• 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.

Analysis Platform Why is it only Nintendo's new IPs that "don't count"?

JoeyWestSide

Member
Aug 20, 2018
622
299
355
Rio Rancho, NM
If you're counting 3rd party with Astral chain ms had tons of new IP this gen: quantum break, ryse, SoT, Sunset, (super lucky's tale?). Just cause they aren't great doesn't exclude them from new. Same in Nintendo case with arms, labo and ring fit. People champion smaller indie, A/AA games but list making only AAA first party count? People are dumb.
 

Fbh

Member
Dec 6, 2013
15,653
11,447
1,070
Because over half of those are low budget indie tier stuff that generally doesn't get put next to big releases? With the exception that things like 1-2 Switch would be a $15 downloadable title on every other platform but it's a $60 retail game on Switch...because Nintendo.

It's not some evil conspiracy. It's literally the same thing that happens to every other dev/publisher/console maker.
Talk to people about the new IP's introduced by Sony this gen. Guess what? Most people will talk about Horizon, Days Gone or Bloodborne and not Drawn to Death, That's You!, Matterfall, Bound, Alienation, The Tomorrow Children and Knowledge is Power.

OMG so many new IP's by Sony, why isn't anyone giving them an award?
 

Rayderism

Member
Mar 4, 2017
755
502
400
Cleveland, Ohio
Even though Nintendo says they've shed the mantra that they are a kiddie system, many people most likely still hold that opinion about them. (I'll admit, I one of those people) That might be why any new IP's they come up with tend to not get much attention. The Nintendo loyal eat them up, but most people who are into PS4/Xbox either don't know about them or don't care.
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
Mar 22, 2017
16,176
25,740
1,075
but most people who are into PS4/Xbox either don't know about them or don't care.
You do know there are people like me who do own both PS4 and Switch....right? I like what Nintendo makes because they are simply fun games to play, if liking games like Xenoblade and Luigi's Mansion makes me "kiddie" then thats fine by me, I rather be that than a person who tries too hard to comes off "mature" person.
 

Aldric

Member
Feb 15, 2016
1,096
407
460
Because over half of those are low budget indie tier stuff that generally doesn't get put next to big releases?

Sure but they're still new IPs. The question the OP asked was why Nintendo's new IPs "don't count" and that answer is interesting because it basically implies Nintendo isn't taken seriously because they don't make big budgets AAA cinematic emotional experiences or whatever the fuck Sony churns out now.

I mean why does budget matter? Shouldn't you be looking at the quality and creativity of the game and how it improves a library's variety? Some of Microsoft's best games this gen were relatively low budget indie style games like Cuphead and Ori and their big budget releases sort of stunk in comparison.
 

EightBit Man

Member
Jun 13, 2019
2,663
4,813
475
The Netherlands
Even though Nintendo says they've shed the mantra that they are a kiddie system, many people most likely still hold that opinion about them. (I'll admit, I one of those people) That might be why any new IP's they come up with tend to not get much attention. The Nintendo loyal eat them up, but most people who are into PS4/Xbox either don't know about them or don't care.

I get what you're saying. Though it depends on what you mean by loyal of course. Loyal being a Nintendo customer since the 80s onwards, or since the Wii-era? Because I think Nintendo caters too much to the family-friendly stance of the latter's era. I've asked this before: where are the exclusive deals of new or highly regarded mature and popular franchises? (Resident Evil, GoldenEye 007, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Killer Instinct, DOOM 64, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, Geist, etc.).

Again, not saying Splatoon for instance, is a bad game - it is even great. But when you rely almost exclusively on content excluding generations who like to see more mature, "serious" content from Nintendo itself on Switch, you're not going to find much (outside of the Bayonettas, Astral Chains, No More Heroes, DAEMON X MACHINAS, and a couple of others).

And yes, we can thank our great friend Reggie for that; he pretty much undid Nintendo's close relationships with third-parties from the start of his tenure at Nintendo of America. He basically undid everything Howard Lincoln built over the decades.

The Switch is a great platform if you like JRPGs, ports of classics games, overall great ports of modern classics, handheld (though inferior) versions of today's games, and Nintendo's own output (which again is playing almost exclusively to the family).
 
Last edited:

Fbh

Member
Dec 6, 2013
15,653
11,447
1,070
Sure but they're still new IPs. The question the OP asked was why Nintendo's new IPs "don't count" and that answer is interesting because it basically implies Nintendo isn't taken seriously because they don't make big budgets AAA cinematic emotional experiences or whatever the fuck Sony churns out now.

I mean why does budget matter? Shouldn't you be looking at the quality and creativity of the game and how it improves a library's variety? Some of Microsoft's best games this gen were relatively low budget indie style games like Cuphead and Ori and their big budget releases sort of stunk in comparison.

All of that is irrelevant. The topic of budget related to how "important" a release is considered to be is a topic for another thread (and something that's not exclusive to games. Look at the reactions to the next mediocre Marvel movie compared to the next low budget indie movie).

The premise of the thread is that poor Nintendo is treated differently to everyone else because their low budget new Ip's aren't taken intro consideration when some people say they wish they released more new stuff and less Mario. And we should all be praising them for all the new Ip's they've introduced.

My point is that people caring less about low budget IP's is in no way something exclusive to Nintendo. I posted a list of 7 new Ip's introduced by Sony and no ones gives a shit about that either
 
Last edited:

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,668
2,187
560
24
I desire new games, not old games with new gameplay. You can have both at the same time, and while Nintendo makes new IPs, it is not nearly to the degree of their mainstays which is where I believe this sentiment of their new IPs "not counting" stems from. I'm not talking the budget of the GTAs, RDR2 and ACs of the industry, I don't believe that would be sustainable for them, but certainly more than the mobile tier attempts they oft love to do. They could, for one example, afford to back a game such as Ori for a new 2D Metroid, yet after years of pleading with them we get a low budget attempt that looks 15 years old and half-assed. These attempts are beneath Nintendo, they are arguably the best developer on the planet, and their talent should be accorded the proper budgetary allocations to enable it......not just for their proven properties. They should also pay accord to their legacy titles, even if they don't sell that well, because these games don't exist as products by themselves so their success shouldn't be judged as such.

if you want New IPs above an indie-level budget. Then ARMS, Splatoon (still fairly recent), Ring Fit Adventure, Astral Chain, even Labo definitely count. There was also a 3DS game from 2017 called Ever Oasis that would count as well.

Because over half of those are low budget indie tier stuff that generally doesn't get put next to big releases? With the exception that things like 1-2 Switch would be a $15 downloadable title on every other platform but it's a $60 retail game on Switch...because Nintendo.

It's not some evil conspiracy. It's literally the same thing that happens to every other dev/publisher/console maker.
Talk to people about the new IP's introduced by Sony this gen. Guess what? Most people will talk about Horizon, Days Gone or Bloodborne and not Drawn to Death, That's You!, Matterfall, Bound, Alienation, The Tomorrow Children and Knowledge is Power.

OMG so many new IP's by Sony, why isn't anyone giving them an award?

The problem is, is that it even applies to larger budget games. As I mentioned, ARMS, Ring-Fit Adventure, Labo, and Astral Chain are far beyond the scope of an Indie game. But even in that case, they're rarely brought up.
 
Last edited:

Aldric

Member
Feb 15, 2016
1,096
407
460
The premise of the thread is that poor Nintendo is treated differently to everyone else because their low budget new Ip's aren't taken intro consideration when some people say they wish they released more new stuff and less Mario.

So now all their new IPs are low budget and that's why they're ignored? You're having a hard time keeping up with your own argument. I don't even know how you're supposed to determine a game's budget in the first place. Games like Astral Chain, Ring Fit Adventure or yes even Sushi Striker have a lot of content, voice acting, theme songs etc. I don't see how they'd cost less to produce than something like Xenoblade 2.

It'd be more honest to admit like this other guy that Nintendo's new IPs are ignored because they don't target the Playstation and Xbox audiences.
 

PanzerAzel

Member
Oct 31, 2019
763
1,113
450
if you want New IPs above an indie-level budget. Then ARMS, Splatoon (still fairly recent), Ring Fit Adventure, Astral Chain, even Labo definitely count. There was also a 3DS game from 2017 called Ever Oasis that would count as well.
I don't think they do count, sorry. They are not at the level of Sony and MS at full tilt.

If you were to go back in time to Nintendo's heyday and ask people to extrapolate their future games predicated upon the present at that time, I think many would have predicted games along the lines of what Sony and MS offer currently. I am one that believes that Sony and MS's success in the AAA realm is nothing but a natural evolution of the formula that Nintendo established decades ago, only precluded by technological limitations and the infancy of the medium, yet something Nintendo wholeheartedly abandoned once they recognized there were others interested in joining them in the big boy pool, so they got out and entered the kiddie pool to play their own game, on their own rules, unbeholdened to the groundwork they themselves were responsible for laying that their competitors took them up on.

It is frustrating for me to see the DNA of Nintendo taken by the likes of their (admittedly much less talented) competitors who have taken the mantle away from a company too chickenshit to not only succeed in the area they are responsible for establishing, but dominating in. Nintendo has talent that is top of the line. They deserve to harness that talent to its fullest extent, and I will always be one to believe that it is being precluded by many corporate factors.

I want to see Nintendo back in the game. To be highly competitive. To take on Sony and MS, not seclude themselves in their own corner simply because someone grew some balls and confronted them on their own turf.
 
Last edited:

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,668
2,187
560
24
I don't think they do count, sorry. They are not at the level of Sony and MS at full tilt.

If you were to go back in time to Nintendo's heyday and ask people to extrapolate their future games predicated upon the present at that time, I think many would have predicted games along the lines of what Sony and MS offer currently. I am one that believes that Sony and MS's success in the AAA realm is nothing but a natural evolution of the formula that Nintendo established decades ago, only precluded by technological limitations and the infancy of the medium, yet something Nintendo wholeheartedly abandoned once they recognized there were others interested in joining them in the big boy pool, so they got out and entered the kiddie pool to play their own game, on their own rules, unbeholdened to the groundwork they themselves were responsible for laying that their competitors took them up on.

Spending as much as possible on a single game that may or may not be big has never really been Nintendo's thing, even in the 80s and 90s. Their philosophy has always to spend only as much as necessary to make a great game. This was much easier to do back in the day as Development costs for big titles was much lower than now.

BotW is their most expensive production yet. But it only costed so much to make because it was a deconstruction of a long running series that needed the extra resources to make all those changes work. The model of throwing tens of millions of dollars into bleeding-edge graphics, highly detailed Stories, and fancy set-pieces was a trend started by Sony, and Microsoft followed suit with varrying results.

Nintendo's the only one of the 3 that still designs games with an arcade-style design mentality. Where the focus is on the gameplay experience, and how the other elements can contribute to that. Tyring to ape Sony at the "massive 3rd person action game" shtick isn't really their thing.

Even still, games such as ARMS, Splatoon, Astral Chain, Ring-Fit Adventure, even Labo and Sushi Striker have scopes and production values far beyond that of a standard indie-level title. Even if they aren't massive "AAA" games. You mentioned Ori as an example of a game Nintendo can afford to back, yet these are all games with a similar level of polish and money put into them.

I want to see Nintendo back in the game. To be highly competitive. To take on Sony and MS, not seclude back and play in their own corner simply because someone grew some balls and confronted them on their own turf.

I respect that opinion. But in my eyes, there just isn't really any benefit in doing so for Nintendo. Like, Imagine if Nintendo suddenly tomorrow, announced an ultra powerful, high-end, next gen console to compete with PS5 and Series X. Sure, the novelty of Nintendo returning to the main console war would be neat at first, but what could they offer that couldn't be done by Sony and Microsoft? Third party games wouldn't probably be THAT much better on Nintendo's machine, so that's out. Nintendo has never been known for, or even been particularly amazing at Online, so that's out. And Nintendo's approach to developing games and their style of games wouldn't appeal to much of the audience that buys PlayStation and Xbox. So really, you'd be stuck with a $400 PS5 knock off who's only defining trait is that plays Mario games occasionally. Such wouldn't be as successful as you'd imagine IMO.

In fact we already have a well documented example of Nintendo not being great at trying to be a third wheel. It's called Nintendo GameCube. Say what you will about the other problems like its marketing and mini-DVD format, the biggest problem with the GameCube IMO, was that it offered nothing that the PS2 or Xbox didn't already offer. Third party support? That was better on PlayStation and Xbox. Online? Xbox Live was the pioneer. Exclusives and first party titles? Nintendo was seen as the "Kiddy" company by this point with Cartoon Zelda and Eco Mario, and new games like Animal Crossing and Pikmin didn't combat that image. It was all about edgy games like Halo and Ratchet and Clank now. Simply put, the GameCube didn't make an effort as to why it should exist alongside the other consoles. Anything it could do, the PS2 and Xbox could do just as well, plus more.

This is a lesson Nintendo had to learn the hard way. And while you might not be a fan of their current direction, there's a very good reason why they shifted gears.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: JimboJones

PanzerAzel

Member
Oct 31, 2019
763
1,113
450
Spending as much as possible on a single game that may or may not be big has never really been Nintendo's thing, even in the 80s and 90s. Their philosophy has always to spend only as much as necessary to make a great game. This was much easier to do back in the day as Development costs for big titles was much lower than now.

BotW is their most expensive production yet. But it only costed so much to make because it was a deconstruction of a long running series that needed the extra resources to make all those changes work. The model of throwing tens of millions of dollars into bleeding-edge graphics, highly detailed Stories, and fancy set-pieces was a trend started by Sony, and Microsoft followed suit with varrying results.

Per the bolded, Sony may have taken it to the next level, but it was Nintendo who lay the groundwork for such by releasing games that were more so experiences (such as Super Metroid), when eventually Nintendo no longer saw it as financially prudent to follow that design philosophy to its natural course in the evolution of the medium that would've necessitated continual increasing financial backing to maintain it. Many early Nintendo games utilized a groundwork conducive to the types of experiences that Sony and MS now offer. To use your example, bringing Zelda into what gamers have come to expect from contemporary open world gaming perfectly exemplifies and is indicative of a formula conducive to (and I'd argue that would eventually necessitate) vast expenditures long before Sony or MS ever entered the picture.

Nintendo laid that foundation decades ago. Then, as the industry evolved over the years, technology improved, developmental costs rose, and they began to view their previous games in their design as untenable when brought into current day and something to be seen as an exception. It feels like Nintendo only does their massive releases, the games that've defined them and people have come to love them for, simply because they are beholden to a legacy they built and embraced on a design philosophy that, at the time, was much more tenable, yet they've now come to reject and view as imprudent and unsustainable to their business model due to how the industry has grown. Yet the IP is popular enough to offset this financial risk, so they go ahead.

I believe they've come to fundamentally disagree with designing games as they used to such as Zelda, Metroid, or any other property that would be a large endevour and time investment, a philosophy that once was sustainable in the old days but that has now turned into a liability. And unfortunately for them, it is these types of games that people consider IPs that "count", which also unfortunately, people measure up against the best of Sony and MS, who aren't so reticent to throw the bank at their offerings.

Nintendo's the only one of the 3 that still designs games with an arcade-style design mentality. Where the focus is on the gameplay experience, and how the other elements can contribute to that. Tyring to ape Sony at the "massive 3rd person action game" shtick isn't really their thing.

Which is why, continuing from my above point, this arcadish style of gaming and gameplay (which I realize has always existed with them from day one) is something they're now far more keen on embracing as it 1) requires less financial investment, 2) less development time, 3) fleshes out their catalog more, and 4) allows them to take more creative risks than if they were to go all out on large experiences. This also helps compensate for their traditionally very anemic third party support.

But unfortunately, I don't believe these arcade experiences and experiments such as Labo are the type of games that many players crave or have come to expect, and I also don't think it is these types of experiences that built Nintendo into a house of legend. Many want those vast, multi-million dollar grand spectacles. The RDRs, the GTAs, the TLoUs, the Spidermans, the Cyberpunks......the BotWs. And why not? They're amazing. They're massive worlds that are massive time sinks and are what people truly remember, not crossing gloves in ARMs or painting squid for a few hours here and there in Splatoon. These are enjoyable games, but they are nowhere near Nintendo's best.

IMO, Nintendo is a company that has been pulled, kicking and screaming at every point into the modern age of gaming, nigh resentful of their legacy and how particular design tenets from their older games decades ago have evolved to hold them to expectations of modern gaming to provide experiences that they are extremely reticent to tackle, for economic and logistical reasons, but nonetheless, that people have come to expect when viewed through the lens of the modern gaming.
 
Last edited:

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,668
2,187
560
24
Per the bolded, Sony may have taken it to the next level, but it was Nintendo who lay the groundwork for such by releasing games that were more so experiences (such as Super Metroid), when eventually Nintendo no longer saw it as financially prudent to follow that design philosophy to its natural course in the evolution of the medium that would've necessitated continual increasing financial backing to maintain it. Many early Nintendo games utilized a groundwork conducive to the types of experiences that Sony and MS now offer. To use your example, bringing Zelda into what gamers have come to expect from contemporary open world gaming perfectly exemplifies and is indicative of a formula conducive to (and I'd argue that would eventually necessitate) vast expenditures long before Sony or MS ever entered the picture.

Even back then, Games like Super Metroid were always more the exception to Nintendo's lineup as opposed to the rule I'd say. Nintendo's always put a focus fun over spectacle, and while they dabble in spectacle, it's only if it can help deliver the fun and experience. Sure, their games may seem similar to Sony and Microsoft today. But that was back when standards in gaming and the technology were still in their infancy.

Sony was the one who popularized the "Cinematic" approach to AAA gaming using the CD format, and that's been the blueprint for many of their games ever since.

I believe they've come to fundamentally disagree with designing games as they used to such as Zelda, Metroid, or any other property that would be a large endevour and time investment, a philosophy that once was sustainable in the old days but that has now turned into a liability. And unfortunately for them, it is these types of games that people consider IPs that "count", which also unfortunately, people measure up against the best of Sony and MS, who aren't so reticent to throw the bank at their offerings.

I still feel like most of Nintendo's games, even back then are very different from the modern style of AAA games. I mean, I don't really see how games like ARMS, Mario Odyssey, Ring-Fit Adventure, Splatoon, Animal Crossing are all that different from what they made in the SNES days.

In fact, I'd say they're more embracing of cinematic elements and modern production values now than back then. Whereas before you only really just had Zelda and Metroid. Today you have Zelda, Metroid, Fire Emblem, Xenoblade, Astral Chain, Bayonetta, and even 3D Mario.

But unfortunately, I don't believe these arcade experiences and experiments such as Labo are the type of games that many players crave or have come to expect, and I also don't think it is these types of experiences that built Nintendo into a house of legend. Many want those vast, multi-million dollar grand spectacles. The RDRs, the GTAs, the TLoUs, the Spidermans, the Cyberpunks......the BotWs. And why not? They're amazing.

I agree, they're amazing. But there's also room for more gameplay-focused games that while not as large of a scope, still deliver a lot of entertainment and memorability. This is where Nintendo's strengths lie at their core. Sure, their games may not have the bleeding edge graphics, fancy set-pieces, or complicated stories with big name voice actors like the rest of the AAA industry, but they almost always deliver in games with rock-solid design, and innovative ideas. It stems from the company's desire to be its own distinct voice in the industry. Their corporate Motto literally translates to "Create Something Unique".

Now, would I like to see more games in the style of something like Astral Chain from Nintendo? Yes. I do think they can continue to try and push more in the "AA" style of games from Western and Japanese developers. But, I think they should continue to make most of their games, as they've always made them as well.

. They're massive worlds that are massive time sinks and are what people truly remember, not crossing gloves in ARMs or painting squid for a few hours here and there in Splatoon. These are enjoyable games, but they are nowhere near Nintendo's best.

I want to take a moment to talk about Splatoon here. The Octo Expansion of Splatoon 2 is IMO, an example of what I'd like to see more of from Nintendo. It presents a somewhat darker tone that fleshes out the lore and world of its series, and tells a twisted and compelling plot that re-contextualizes said world in a new light. And it doesn't need Over-the-top set pieces or voice acting to do it. So I will admit, this is something I'd like to see more of from Nintendo.

But I think their style of games, and their approach to development, holds just as much value in the modern industry as the traditional approach to AAA development. People like Nintendo because they offer a unique alternative to the traditional "Hollywood" approach to AAA gaming. Ones that focus on gameplay and experiences, rather than flashy visuals. I mean, why bother trying to beat Sony at the "Cinematic, story-driven action game" shtick when you can instead do something that has a more distinct voice?
 

Ten_Fold

Member
Jan 18, 2017
2,462
2,172
480
Astro Chain is probably the best new IP on the switch. I think Nintendo has enough IP’s they reinvent them soo much they feel like new games (besides Pokémon somewhat). They create games with some of the best gameplay imo.
 

checkcola

Member
Jun 7, 2016
215
192
310
The Nintendo mascots are basically of the Disney of video games, so anything added to that lot has a lot to live up to.
 

dorkimoe

Member
Aug 19, 2007
10,765
3,554
1,500
Im sorry but these games

1-2 Switch
ARMS
Nintendo Labo
Snipperclips
Astral Chain
The Stretchers
Ring-Fit Adventure
Sushi Striker
Good Job!

Besides Ring Fit, none of this is interesting to most people. They also sound like mobile titles.

When we say new IP i think they want something on the scale of their biggest ip's like mario or zelda.

Agreed. Never even heard of ANY of those except labo (so stupid) and ring fit (impossible to find)
 

Fbh

Member
Dec 6, 2013
15,653
11,447
1,070
So now all their new IPs are low budget and that's why they're ignored? You're having a hard time keeping up with your own argument. I don't even know how you're supposed to determine a game's budget in the first place. Games like Astral Chain, Ring Fit Adventure or yes even Sushi Striker have a lot of content, voice acting, theme songs etc. I don't see how they'd cost less to produce than something like Xenoblade 2.

It'd be more honest to admit like this other guy that Nintendo's new IPs are ignored because they don't target the Playstation and Xbox audiences.

My argument isn't that all new Nintendo IP's are low budget, my argument is that low budget new IP's often get overlooked or "ignored" across the board and it's in no shape or form something exclusive to Nintendo.

This thread is based on the wrong premise that when Nintendo releases some low or mid budget new IP like Sushi Striker or The Stretchers it gets ignored or people say it "doesn't count" (which, btw, I've never seen anyone say), but when Sony releases a low or mid budget new IP like Matterfall or Bound we are blown away by them and consider them big new IP's for which Sony should be praised. That's simply not true.

There is an interesting discussion to be had about why lower budget new IP's "don't count" or don't get more recognition, but not if the thread is framed as if it's something that ONLY happens to Nintendo and no one else.

The problem is, is that it even applies to larger budget games. As I mentioned, ARMS, Ring-Fit Adventure, Labo, and Astral Chain are far beyond the scope of an Indie game. But even in that case, they're rarely brought up.

I don't really agree about Ring Fit Adventures or Labo being large budget. The peripherals make them more unique and definitely increase the price, but the actual games are very indie tier. And if we are talking about peripheral based games, are new IP's like Farpoint or RIGS (both PSVR) really treated any different?

As for Astral Chain or Arms, I don't know what to tell you. I haven't really seen people "ignore them" or saying they don't count. If anything they just stand out because they don't reach the usual very high sales numbers of other Nintendo Ip's. To me at least those are the sort of IP's I bought a Switch for, as I don't care too much about Mario
 
Last edited:

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,668
2,187
560
24
I don't really agree about Ring Fit Adventures or Labo being large budget. The peripherals make them more unique and definitely increase the price, but the actual games are very indie tier. And if we are talking about peripheral based games, are new IP's like Farpoint or RIGS (both PSVR) really treated any different?

I disagree. The visuals, productions values, and the scope of them are far beyond the typical indie game. I mean Ring Fit has more content than some AAA games IMO.

As for Astral Chain or Arms, I don't know what to tell you. I haven't really seen people "ignore them" or saying they don't count. If anything they just stand out because they don't reach the usual very high sales numbers of other Nintendo Ip's.

I remember many people thinking ARMS was somehow a "Failure" because it wasn't the next Splatoon, LOL.
 
Last edited:
Jun 28, 2013
2,299
2,111
805











 
  • Like
Reactions: Kokoloko85

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,668
2,187
560
24
Astral Chain and ARMS are pretty much only gamer oriented products on that list.

Sushi Striker and Ring-Fit would be as well. But really, Nintendo doesn't just put out "gamer oriented" games. They put out a wide range of titles for different people.
 
Apr 25, 2012
1,134
2,135
960
Berlin, Germany
This thread seems pointless. It's not news that Nintendo has their own market that overlaps with the Sony/Microsoft market a lot; but they are not competing directly as the third party market is not something where nintendos hardware can compete.
The console war is about what platform people should buy for their multiplats. As long as Nintendo does not compete here, they will not be relevant in the "wars".
 

Kokoloko85

Member
Sep 26, 2019
2,977
3,641
395
Apart from Arms and Astral chains none of those really count. There like mini games and shit
 

Kokoloko85

Member
Sep 26, 2019
2,977
3,641
395
Ring Fit's not a mini game collection, neither are most of the other games I mentioned, save for 2.

Mini game or small niche game is kinda the same thing to me. There not exactly triple A or an Indie game.

There as much of as a game As ipad, android or wii games. (Mostly crap)

Ring fit is a wii type grandma game, sushi strikers can be played on my phone. Snipper clips....There games as much as Apple and Andriod games on your phone, wii games are in that category too.
ye there games but there either gimicky, or mini party games.
Astral chains and Arms being an exception. Good job is decent and stretchers can be classed as an indie. There meh
 

Jubenhimer

Member
Nov 11, 2018
1,668
2,187
560
24
Ring fit is a wii type grandma game, sushi strikers can be played on my phone. Snipper clips....There games as much as Apple and Andriod games on your phone, wii games are in that category too.
ye there games but there either gimicky, or mini party games.

Only these aren't phone-type games, or really "Wii" type games either. Ring-Fit Adventure is an RPG with fitness, it's a bit more meaty than a phone game. Snipperclips, Stretchers, and Good Job! are all indie games that were co-produced by Nintendo. These are games, and more than half of them are games people care about.
 

Kokoloko85

Member
Sep 26, 2019
2,977
3,641
395
Only these aren't phone-type games, or really "Wii" type games either. Ring-Fit Adventure is an RPG with fitness, it's a bit more meaty than a phone game. Snipperclips, Stretchers, and Good Job! are all indie games that were co-produced by Nintendo. These are games, and more than half of them are games people care about.

Fair enough. Ring fit, Vr and sushi are gimmicy to me though.

1-2 switch and snipperclips should be free tech demos for the switch lol, there that level of game not $30-40-50 lol.

Stretchers and good job are decent Games.
 

Thirty7ven

Sony make cringe trainers.
Apr 13, 2020
3,654
14,691
660
Feels like every new IP is a new baby game, that’s why.

But Astral Chain was cool.
 
Last edited: