Virtual reality - or, as the cool kids these days like to call it, VR - famously died a long, slow death many years ago only to resurrected in recent years thanks to devices such as the Oculus Rift and PlayStation VR. It's perhaps a little too early to brand it a full-scale comeback; the support of the mainstream player will be essential and the high cost of entry could make it a niche proposition, at least in the short term. Ironically, if there's one company that has the power to turn the casual player on to VR once more, it's the one which has historically been the most dismissive of the tech. However, that could be changing, as Nintendo seemed to confirm last week that it is "looking into" virtual reality; President Tatsumi Kimishima even went as far as to call it an "interesting technology" in a recent earnings call.
Of course, it's wrong to suggest that Nintendo has only just woken up to the potential of VR - in fact, it could be argued that the company was one of the first to enter this particular space, although the results were far from successful. Nintendo tried to bring an affordable virtual reality headset to consumers in 1995 and named it the Virtual Boy, yet it stands as the firm's most epic commercial failure.
Early television commercials optimistically branded it "the first stereo immersive 32-bit game system ever" that was apparently "so advanced it can't be viewed on conventional TV or LCD screens." To entice gamers the curious-looking contraption launched with Mario's Tennis, giving Nintendo fans the chance to see Mario return serves in red LED imagery that players would eventually complain wasn't anywhere realistic enough.
Strangely for a Nintendo console, it arrived to little fanfare. The spectacle was so embarrassing for the company that creator Gunpei Yokoi - arguably one of Nintendo's most important employees and the brains behind the Game & Watch and Game Boy - was treated like an outcast by president Hiroshi Yamauchi, eventually leaving under a cloud to begin work on the Bandai WonderSwan, a rival handheld which would attempt to challenge Nintendo's dominance of the portable arena.
Once users began to suffer headaches using the Virtual Boy, development problems and poor third party support were the least of Nintendo's concerns. The console was a rare stain on the company's copybook, and within the space of a year was being heavily discounted by retailers. It's therefore unsurprising that the Kyoto veteran has been so cagey about the technology ever since - it got its fingers burnt badly.
In truth, the world simply wasn't ready for virtual reality back in the '90s. I know younger me wasn't. I recall one evening after school, watching the first episode of the UK video game TV show Bad Influence with its opening report on the world of virtual reality.
"It's called virtual reality and it's one of the newest ways for computers to present complicated information" the presenter excitedly explained. "It felt pretty real to me" he added, observing crude visuals that to my young and untrained eyes didn't even come close to resembling reality. "You're no longer on the outside looking in" the presenter insisted, encumbered with a clunky headset, earphones and a "data glove" that curiously resembled the Nintendo Power Glove.
This didn't feel like the future. I should have been foaming at the mouth, pupils dilated in dewy-eyed fascination. Instead I was restlessly clawing at the remote, asking "where are the real games at?" The world wasn't ready for fully immersive virtual reality experiences back then, and the public's interest in virtual reality waned not long after. Has that really changed now?
While many of us get excited about the Facebook-backed Oculus Rift, HTC Vive and PlayStation VR, not everybody has shared the same enthusiasm where gaming is concerned - not least one of the medium's most influential voices.
Nintendo's legendary designer Shigeru Miyamoto previously declared during a TIME interview that virtual reality may not be "the best way for people to play" in the home, suggesting instead that the tech "might be better suited to some sort of attraction style of entertainment", such as a "video game arcade" rather than "something that one person plays alone."
"Alone" being a key word here. As Oculus Rift has shown us with its lofty price point, the cost of good VR technology isn't cheap - and that's just for one headset alone. Nintendo's continued reluctance to compete on specs and instead focus on joyous, family-friendly, all-encompassing experiences suggests it's not a road it really wants to go down unless forced. As the Wii showed, the company can really nail the local "social" gaming experience, and VR - while offering the chance to connect to players all over the globe - isn't really the kind of thing you can play with a room full of friends.
We don't yet know enough about Nintendo's next console, or whether the NX will adopt VR technology. All we know at this stage is that it is a possibility - albeit a slim one. Good VR technology comes at a price, and cutting corners on such tech in order to make it accessible to a wider audience could be suicide. Early adopters don't often have time to wait until tech 'gets good' as they flit between the next big thing and the last. If anything, Nintendo has hopefully already learned its lessons from watered-down VR - that's exactly what the Virtual Boy was.
But what if this time things could be different? Could Nintendo deliver VR to us on a grand, accessible scale, in the same way it introduced motion gaming to our parents and grandparents with the Nintendo Wii, or touch control with the insanely successful DS?
Nintendo has the right to be cautious about VR, but the potential for groundbreaking gameplay is obvious. Technological advancements mean it's now possible to develop worlds far richer in colour, scope and depth than the rudimentary red LED-dotted landscapes of yesteryear, and that should excite pretty much every games designer on the face of the planet - including the venerable Miyamoto himself. But forget the details for now - suspend rational thought and imagine the possibilities.
Imagine yourself traversing a fluffy cloud and mushroom-filled world through the eyes of the world's most beloved red-capped plumber, scraping the star-dotted heavens in a new Mario Galaxy VR game, or literally hotfooting it in the fiery cauldrons of one of Bowser's tricky dungeons as flaming coals shoot unnervingly past you, just close enough to singe the fabric of your overalls.
Imagine a dashboard view of your kart as you powerslide your joyous way past Waluigi in Mario Kart, as loose asphalt jumps up into his pointy, wretched, scheming features as he curses you while you literally look back in unbridled pre-celebratory joy to bask in the view of those trailing in your purple-shelled slipstream. And Rainbow Road will never be the same as cascading rows of kaleidoscopic technicolour illuminate your race path all the way to the checkered flag.
And what of clip-clopping your way on horseback through the flora and fauna of Hyrule's open plains, or obtaining an otherworldly view of the bustling Kakariko Village through the eyes of Zelda protagonist Link? Even party games - the type of games Miyamoto loves to imagine a family gathering around - could gain a new lease of life if handled correctly. Imagine watching your friends flapping about playing WarioWare: Smooth Moves VR style as you pass a headset to each other like a hot potato attempting to complete a teamwork task before the time limit expends; the player's view could be displayed on the TV screen, ensuring that even those who await their turn can still see what's occurring and chuckle accordingly.
In the face of development costs, changing consumer tastes, pressure to develop the next best thing and stern competition from new VR entrants in a fledgling market, there's a lot at stake should Nintendo take their latest head first plunge into virtual reality - and perhaps now is simply not the right time. Even so, I can't help but find myself dreaming about what's possible, and in my opinion, the company's next move in the console war could be the most important in its illustrious history - assuming it finds a way to include VR in its own unique vision of what gaming could and should be like.
Comments 84
VR Mario Kart... The blooper item would actually be really effective.
I'd love a VR Animal Crossing 😍
A VR first-person Mario platformer would be horrible, just as it would be on a screen. Luckily, VR games don't have to be all from a first-person viewpoint. I wish more people would realise this...
Virtual Boy virtual console day one purchase
No thank you. There is no way 2 VR headsets are going to survive in the market - most likely neither will - so why waste the money?
3D came and went. Motion controls and came and wet. VR will come and go. At the end of the day, there are 2 main groups of cash cows for the gaming indsutry:
1) The hardcore gamers who want standard controls.
2) The casuals just want 15 minute time wasters on the phone
Neither of these are going for VR. The people who are jumping on VR are the PC elitists who have to have the best 1% of the PC rigs in America, as evident by the numbers that 99% of PCs can't handle Oculus Rift.
It would be obviously a disaster. Why? Just look how graphic quality looks on N3DS and WiiU when compared to PS, XBOX and PC. In VR what matter first is graphic and visual experience then comes gameplay.
VR is the thing that is always the next big thing, and still isn't. I think it can be a niche success, but I think basing an entire system around it would be a disaster. Nintendo has seen with the Wii U the cost of basing your entire system around a piece of hardware that people don't know how to use properly (and even the Wii, for that matter, but its sales success doesn't reflect that as easily), and I just don't think VR stands to help the vast majority of their franchises (how could a 2D platformer, Nintendo's bread and butter and some of their most profitable games of all time, stand to benefit from VR?). I guess I don't know much about its implementation, but I get the sense that you need a first-person perspective for the tech to really make sense in the vast majority of cases, and I can't fathom Nintendo altering every single one of their franchises to accommodate that. And if a game isn't being designed from the ground-up to be successful in a VR environment, it's just a glorified display and form of camera control for a game designed with a traditional screen.
This ignores, of course, the horsepower required to do VR well, and the fact that Nintendo doesn't seem to have any interest in selling high-power machines and competing based on hardware these days. I imagine they also learned a great deal from selling the Wii U at a loss at the start of its sales run, and they'd either (A) need to charge a fortune for a VR experience that functions well to not lose money on every unit sold, or (B) eat money at the launch of a risky product in a risky market they've already experienced their greatest failure in.
In short: I don't see this happening for a host of reasons, and I don't think I'd even want to get a new Nintendo console based on VR entirely. I don't even think I'd even bother to get a peripheral for a new system, since I just don't think it'd be a better way to play almost any game, and certainly not enough to justify the investment. Maybe it's "more immersive" and a cool experience, but I don't see it being something I'd ever want to do enough to justify the cost. If Nintendo ever wants to make me unequivocally unsure about picking up a new piece of hardware by them in the future, their best move is to make the focus VR.
A piece of hardware will never be gamings' holy grail, just like a projector will never be the holy grail of movies, or a printing press will never be the holy grail of literature. Jesus ...
I really hope nintendo keep away from VR. It would only spread their resources too thin. Plus I'd be very surprised if any of the other VR tech companies would end up taking off in a big way.
Unless Nintendo is willing to take a massive loss on each console sale (not unheard of for console companies but unheard of by Nintendo) I doubt Nintendo will be getting into the virtual reality business anytime soon as the price for the technology is currently quite high. I'd rather Nintendo not do virtual reality at all rather than attempt some cheap bootleg version of it.
If and when the time comes when Virtual Reality becomes the standard and Nintendo has to make a VR technology too, the last thing they should do is call it the Virtual Boy anything, as that console name has as much as a stigma associated with it as the Wii right now.
@toxibunny
Mirror's Edge is what some would call a first person game with a focus on platforming (it's more accurately parkour though).
Many said the game was unique and innovative, but it did suffer from clunky controls and general difficulty doing what you wanted to do as a result.
Nintendo have always been innovators in virtual reality.
Yes, the Virtual boy was not a success, but many people at Nintendo must have thought it had potential at the time. Success has a thousand fathers but failure was the orphan Gunpei.
But wait, there is more.
Motion control on the Wii is Virtual Reality too, and it was an original idea and a huge success. Just as the Virtual Boy was not completely ready when launched, it could be argued the Wii, initially without the motion plus gyros, was potentially a waggly failure waiting to happen too.
Finally, Nintendo implemented Virtual Reality sound with the Wiimote and the TV speakers. The Zelda and Link arrow sound effect is one subtle example. However this effect was not helped by the limited sound quality of the Wiimote.
So Nintendo have been innovative in virtual reality all the way to the present systems.
Nintendo can't afford to experiment at the cost of its gamers, like it did with the Wii and the Wii U.
The Wii with TV like controller, for everyone including granny, worked because granny had a go along with the rest of the family, It worked, and the balance board helped turn the Wii into an exercise machine, and sold loads of Wii's.
Real gamers lost out on the graphics and power of the PS.
The Wii U tried to mimic the DS and failed, losing granny and 90% of their customers who had got used to the Wii remote.
Graphics, power, a 'normal' controller, some 3rd party support and games, lots of games.
Not gimmics. The Wii sales won't be repeated and we don't want to repete the Wii U sales either.
,
all the current and soon-to-come vr schemes all look and function the same way. for nintendo to enter vr, they need to have something distinctively nintendo for it. they can't just make it like everyone elses. for now, the two most important letters for nintendo are nx, not vr.
If it was something like sword art online then I think Nintendo has a shot
Not too interested in VR at the moment though in a few years time if the tech has proven itself I wouldn't mind seeing how Nintendo handles it.
Nintendo has taken baby steps towards these sort of things before (Online gaming, downloadable games, the switch from carts to discs, their current cross platform purchases, etc.) and I believe the same will apply here, especially taking into account that the Wii and Wii U are technically behind their Sony and Microsoft rivals.
Not to say that's bad or anything but I think Nintendo will most likely get out the deck chair and just watch and see how this whole VR craze goes before deciding to jump in or not.
We already know how their attempt at VR went.
These days I have little confidence that Nintendo would do something like this right. No, if I'm being honest, I think virtual reality is in better hands with the likes of Valve/HTC, Oculus, and even Sony. In fact, I see very little Nintendo could bring to the table to improve on what Oculus is doing with the Rift right now, other than all its huge games/franchises of course. But these days there's enough developers out there creating games that are basically as good as anything Nintendo could put out that I don't think that's as big a thing as it might once have been.
Example:
Here's Nintendo's take on a cutesy, yarn based 2.5D platformer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4uLghnw6Bs
Here's a Swedish indie dev's take on a cutesy, yarn based, 2.5D plaformer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeKEklICzpI
PS. Bad Influence! = awesome show.
I think VR will be all about the graphics and Nintendo isn't known for the best graphics so I don't think it will be amazing if Nintendo tried to make VR, that being said Nintendo are great at making games to go with Hardware. I think the best VR will be on PC because of the upgrade-ability obviously.
How some Nintendo games might appear if they were in VR (and done extremely roughly):
Mario Kart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKdhI9wEdnY
Mario 64: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28ivkU5i_x4
Paper Mario: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OuIFLmLGx8&index=23&list=PLgzzAlT_CcFfyTE2R8dnHKns8-9IUzzO2
Zelda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywrlyTNS03Y
But, in reality, if Nintendo actually did make games for VR they'd be a whole order of magnitude more mind blowing than anything I've linked. And that's why it's so disappointing and frustrating that at the moment it doesn't even look like Nintendo is sniffing VR. If it did decide to support VR then we could have moments that would be literally paradigm shifting in the same way seeing Mario 64 running on the N64 for first time in full 3D and with its revolutionary new controller was paradigm shifting.
Honestly, I'd really like to see Nintendo take another stab at VR. I for one really value the 3D aspect of the 3DS and the motion controls on Nintendo's latest systems.
That said, I realize that it isn't for everyone and I can see it going the way of Kinect (optional, but not required).
Since Nintendo is doing mobile games they could use samsungs or some other vr thing and half experiment with it again to see if it gets any attention.
Seeing how Nintendo got in such a mess with worries the 3D had on kids eyes on the 3DS, how on earth would they deal with VR?
On a personal level, I tend to think I'm the A typical, some where inbetween core and casual gamer Nintendo customer, and I know VR has no interest to me. It all seems like more hassle than I want.
So long as it doesn't replace normal gaming have at it. I can deal with motion controls options but not everyone has the visual acuity to use VR or 3d for that matter.
The Oculus Rift requires a good PC in order to work. Power isn't something that Nintendo likes to compete with.
If Nintendo could create a VR headset that is less powerful, but cheap and accessible to the masses, then it could do really well. However, I don't think the technology is here just yet to be able to do that.
To be first to market with an affordable, effective, quality VR headset designed around the concept of console gaming is, in my opinion, Nintendo's last hope of mainstream success and relevancy. Like it or not, VR is the future of gaming and to be last on that train, or to miss it entirely, amounts to loading the shotgun before bringing it to their temple.
However given the company's recent history, Nintendo is likely dismissive of VR and will attempt to bury it publicly with such colorful statements as: "it's not fun", "it's not social", and "mothers would complain".
The costs required to make full VR console is extremely high that would require a huge price to breakeven or massive losses to get it down to mass market prices.
With VR using motion controls as the main input, I think it's safe to assume that most gamers will avoid it like the plague (They still really hate motion controls even on PS4).
VR will form it's own market with some overlap with PC, handheld and console gaming.
For various reasons I don't see VR becoming as big as the handheld market in terms of gaming.
Though the prediction is mobile gaming will render PC, Handheld and Console gaming obsolete by the end of the decade.
Roku/Amazon Fire TV/Apple TV/etc... are also supposed to kill PC and console gaming for good.
Also Wearable tech (including smartwatches) are supposed to be the next big thing that is supposed to be as big as mobile if the predictions pan out in the next few years.
Tablets and Smartphones are also supposed to be killing Windows and PCs dead within the next few years.
It's also predicted that microchips will be injected in everyone within 15 years carrying all your personal data.
The "future" of gaming is predicted to be:
1) 4K
2) SUHD (instead of 4K)
3)AR
4)Haptic feedback
5)F2P
6)AAA blockbusters only
7)Controlled by wearables
8) Free form controllers
9)Cloud computing
10) Others.
Yeah, just pile it on! Wii U Gamepad, 3DS, Virtual Boy 2... Nintendo doesn't have enough recent flops yet!
@Mahe
3DS isn't a flop, it just isn't priced for the mass market.
@Mahe 3ds lifetime sales are around 57.94 million... you consider that a flop? Compared to what? the Vita?
VR in its current form is dead!! Same as Motion Plus, PS Move, New 3DS, Kinect etc... These things only work if theres NO fragmentation!! All the things I mentioned are still great tech .... yet no one supports them or ever did, apart from a handful of early games!! VR will only work if a console is designed exclusively for it!!! If devs are given the choice to develop for 30,000,000 PS4 users ... would they rather cater to an audience of 2,000,000 PS4 VR headset owners??? Unlikely!!! Sure, its exciting now ... but so was PS Move, New 3DS and Kinect!!
Nintendo will only do something that is affordable so that they can guarantee profit from each sold. VR, as it is headed now, isn't at that point for Nintendo to take the risk, IMO.
Honestly what made Nintendo fall was the innovations. When they released Wii focusing their work on motion gaming leaving behind graphic improvement. That' was the main reason of his failure, that's when the bad times started. VR would only repeat the same story if Nintendo is the 1st company to release global: waste of much needed money. I think Nintendo should focus on raising back again with this new project they have in mind and once they are far away from financial problems they can start thinking on VR.
@GearB
Innovation had nothing to do with it as Sony is using PS move as the basis for PSVR and other VR companies are adopting similar controls.
Innovation didn't kill Wii U, it was Nintendo's lack of focus with a $250+ price tag that killed the system.
Every Nintendo system has not traditional features at the expense of graphics.
Every Nintendo system has a non traditional controller.
The smaller 3rd parties and Eastern 3rd parties are now facing the horrible effect of Microsoft and Sony focusing heavily on AAA Blockbusters, M rated games and realistic graphics.
No one will to buy games on those systems unless they are AAA Blockbusters, M rated games and realistic graphics.
Everything else is bombing causing 3rd party output to narrow to focus on AAA Blockbusters, M rated games and realistic graphics.
Sony and Microsoft are also now realizing how finicky the "hardcore"/real gamers are when it comes to accepting new features.
Sony and Microsoft cannot get them to sue new features without massive rejection and backlashes that effects games that use these new features.
They just want the same control scheme and features they've been using since PS1.
Gaming is rapidly stagnating overall as the major 3rd parties are too risk adverse and the "hardcore"/real gamer won't buy anything that doesn't adhere to the AAA Blockbusters, M rated games and realistic graphics templates that have been in place for decade now.
@Yorumi
That's not entirely true.
Nintendo has been dealing with a huge backlash on GCN, GBA, Wii, DS, 3DS and Wii U for playing it too safe with sequels and iterations.
The media constantly hounds Nintendo for not taking risk in software design and gameplay and releasing nothing but rehashes with a graphical update.
Gamers are constantly whining about Nintendo reusing the same damn template for their games without improving and innovating the gameplay in any meaningful form.
The saying about Nintendo games goes as follows "YOU'VE PLAYED THEM ONCE, YOU'VE PLAYED THEM ALL!!" and "Each new game does nothing new!"
Though when Nintendo does genuinely innovates or creates a new IP, the media and gamers hound them for "ruining their games" and "abandoning what made them great". Every time a new IP is announced the media and gamers always respond with "Why are you abandoning Mario, Zelda and others?", "where is [insert established IP]?" "Quit diverting resources from _______ franchise!"
As for F-Zero Minamoto never said anything of that sort.
He said he was shocked that people wanted a new F-Zero due to the last 4 games bombing hard globally and he doesn't know what to do with it without rehashing the previous games.
F-Zero just doesn't sell enough to warrant production.
F-Zero (SNES) sold over 2M+ globally.
F-Zero X struggled to sell 1 million on N64 globally.
F-Zero GX struggled to sell 500k (That is thousand) globally!!
F-Zero AX did horrible in Western arcades.
All THREE F-Zero GBA games struggled to sell 250k together on GBA globally.
F-Zero Anime was canceled in both NA and EU after 4 episodes.
The market has soundly rejected a full F-Zero game 5 times now and the series has acquired the stigma of being rehashed.
Right now VR is so hit or miss anything would be a big gamble. For me Nintendo has a whole lot more to worry about than rather to VR or not to VR.
The most important thing is getting the console right. If VR can be implemented later because the future of it looks bright then add it, but all this don't mean a damn thing if the console is "wrong".
Hardware aside I bet Nintendo could make awesome VR games
@Yorumi
You obviously misremember when GCN and SNES first few years.
The biggest complaint about the SNES first two years was too many rehashes and iterative sequels. It was all the talk in 1991 and 1992 about how Nintendo was relying on nostalgia and rehashes to sell the SNES.
Gaming magazines were constantly running articles on how Sega was doing new and creative stuff with gaming, while Nintendo was using new graphics to hide the lack of creativity in their games.
It was also widely reported on how Nintendo refused to use an industry standard controller for SNES and added a bunch of then gimmicks.
I lived the 16-bit WARS and had magazine subscriptions.
Sega marketed heavily on now Nintendo was being unoriginal with it's games on SNES and resorting to gimmicks to beat them.
There was a good amount of criticism of Nintendo 64 for being gimmicky and stale when it came to Nintendo's output.
The first year of Gamecube cemented the stigma of Nintendo "playing it safe" and rehashing everything from N64. Then Sunshine, Star Fox Adventures, Windwaker, Animal Crossing, Pikmin etc.... were using gimmicks to sell games.
It was the media narrative and listed in all the reviews.
Gamecube was either a massive rehash or a massive gimmick depending on the month.
DS and Wii have the stigma of having a bunch of "ruined" Nintendo and gimmicky games.
Mario Kart Wii was widely hated for horrible gameplay, Brawl was hated for being gimmicky, Skyward Sword was hated for being a horrible game etc...
Wii U and 3DS is constantly be reported as ignoring the wishes of gamers and fans, while focusing on being too "different".
All of Nintendo's mainline releases on Wii U and 3DS are regularly called out for ignoring the wishes of fans and deviating too far the staple gameplay even on this site.
It's literally all the press has been reporting since 2011.
Right now the media is reporting on how Nintendo betrayed everyone with the Smash Ballot and ignored what everyone wanted.
Nintendo said they made sure to fix all the criticisms gamers and the media and with their DS and Wii games when they made 3DS and Wii U iterations.
This is why the 3DS and Wii U iterations are viewed as return to form and glory.
As for NSMB:
NSMB DS released on May 15th 2006 in NA
NSMB Wii released on November 15th 2009 in NA (3.5 years after the DS game)
NSMB 2 3DS released on August 19th 2012 (3.7 years after the Wii game).
NSMBU obviously released a few months later, but it was made by a different team at the same time.
All are good solid games.
The release schedule of NSMB series is longer than the release of the first 4 mainline Mario games, which were normally 2 year part in NA and EU.
Nintendo claims they kept NSMB series iterative, because they kept getting a big backlash everytime they did something new and radical with sales taking a hit.
NSMB 2 was purposely conservative, because it was new team who was afraid of being hated for making it too different.
The 3DS and Wii U versions are generally the highest reviewed versions/iterations ever, blowing all their predecessors away by far. Especially the Gamecube, GBA, DS, and Wii versions
VRoomed!
Neither. The market needs good games, not gimmicks.
@MarioPhD yeah everything you said
@Yorumi
I never said that.
The released dates I posted are right.
You literally cannot get and posted scans of old gaming magazines with their articles due to them not existing and due to copyright.
You cannot get old Sega ads unless they were posted to YouTube.
I lived during the 16 bit era reading gaming magazines and buying games.
I posted the actual released dates for every NSMB in NA from Wikipedia.
NSMB WII literally released 3.5 years after the DS game to date.
NSMB 2 literally released 3.7 years after the Wii game
NSMBU literally released 3 months later on Wii U
All of this is in NA.
Super Mario Bros 1 released in different cities in NA, in the second half of 1985.
There is no concrete released date.
Super Mario Bros 2 USA released in NA on July 10th 1987, ~2 years after SMB.
Super Mario Bros. 3 released February 12, 1990 according to Nintendo.
This is 2 years 7 months and 2 days after SMB2 released in NA.
Super Mario world released on August 23, 1991 the day SNES launched in NA.
This 1 year, 6 months and 11 days after Super Mario Bros. 3 launched in NA.
As for Wii U iterations of IP according to Metacritc:
Smash Bros Wii U 92 - tied with Melee, 1 point lower than Brawl despite all the complaints, massively better than the horribly reviewed 64 game.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii-u/super-smash-bros-for-wii-u
Mario Kart 8 has a review 88 on Metacritic which is higher than every console Mario Kart in Metacritic history.
Mario Kart 7 also beats every console Mario Kart in Metacritic score except for the Wii U game.
Only Super Circuit and DS score higher.
The Wii U and 3DS versions have the higher user review scores too.
We have all the reviews praising Nintendo for returning form and glory with most of their installments on Wii U and 3DS. It's literally in the reviews even from this site.
Go read the reviews.
We have NeoGaf, which is officially the Nexus of Hardcore Gaming is used as a source for every site in terms of gaming news including this one.
We have plenty of articles from the gaming media, including this infamous article from IGN in 2014 complaining that Splatoon isn't another platformer from an established IP. http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/08/18/gamescom-2014-splatoon-why-i-wish-it-was-a-different-game
We even mainstream media, Pachter and others complaining about Nintendo which this site posts all the time, especially Pachter.
All you've posted is personal opinion complaining about everything, trying to pass it off as fact.
You have no proof that everyone hates these 3DS and Wii U for being uncreative while loving DS and Wii for being creative and original
I never said the PS4 was horrible, nor did say anything bad about the competition other than their marketing is borderline deceitful and that their systems only sell AAA blockbuster, M-rated games, and realistic sports and racers and nothing else, which is backed by NPD and other sales charts.
By the way I have posted numerous links, but you probably ignored them.
Now the most famous editorial from the Wii and DS era from Matt C. before he left IGN.
NINTENDO IS LAZY AND YOU DON'T CARE from Matt. C. at IGN.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2009/12/11/column-nintendo-is-lazy-and-you-dont-care
He goes on about graphics and the Wii and DS iterations being nothing but lazy rehashes.
Now if you want to post links about how everyone hates 3DS and Wii U software offerings go ahead (I can post article hating on Splatoon).
Nintendo needs to get their ducks in a row before they start working with VR. They need to concentrate on making NX consumer friendly and the best it can be. Sure they can make it VR compatible, but they should in no way bundle it with the system. They can let Sony test the waters before releasing their own headset.
Nintendo won't be the one to bring VR to the mainstream though, if anyone that'll be Sony. This is simply due to the number of PS4s in homes and the fact that all of those systems will be able to run PSVR. Oculus will be on the cutting edge of VR as PC usually is, while PSVR will be for the mass market as consoles usually are. Adding to this is the number of games being built with PS VR(or VR in general) in mind: Driveclub, Until Dawn, No Man's Sky, Ace Combat 7, Gran Turismo Sport, Robinson: The Journey, etc. It's looking like games won't be an issue for VR and the deciding factor will be price point. The most likely scenario is that, at least with PSVR, Sony will sell the systems at a loss and make the money back on software in an attempt to lay the groundwork for the user base. Xbox is really screwed for the rest of this generation, as the Oculus features for the system are a total joke. So it's really coming down to Sony to bring people into VR.
I'd love to see a VR headset from Nintendo though. I'd imagine they'd do a lot of fun stuff with the tech. But Nintendo really needs to get its act together before this is even viable.
We're really talking about this again? I know you need X amount of clicks per day Nintendo Life but this is getting silly.
Ah back when Nintendo and Sega use to do VR. Now it seem that time will repeat itself again this generation. You could tell Sega was doing VR the correct way until they backed out.
@XCWarrior agree with your points on VR
I owned the Virtual boy at one time and all of the games on it were hollow polygon 3-D graphic games. Keep in mind that was a time when 3-D graphics were first occurring. Now 3D iis almost the standard except for indy pixel art. The only thing that makes me think Nintendo might ever consider VR is Miyamoto's infatuation with it.
@Yorumi
I remember properly because I had to fight to get an SNES. I was literally given the engineering version of how the Genesis was superior hardware. I come from a family of engineers. I also remember my gaming mags and all the ads ran by Sega. None of us kids were stupid enough to admit to owning an SNES lest you be made fun of herein the U.S. Midwest.
Nintendo and the industry are just as creative as they were on 8-bit and 16-bit era.
It's hard to turnout new innovations and creativity when it was driven by new CPUs and GPUs that added loads of new features. It also saw new gimmicks which became industry standards on the controller.
If you count the lack of truly new IPs as a lack of creativity, then you have a point.
But that's not developers fault that the consumers refuse to buy new IPs and stick with established brands and IPs.
New gameplay is done within existing franchises and IPs because it's guaranteed to sell enough to recoup the investments.
The consumers are the very reason why the selection in gaming has radically decreased over the pasted decade. The majority of Consumers want more of the same and will give you hell if you change anything. This is in most industries now.
Nintendo and others have a set number of employees to work on products. As gaming becomes more complex they require more resources. This leaves less resources for new untested ideas. Nintendo only has ~5,300 employees.
It's hard to produce new IPs and creativity when the bulk of your resources are used to make the staples that the majority constantly demand. They bring in the money that funds everything else.
If there was as much money to be made with new IPs and creativity, then the industry would embrace it. Sadly it's more expensive and risky to launch new IPs and creative games than to release an iteration of a successful product.
NPD and the gaming companies interview consumers, focus test, send surveys etc... To get feedback from consumers. They also use forum posts and article comments too:
To put it quite simply it's better to produce a new version of Call of Duty than risk driving away the consumers on something new and untested.
I'm sorry if I came across as rude, I wasn't meaning too.
But to be fair you complain on a regular basis on news articles.
The result would be a disaster. Nintendo- would just fixate on that technology instead of going back to the basics on what makes a good game. The obsession with 3D is the reason why the Virtual Boy, Nintendo- 64, GameCube , and 3DS failed. (The Nintendo- Revolution, despite having 3D graphics, made great games that expanded the audience, hence the Nintendo- revolution did not fail in its early years.)
Funny, I came across NintendoLife's survey yesterday and was glad to admit how little VR mattered to me.
VR needs software support if it's ever going to take off, as you can see above Sony already has over 200 developer's signed-up to support VR. This is one area I cannot see Nintendo doing very well in, Nintendo already struggle's with 3rd party support for there console never mind a VR headset. There is also another factor Nintendo would need to consider, VR is not going to take off over night something Sony & others are fully aware of. The only time Nintendo would jump in is when its cheap enough to make & to sell to families, which again is a fair few years off yet.
VR is the future, and you can either adjust or get left behind.
Oculus Rift ships with 2 games included. One of which is a 3rd person platform adventure...
NX will support Oculus Rift. Why else you think Facebook was hosting a Mario Maker competition in their office? They were in negotiation with Nintendo since last year.
Those who think that VR is a passing fad has obviously never tried it. Have you seen the people who tried PS VR or the Rift? The excitement is like the first time they played with Wii motion-controller. You don't see that enthusiasm with Google Glass, Apple Watch or those recent tech releases. It's easy to see if a product will fail or succeed by observing the reaction of people.
@Xenocity The SNES was not inferior to the Sega Genesis. And your opinions about the system and its REVOLUTIONARY controller are, at best, anecdotal and worst, entirely distorted to suit your arguments.
VR is also never going to be a popular gaming standard - it will certainly never be mainstream. It's a lonely, dark, head-ache inducing experience that EXCLUDES others from play. The Wii U has already demonstrated that, for most people, asymmetrical gaming simply isn't a particularly novel or enjoyable experience. Like with one player using a Game Pad, and all others using a Wii remote - VR segregates one player from the others and gives off the vibe a solitary experience, even when others are involved. Mark my words: it will never catch on. And Sony will lose a lot of money on their venture.
VR is going to be important in many other areas of business/military/law enforcement etc but I don't see it becoming huge for home gaming; I see it being a niche market at best. One of the biggest issues is the sense of movement, people especailly in Asia and Europe do not have the space to wander around without tripping over something or hitting a wall.
@Yorumi Not in 2006, Nintendo made it mainstream even before iPhone was launched. Microsoft and Sony's effort in motion control is a disaster, turning it into a useless gimmick.
@Mr_Zurkon
You are talking about Hive, with other VR devices you don't need to move around physically.
Also, with VR all the 3DS games are compatible. VR requires the game to rendered twice just like 3DS for left and right eye (hence the high system requirement). Nintendo always make sure their new hardware is backward compatible to previous generation. They made the WiiU compatible to DS with 2 screen, but with 3DS games they can't expect everyone to own a 3D TV. The only solution is VR.
@Yorumi It made Wii the best selling console of the previous generation. Why would Nintendo care about a few years down the road? They will come out with another console with another technology.
@Nintendian Yes I know that. Sedentary experiences are going be extremely limiting for gaming and HTC's solution while an improvement leads to the space issue.
@Yorumi Fad is something fab but the b turned into d quickly.
VR is not just about games, it really is about experiences. It is so immersive that you feel you are there. Even the movie industry wants to be apart of it, the suspension of disbelief has always been the goal of movies. Even the most jaded movie fans will suspend their disbelief. For games, you are not longer looking at a screen: you are inside the game. You won't understand it until you tried it and you will know it is not a fad.
@Yorumi Motion sickness is caused by incompetent developer who didn't know how to implement it. You should try proper demos, those that are done well won't cause motion sickness. The consumer version of Oculus Rift will run the games at 90 fps with sync on (in addition to rendering twice), that will definitely stop motion sickness from happening.
@Yorumi This time it will be different. Do you know how many companies are backing VR? Not just Facebook or Sony, Google and Apple are building their own VR devices. Hollywood and Hornywood are backing it too. When Hornywood backs a format you can be sure it will be mainstream. Look at VCR, DVD, Blurray, video streaming, etc.
@Nintendian So it will be an overcrowded market, another reason not to do it then
Let the others work the kinks out, let them see if it will really take off and isn't a flash in the pan (Like motion controls turned out to be) and Nintendo can just make cool games that people want to play...
With shiggy incharge VR is best left alone. Because all you will get is crapy mii based games like VR party, VR music, VR resort.
All they need on the next console is ingame party chat!
I would absolutely love to inhabit Hyrule or Zebes just as much as anyone, but I'm wary of Nintendo's approach to VR at this point.
Somewhat relatedly, I'd like to see Nintendo try to be innovative with its games, rather than with its hardware. It strikes me as self-defeating that they've come up with tiresome new gimmicks for its last couple platforms, only to produce the most conservative franchise games for them. To me, the success of the Wii seems like an accident; for what it was, it should have been as big a failure as the Wii U.
Wow, and big companies have never joined up on various "NEXT BIG IDEAS" only to fail miserably. cough Big Wall Street Banks cough Big Pharma cough Late 90s .com Boom cough
Just because Facebook, Sony, Google, Hollywood or Apple are backing it, doesn't mean it's going to automatically succeed where everyone else failed. These are mostly companies that have lots of spare money to fritter away in high-risk investments - in pet projects, if you will.
I bet Nintendo would call it "VS"
Or 4DVS
@Nintendian DVD became the standard because Sony and Phillips worked together to avoid another format war. Sony led the way in Blu-Ray as well by releasing the PS3 with built in Blu-Ray player and releasing their vast movie catalog on Blu-Ray. Porn famously helped settle the VHS/BETA wars.
Man they should bring back Bad Influence! Best game show EVER!!!!
But seriously. Virtual reality is a dead duck.
Finding a way to adapt the technology for integration into video gaming is possible and if anyone can find a way to make it work on a social level and suitable for extended use and remain fun, it's Nintendo.
Oculus will not grab mainstream video game market attention in the long run. Researching a way to make it applicable to video gaming might be interesting
I think the solution is for nintendo to arrange a deal with Sony to make the PSVR compatible with the NX, as it would allow Nintendo to create VR titles while also boosting the headset's value and saving us from buying two different headsets unnecessarily.
@MarkyVigoroth Lol are you seriously saying that the reason Nintendo's consoles have mostly sold mediocre-ly is because they use 3D graphics??
If Google are onboard it will definitely succeed!! Just look at how Google Glass caught on...
VR as it sits today definitely has many good, practical applications but I think the cons are too many and varied for it to ever become a mainstream gaming standard
@banacheck 200 developers with over 100 titles for PlayStation VR? As cool as VR is, having over 100 Call of Duties on it is not something I would want to spend my entire generation on.
I don't care for what indies have to offer in respect to VR gaming. Great VR games can only be made with a big budget, and I can only see VR succeeding based on the merits of AAA titles.
I'd definitely be on board once a true VR Grand Theft Auto experience is available. I think a Sims-style game (let's face it, EA are taking this once great franchise to its grave) where we can design our own buildings and then explore them and interact with characters that we design ourselves would be absolutely incredible. I think a Watch_Dogs style game in VR would also be pretty fantastic. Despite its flaws, it's one of my favourite Wii U games.
The downside of course is that mental illness and social ineptitude will rise exponentially (if it wasn't rising enough already!) and the harms of long term use of VR technology are yet to be known and studied. We are looking at a technological breakthrough never before seen to this degree in human history, and that's a rather scary thought when you reflect upon it.
@wariowarewolf Eeyup, though that is not the whole story. They fixated on 3D at the expense of everything else. They served themselves instead of their customers. The Nintendo- DS had 3D graphics, but the console only started selling when Nintendo- tried to expand its audience through the Touch! Generations Series.
Here's why Nintendo won't jump onto VR any time soon:
Money.
They wouldn't pony up the money to make Wii or Wii-U comparable with their current gen counterparts. The DS and 3DS, while great, each felt a generation behind their PSP counterparts. To get Occulus to run right you need a current-gen PC with crazy stats, so I wouldn't expect Nintendo to get into VR for two system generations unless they embark on a completely different financial philosophy.
I'm sure Nintendo developers would do awesome, fun, and social things with VR if given the chance. Their "VR isn't social" is a smokescreen for not wanting to risk the amount of money it would take.
Currently VR is too expensive for Nintendo to get involved in. The big N are renown for extreme cost cutting on every device they've ever made and a refusal to follow technical standards in play around the world so their VR product would end up a mess and on the scrapheap.
If Nintendo developed VR games for Occulus or Vive I'd imagine the experience would be AAA.
I barley remember the Virtual boy at this point...
@Xenocity I know I complain a lot. But I've been unhappy with a lot of Nintendo's decisions this generation. And clearly my thoughts more accurately reflect the general gaming population, as Nintendo has only sold like 1/13 of WiiUs compared to Wiis. Nintendo needs to find something that is their own, and that people think they have to have. I'm not sure right now if they have the ability do that. Copying VR is not the way to go.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...