• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Nintendo asks what's next for the next innovation from Nintendo, I think the Nintendo Switch is the innovation to last for years.

cireza

Member
Jun 1, 2014
8,983
8,445
770
The Wii U gamepad is a heavy brick that is not "ergonomical" in the leas
Wii U Gamepad is very comfortable to hold and offers a good quality experience. The Switch is one the least comfortable console I have used in my life. No D-Pad. Buttons and sticks vertically aligned (this is so bad I don't understand how it got validated). And of course drift and disconnecting joycons. Poorest experience I had with controllers.
As for the "shitty dock", Switch docked takes up less space and has more power, and is entirely optional
Explain to me how you display the picture on the TV without the dock.

Recognizing the console's flaws is a necessary step for improvement.
 

bender

Bending Rodríguez (22, 1,729)
Apr 12, 2010
11,606
20,020
1,480
One of my Wii U triggers squeaked like crazy so it was a miserable experience and it wasn't like you could easily run out and buy a replacement. Joy Cons are a nifty evolution of the concept but poor executed from an ergonomic standpoint and the hardware is deeply flawed. I'm really not expecting the new switch to address those problems as I can't imagine it not being compatible with existing controllers. I also think people are setting themselves up for disappointment as far as what the horsepower bump will be like.
 

futurama78

Banned
Feb 18, 2021
198
49
125
Well they know if they get the right form factor it’s like Apple. The notch and no home button is not really better? So like, low tech it’s a guessing game. This tech it’s a fools errand and kills Nintendo innovation. So like well I guess we’ll need a Switch 2 but the Wii U was quite different so like I guess they need to innovate in games but like hardware yo so like 16 years until alien tech and ps9 and nintendo x?
 
Last edited:

Celine

Member
Oct 4, 2009
12,717
288
1,035
Maybe Nintendo could, gasp, do the unthinkable and have two consoles (in the sense of two different line of consoles) on the market around the same time in the future.
One that continue the traditional line of the Switch (though today it is regarded as innovative) and another one that try to open up a new gaming segment with a wild new concept.
 
Last edited:

bender

Bending Rodríguez (22, 1,729)
Apr 12, 2010
11,606
20,020
1,480
Maybe Nintendo could, gasp, do the unthinkable and have two consoles (in the sense of two different line of consoles) on the market around the same time in the future.
One that continue the traditional line of the Switch (though today it is regarded as innovative) and another one that try to open up a new gaming segment with a wild new concept.

While I hate that idea (unified Nintendo development on a single platform is what most excited me about Switch), even it that were in the cards we'd be looking at 2023 at the soonest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zannegan

Silvawuff

Member
Mar 9, 2012
2,804
799
910
I think the reason Nintendo tends to frustrate people on the western front is that their values and culture (as they are a very Japanese company where that culture is important) is completely different from our expectations. "Innovation" to them doesn't mean the cutting-edge-what's-next hardware wise. It's gaming engagement. I'm definitely not defending some of their hamfisted business practices here, but I'm grasping at understanding why they operate differently with different goalposts as a company. Case in point, check out this Japanese Nintendo commercial:


As you can see, the big narrative push is families coming together to game. Contrast that to the western front where it's mostly a diversionary thing that adults give to children to not engage with them. I know I'm coming from a very perfunctory angle here, but I believe the primary reason that Nintendo doesn't innovate to us is because they aren't trying to. They're catering to two different markets with different values in the gaming sphere, and we tend to only see hardware innovation when it becomes necessity. I think they found a good middle ground with the Switch and hope they continue to build on it like the DS line.
 

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
13,583
5,395
1,745
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
i would love that, but i dont think nintendo is ready for 4k native now. i hope they experiment with 1440p, HDR and higher framerates.
I think what they include in Switch Pro (if it ever exists) it's a chip like the PS4 Pro one to upscale games to 4K using checkerboard or similar. I don't see Nintendo using native 4K in this generation or in the next one. Same goes with allowing a higher framerate than 60fps.

I think the reason Nintendo tends to frustrate people on the western front is that their values and culture (as they are a very Japanese company where that culture is important) is completely different from our expectations. "Innovation" to them doesn't mean the cutting-edge-what's-next hardware wise.
They don't use cutting-edge hardware to reduce costs and be more profitable, that's all. Their fans still buy Nintendo stuff, so it's ok for them.
 
Last edited:

Reality Czar

Banned
Feb 16, 2021
1,913
4,134
385
Hmm. You may be right there in many ways. Americans are much more alienated from their families. The corporate media-state establishment has a vested interested in alienated people from each other. It wants everyone to be an individual (slave to consumerism) and to pursue freedom (slavery to consumerism) instead of having a family. In a broader way it wants to keep people divided, and destroying the nuclear family was one of the founding goals of the much-publicized BLM. The media loves to report on parents and children turning against one another, how freedom is more important than family, the usual corporate Death Cult values. Japan is a much more traditional society, alienation is more discouraged there, working together has always been a thing, the "Salary Man" being a classic archetype. Nintendo does a ton of sales in Japan and has the market cornered, so it is logical they would go for a more Japan-friendly market.

I bought the Labo VR set because Labo just seemed cool, but expensive, and then one day they announced you will be able to play through all of BOTW with a $40 experimental VR set. I jumped at this and loved it. Yes, I don't use it often, but I don't use my Oculus Rift that often either. They are luxuries and curiosities. VR is the state of the art in entertainment, and everything is early access at this point. At any rate, outside of the low resolution, I found the experience incredible, and comparable to both Google Cardboard and Oculus. Nintendo did not innovate here in the sense of making the most powerful VR, but offering a sub-$50 option is quite an advance for the marketplace acceptability in the long run. Plus there are all the other Labo kits, which are quite innovative, stretching the definition of game and reality, of learning and playing. The very tactile nature of it all is very cool, and falls in line with the Nintendo tradition of creating toys.

Yes, Serious Gamers will flinch at this term. Toys. I like it. I mean these are games you are "playing". We aren't accomplishing anything here, just pure entertainment, let's be real. But gaming can offer many experiences. We have everything from hyper realistic cinematic zombie shooters to Pixar-style platformers. I think gaming is advanced enough to offer a wide palette of values. There isn't a set "Video Game Values" that objectively exists. The studios and devs will come out with material, some selling more than others, and the nature of the industry is under constant ebb and flow. I disagree that Nintendo has shown a lack of innovation.

Recently I bought Ring Fit and that is another very interesting and experimental release, catered this time not just to kids but primarily to parents and adults. The controller is a compression wheel and your legs. Yes, it has been done before, but this is pretty great stuff. To innovate you don't have to just be the first to do something. You have to do it well, you have to expand the market. Nintendo does both. This is a big hit title, and it is a videogame that is actually good for physical body. I wouldn't mind seeing more of these.

As an America, I grew up with an Atari 7800, it mostly playing used 2600 games. I had to suffer with Pac-Man and E.T. and other western developed games, including a flood of cheaply developed trash, and basically play the same 80s arcade style games for the rest of the console generation. When Nintendo first came along, they got a lot of flack, as they always do, for their "Nintendo" way of doing things. They had strict rules for developers and the seal of approval, when the NES first shipment of units failed, they offered free repairs, putting customer service ahead of profits. At the time, people said Nintendo should just allow anyone to make games for the NES, and there were lawsuits about this. Meanwhile Atari games flooded store shelves at $1 a piece fire sales. Nintendo kept quality control on the NES because of their particular way of operating. Like it or not, it has served them well in the past and will continue to do so.
 
Last edited:

FStubbs

Member
Aug 29, 2010
5,146
1,308
1,045
I think the reason Nintendo tends to frustrate people on the western front is that their values and culture (as they are a very Japanese company where that culture is important) is completely different from our expectations. "Innovation" to them doesn't mean the cutting-edge-what's-next hardware wise. It's gaming engagement. I'm definitely not defending some of their hamfisted business practices here, but I'm grasping at understanding why they operate differently with different goalposts as a company. Case in point, check out this Japanese Nintendo commercial:


As you can see, the big narrative push is families coming together to game. Contrast that to the western front where it's mostly a diversionary thing that adults give to children to not engage with them. I know I'm coming from a very perfunctory angle here, but I believe the primary reason that Nintendo doesn't innovate to us is because they aren't trying to. They're catering to two different markets with different values in the gaming sphere, and we tend to only see hardware innovation when it becomes necessity. I think they found a good middle ground with the Switch and hope they continue to build on it like the DS line.
I don't think it's a Japanese mindset, as Sony is also (or was) a Japanese console maker as well. I think it's a toy company's mindset. And at the end of the day, Nintendo is a toy company.
 

Reality Czar

Banned
Feb 16, 2021
1,913
4,134
385
Sony has been in the international market since the 1950s. Reaching out to partners in other markets like USA for developing transistors and all kinds of electronics. Compared to Sony, yes Nintendo is a Japan-centric toy company. That's fine. You play with toys. You play with games. It shouldn't' even be an insult. But whatever.

Yes read the history. Sony had been selling consumer electronics in America and internationally for decades before Nintendo opened their New York office in 1979. Nintendo's first big break into America was mid-80s with the NES. They reigned dominant for around a decade with Sony staying out of the picture. But once Sony entered the console market as a competitor, with their already established marketing/business relationships, they quickly had success. Then Microsoft entered, an ever bigger fish, and they swallowed more of a market. Nintendo's share shrank, excepting the worldwide phenom bubble of innovation that was the Wii.

It is no surprise that larger companies with longer international business histories will be doing more AAA and higher-end products. Microsoft has had a monopoly on computers around the world for nearly half a century. Nintendo is a small fish comparatively. Luckily the market is free enough to offer us several alternatives, and as Nintendo finds themselves in a somewhat enviable position of dominating the Japan market, it makes perfect business sense to gear your operation around that. People around the world seem to eat it up, so why not? They have a hit on their hands, clearly.
 
Last edited:

Woopah

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,782
1,972
410
Sony has been in the international market since the 1950s. Reaching out to partners in other markets like USA for developing transistors and all kinds of electronics. Compared to Sony, yes Nintendo is a Japan-centric toy company. That's fine. You play with toys. You play with games. It shouldn't' even be an insult. But whatever.

Yes read the history. Sony had been selling consumer electronics in America and internationally for decades before Nintendo opened their New York office in 1979. Nintendo's first big break into America was mid-80s with the NES. They reigned dominant for around a decade with Sony staying out of the picture. But once Sony entered the console market as a competitor, with their already established marketing/business relationships, they quickly had success. Then Microsoft entered, an ever bigger fish, and they swallowed more of a market. Nintendo's share shrank, excepting the worldwide phenom bubble of innovation that was the Wii.

It is no surprise that larger companies with longer international business histories will be doing more AAA and higher-end products. Microsoft has had a monopoly on computers around the world for nearly half a century. Nintendo is a small fish comparatively. Luckily the market is free enough to offer us several alternatives, and as Nintendo finds themselves in a somewhat enviable position of dominating the Japan market, it makes perfect business sense to gear your operation around that. People around the world seem to eat it up, so why not? They have a hit on their hands, clearly.
Nintendo's strategy hasn't really been Japan-centic with Switch. A big factor in it's success is that its software and hardware appeals in a wide variety of people/geographies.

Especially for this Pro revision I think it will be much more helpful in the West than in Japan. In terms of the port/multiplats that are possible on Switch Pro but not possible on Switch, there are way more being made by Western publishers than Japanese publishers.
 

MegaZoneEX

Member
May 30, 2013
563
874
810
soundcloud.com
Their weathered technology philosophy makes it easy to find out where they will go next in innovation. Tablets were the technology that became the most obvious progression in mobile and handheld gaming.

It's possible AR could be the "3DS" succession to Switch (ala SwitchAR) as it is quite easy to produce thanks to the phone industry.

Home console gaming is a tricking one as Nintendo and its IPs now want more power, more graphics, and modern higher fidelity. This contradicts their philosophy. It inevitable that they will need to focus on power (look at the latest Pokemon legend for example, in fact, Pokemon graphical progression lives alongside Nintendo hardware power) later but very soon.

Mario and Zelda want more power, and franchises like Metroid and Mario Kart will need even more.

Nintendo knows this for several years, but intentionally slows down to benefit from old (weathered) technology. Slow and steady.
 
Last edited:

Rudius

Member
Feb 19, 2020
1,029
2,380
360
To me an innovation only matters if it lasts. The D-pad and analog stick fit the criteria. However, many of Nintendo's innovations over the years were abandoned by them: two screens, no glasses 3D, screen on the controller and I'd say motion controls as well; they are still there in the joycons, but are not used anymore (motion controls only work as they really should in VR imo). A dockeble portable system seemed to be a very good innovation, but the Switch Lite dropped that. The last successful innovation they implemented was touch screen, but even in this case what stuck was the capacity no stytus touch of Apple.
 

MagnesG

Member
Apr 20, 2019
3,074
2,434
515
I'd say motion controls as well; they are still there in the joycons, but are not used anymore (motion controls only work as they really should in VR imo).
What do you mean by not using them anymore, we have plethora of genres using motions controls - fitness (Ringfit, Boxing + ARMS), rhythm and party games Switch ver tons of them, most of Nintendo titles (Mario Party, BOTW, Odyssey etc.) and lastly almost all of games that includes shooting would include motion aiming.

And Splatoon 2 which used full motion control sold 10 mil now, sequel next year. Basically motion controls are here to stay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zannegan

RCU005

Member
Nov 9, 2016
611
1,099
540
I think Nintendo's next console it's just going to be a better iteration of the Switch, just like how it was with DS and 3DS.
 

Sub Boss

Member
Mar 6, 2013
22,840
2,683
795
Sure, Nintendo pretty much has to stick with the hybrid model now, its proven to be more successful than 3DS+Wii U.

However, what happens if Switch U doesn’t sell that well? 😳
 

Rudius

Member
Feb 19, 2020
1,029
2,380
360
What do you mean by not using them anymore, we have plethora of genres using motions controls - fitness (Ringfit, Boxing + ARMS), rhythm and party games Switch ver tons of them, most of Nintendo titles (Mario Party, BOTW, Odyssey etc.) and lastly almost all of games that includes shooting would include motion aiming.

And Splatoon 2 which used full motion control sold 10 mil now, sequel next year. Basically motion controls are here to stay.
I mean the Wii type of motion controls. Gyro aiming is a much more subtle thing. Mario Odissey does not incorporate motion to the same degree as Galaxy, in Splatoon you don't aim pointing like in Metroid Prime 3 and in Zelda you don't move the joycons to attack like in Skyward Sword. The fitness games you mentioned use Wii style motion controls, but during the Wii time the most important Nintendo games also used them. In the new games you press buttons.
 
Last edited:

MagnesG

Member
Apr 20, 2019
3,074
2,434
515
I mean the Wii type of motion controls. Gyro aiming is a much more subtle thing. Mario Odissey does not incorporate motion to the same degree as Galaxy, in Splatoon you don't aim pointing like in Metroid Prime 3 and in Zelda you don't move the joycons to attack like in Skyward Sword. The fitness games you mentioned use Wii style motion controls, but during the Wii time the most important Nintendo games also used them. In the new games you press buttons.
Of course the implementation would be slightly different due to new controller build, with new gen gimmicks. The tech would stay though, and continue being used.

Now we only need VR to be wholefully viable to the public, then motion controls would come back in full swing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zannegan and EDMIX

Rudius

Member
Feb 19, 2020
1,029
2,380
360
Of course the implementation would be slightly different due to new controller build, with new gen gimmicks. The tech would stay though, and continue being used.

Now we only need VR to be wholefully viable to the public, then motion controls would come back in full swing.
In flat you could say motion is a gimmick, an extra, even though I like gyro aiming, but for VR motion controls are an integral part and I'd say it is the only place where their potential can be fully realized. When you swing the sword in Skyward Sword the caracter mimics the motion on the TV, but there is a disconnect. However, in a VR game like Shadow Legend VR you see the sword in your hand, at the size you would expect and the movements are one to one; the same happens for guns. It works as it should.

It's like the analog stick: old consoles like the Vectrex and some arcades had it in the 80s, but only in the transition to 3D graphics by the N64 gen it became essential and stayed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndrewRyan