well.

Think about it like this:

-Sega had one major success in the hardware game: the Mega Drive/Genesis. Their other three main consoles (Master System, Saturn, Dreamcast) each sold about ten million units. Sega had some major innovations for their time (Sega Channel, the Dreamcast modem and internet service), but Nintendo has coupled innovation with sensibility which is why they didn't release a color handheld at a time when the competition was. After all, what's more innovative: releasing a handheld with a pack-in game that is so universal that sixty year old men, such as my Uncle, bought one and kept it on his nightstand or a fully-colored handheld that would drain batteries faster than you could buy them? Nintendo has spent the past forty years straddling that line very carefully.

-3DO failed. CD-I failed. Colecovision had, what, two years on the market? The TurboGrafx-16 was a great system that fizzled in most regions. Atari had one major success with the 2600. Nintendo is one of only three console manufacturers that has survived for decades in the hardware game.

-Nintendo will, at least for the foreseeable future, figure out a way to stay in the game. Why do you think they've tinkered with releasing mobile games? Why have they been openly courting indie developers? Why would they release a product like Switch in the era of the PS4/XBONE? They're not in competition with anybody but themselves, and they're always trying to secure their place in the next generation. Sometimes they fail (Wii U), and other times they nail it (Wii, DS, Switch).

I wouldn't worry. They'll be just fine.

I have to admit that Apple Arcade looks pretty cool. Only reason I have not signed up is bc I already have an un-Godly backlog across many systems. Same deal with Gamepass.

This is why I think Nintendo will eventually have to be more serious with online service.

I feel like the story hasn't really changed much since the Wii, to be honest. We've been worried about Nintendo not getting the same games since like 2006. Wii did great (for the most part), Wii U was a "failure," and the Switch is solidly successful if not a total breakthrough.

I don't know. They've obviously hit something really special with the Switch, regardless of getting current third-party AAA games, and I hope the Switch 2 is just more of the same.

I'm not an unbiased opinion, though, because I largely hate the game design of these big AAA games these days. Most of what Ubisoft puts out, whether it's Assassin's Creed or The Division or even Far Cry, I just can't stand. I can't take anymore towers or open world maps with icons or crafting a new wallet with 15 Pristine Elephant Skins. Xbox pretty much laid an egg with exclusives on Xbox One, though PS4 had a few exclusives I enjoyed. Nintendo's really the only developer I care about when it comes to "big" games these days. I'm way more excited for Origami King than I am for Valhalla or Far Cry 17 or whatever they're up to.

SO MANY open world games have now become Assassin's Creed clones, and I'm right there with you--I can't take it anymore. I also really don't like the "walking simulator" concept where you just have to stay alive to get to the next cut scene. So many AAA games on the other platforms have become one of those two categories. It just started feeling like work.

On the flip side, every time I start a new Switch game, I just get a huge thrill. Even though it's not as powerful as the other boxes, the experience as a package just feels refreshing. The games, especially the first party ones, feel more like a crafted product rather than another open world FPS or RPG cranked off the assembly line.

The discussion reminds me, there's a guy that always wants to show me the goods of the Playstation. It's always the samey open world shooter, or something like The Last of Us 2, the latest game he showed to me: I found it has stealth sections that are worse than what Metal Gear Solid achieved 20+ years ago and an amount of puzzles for the whole game that wouldn't even be enough for one room in a Zelda game.

These games are almost like the FMV games back then, severely lacking in gameplay, where only story and characters could make an impact.
When I see such a borefest of gameplay (mostly running down an extremely linear path with a bit of first generation stealth/shooting to switch it up), I would rather have it compromised as a 2 hour movie.
How people get enjoyment out of these "movie games" is a miracle, but that's Playstations new topgame for you.

@SKTTR Agreed on the sentiment, not on the analysis. The switch is a great system, yet I play my ps4 a lot too - not just cod warzone (I don't care much for walk-like-a-truck games), also games like shadow tactics, spiderman, or in my case, loving horizon and monster hunter.

Most of us who've been around for a while remember a time where we'd play all the good games, hoping for a new one. There are more great games than time to play them in te current market.

The ps4 has been so good to me, I'll probably buy a ps5 too. Still, my switch gets lots of love as well - the greatest gameplay, most variety of games, most original and often best art styles are usually on nintendo systems. Doesn't change the fact that I'm still playing horizon like a kid that first discovered ocarina of time, so to speak.

@erv
I wish I still got that feeling from other games. The last time I got that "kid playing Ocarina of Time" feeling from a non-Nintendo game was with The Last of Us, so that is many years ago at this point. My PS4 was certainly more used than my Xbox One this generation, but still... nothing really grabbed me.

I'm just super disillusioned with all these open-world games; I think that's the main issue I'm having. They were cool at first, spaced-out releases like the Elder Scrolls games and stuff, but then someone seemed to decide that 99% of AAA games MUST be open-world, and now here we are: Red Dead, Assassin's Creed, Spider Man, Horizon, Division, even God of War and Zelda are now open world in the contemporary sense (insanely large maps with towers to climb to reveal sections, usually, crafting with "find x number of racoon skeletons to make a new ammo pouch," etc.)

I just keep hoping it's a trend (a long-lived one, albeit) that starts to diminish. There will always be open-world games, but I would be so happy if they because further between.

And I also agree with you - there's just sooooo much more to play these days than when I was a kid. I was about 3 years old when the NES launched in America, and I had one right away from my uncle. So I grew up with this stuff, truly. Back in the day, there were only so many games coming out, and for the most part it was either Nintendo or Sega hardware. Things were way more manageable. I was always the one with the Nintendo systems, and my friends usually had Sega systems or PC.

@rallydefault I think we'll see one of a few things when it comes to open world:
1. Rise of the subscription model that creating even more open world games is sustainable. Stuff like Xbox Game Pass become so massive that Sony, Nintendo and many companies on PC create their own subscription service that is like Game Pass.
2. The Steam sale approach continues to be the most popular model for selling games and open world becomes unsustainable except Nintendo given Nintendo discounts are always very limited.

By unsustainable, I mean the outcome where open worlds become increasingly expensive to create that the amount of copies sold isn't enough to break even.

@rallydefault I do kinda agree. I don't mind a good open world game from time to time, but there are so many these days, and most of them are filled with repetitive content.

But at the same time, how many times do I see people comment something along the lines of ''I hope this franchise's next entry is open world''. People really love them it seems.

@rallydefault Yeaaaah. I wouldn't consider Skyrim in that category of open world, it's basically a straight evolution of the concepts Morrowind started way back in the 90s. No towers, no icons, RPG style skills, no unlocking the world as you go, etc. I think only Witcher 3 has really felt similar out of the non-bethesda open world games.

But the rest of them? Assassin's Creed was revolutionary for the first few entries, but I don't see the point in a hundred clones. BotW at least didn't set out to be a clone, and managed to make that style of game feel fresh again as a result. And Spider-Man also feels fresh to me... somehow. Haven't put my finger on why. But the rest? I'm pretty much avoiding open world games at this point if they don't have something that sets them apart from the pack.

@Octane

Honestly, the only one that I think needs to go open world is Pokemon. Like, that series basically started as an attempt at open world back on Gameboy, when you could go wherever you wanted post-Cerulean. The games have become stiflingly linear, for a series that doesn't gain anything by being highly structured due to it's utter lack of good story most of the time.

Excellent post and points. Put in this perspective, it looks like Nintendo is going the Steam route. I rarely buy games full price anymore. You can wait for a sale and sometimes get pretty good ones for less than $10 or even $5. Full blown $60 games for less than $20. Occasionally get some games for less than a dollar or even pennies.

I'm not worried at all. The big demanding games that will be coming to next gen. would've skipped the Switch anyway. Look at how many big games since the Switch came out that have skipped the system and yet, Switch continues to sell well and even outpaced the Xbox One.

The Switch still has the advantage of being a unique concept with unique games on the platform. Heading into next gen., it'll have the advantage of being the cheapest option by far. Next gen hardware isn't gonna be cheap and by the looks of it, games won't be either with the $10 increase.

@SKTTR I agree. That's overrated Sony's "masterpieces" and why I prefer Xbox and Nintendo because they are more gamey and not such long interactive films with rubbish gameplay.

@link3710 Pokémon needed more to be an open-world game than Legend of Zelda.

@BlueOcean
"That's overrated Sony's "masterpieces" and why I prefer Xbox and Nintendo because they are more gamey and not such long interactive films with rubbish gameplay."

Not every games on Sony machines are FMV oriented with rubbish gameplay.
There are some good indie games in physical for PS4 that i like.
They felt very gamey too as Nintendo games.
I played games like that on my Sony machines.

About Pokemon being Open World, i think it was a good idea but needs more Battle System robust as we can bring 6 Pokemons and why don't use 3 Pokemons at the same time like Standard JRPG games so each Pokemons can support each other during Battle.

I think the Switch, both models, will do very well for the holiday season.

@rockodoodle Is the Switch getting a 10$ boost in games also?

@Anti-Matter I didn't say that. Obviously, I was referring to Naughty Dog, read the message I was replying to. Other Sony exclusives are dull open-world games like Horizon and Days Gone and others are so-so racers (Gran Turismo Sport) and one is the fantastic Dreams...

On the other hand, you always say that there aren't any games on Xbox that aren't serious and violent and that's not true.

Pokémon has had 3 poke battles before. Tbh it's kinda gimmicky for the purpose since Pokémon is meant to be a contest to see which trainer is better.

I'd rather Pokémon avoid being opened world. I remember how boring the cities were in Sword and Shield compared to past games, one of them was literally just an alley way. Gamefreak seem to be lack the technical whizz to do those types of games, their first HD game came out less than 5 years ago and even then it was 2D. I'd hate to see the limitations and compromises they would have to do for a real open world game.

@jump I agree, they're stuck in the past but not just technically but gameplay as well. I think, however, an open-world game with objectives would make Pokemon games less boring. I have played just a few, last one was Sun on 3DS, and I don't understand how they keep selling as much as they do. There's a lot of potential but the dialogue is silly and everything feels repetitive and the battle mechanics are trial and error and level up if necessary. Other RPGs aren't so limited.

Horizon Zero Dawn's coming to PC, now, @BlueOcean ..... I haven't yet played SO many open-world games, like some here, so I'm looking forward to that While I'd kind of like to try Last of Us, too, since I do like the basic ideas of the 1st & all the fuss about the 2nd makes it more interesting to me, too but not enough to get a PS to play them