There is not one but two Nintendos: Classic Nintendo and Modern Nintendo.
Classic Nintendo is the Nintendo of the 80s and early 90s. Modern Nintendo is the Nintendo of the later 90s and early 2000s.
From mid 2000s to the present, we have Nintendo of a ‘basket-case’ mentality. Nintendo foolishly believes it can simultaneously be Classic Nintendo and Modern Nintendo at the same time. It cannot. For one, resources are limited even further by trying to make games in both categories. Another significant reason is that hardware must choose one way or the other. If hardware was to go both then it would be unaffordable as it would cost a grand (think of a HD console AND motion controls in 2006).
While the debate between Classic Nintendo and Modern Nintendo goes on as the company decides which it wants to become, let us look at Classic Nintendo and Modern Nintendo.
On Hardware
There is nothing interesting about Classic Nintendo hardware. The NES had serious hardware flaws and was a generation behind in terms of graphics and processor speed. The SNES also had serious hardware flaws in its processor speed which slowed down so many games. NES and SNES games commonly slowed down especially shmups.
Classic Nintendo never emphasized the controller although two controllers were always included with the console (emphasis on multiplayer even then). What is so very important to note is that the controller was functional for almost all software on the system. However, the controller was hardly mandatory. It was heavily encouraged for players to use other controllers to get different or better experiences with games. During the NES days, Nintendo even came out with multiple first party controllers. The NES Advantage was a nice hefty arcade-like stick with dials to increase button taps. The NES Max was a controller with 360 degree control, a direct predecessor to what would eventually become the analog controller. And there were countless third party controllers ranging from racing wheels to flight sticks to arcade sticks to other takes on the NES controller. Some were even ‘wireless’ (as finicky as wireless was back in that day).
In summary, hardware for Classic Nintendo always took the backseat and was nothing more than just a machine to play games. Nintendo controllers were not mandatory to play any game on the system.
With Modern Nintendo, hardware is emphasized heavily and takes the front stage. The controller is at the center of the Modern Nintendo hardware constellation. The controller always does something different in which all first party and almost all third party software is molded around it. With the N64 and Gamecube, all software revolved around those controllers. Most software was unplayable with any other controller. You cannot play Ocarina of Time without the N64 controller or a controller almost identical to it. However, you could play NES Legend of Zelda with an arcade stick and many people did.
I would not be surprised if third parties kept feeling cold about the Nintendo platform when the hardware was designed around the purpose of first party Nintendo software. Or to be more precise, the controller is designed around first party Nintendo software which places all software on a narrow definition of what it can do. Since first party controllers are mandatory to play all first party games, this is forcing third parties to develop software similar to Nintendo First Party software. A third party cannot take a controller, designed intentionally for one purpose, and give it a completely different purpose. Nintendo making a new classic controller for Monster Hunter Tri for Capcom is some evidence how that this is what is going on in third parties’ minds.
The hardware for the 7th Generation is a good example of how Classic Nintendo and Modern Nintendo are mixed. Almost every software on the Wii mandates the Wii controller. However, in an Classic Nintendo way, the mandatory Wii controller has a port that other controllers can be included.
On Software
In Classic Nintendo, software was the forefront with the hardware staying quiet in the background. Software was all new. When software became a huge hit, such as Super Mario Brothers or Legend of Zelda, a sequel or two were made. However, there was much software that wasn’t a big hit such as Kid Icarus. Even though the NES was a joke of hardware compared to computers at the time, the NES took over the world due to the power of its software. When people talked about innovation in Classic Nintendo Era, they talked about the software.
In Modern Nintendo, all innovation refers to the hardware especially when it comes to the software. The formula is to apply the ‘unique feature’ of the hardware to the software. It does not matter if this feature is needed or desired, it is added regardless. The pressure sensitive analog triggers of the Gamecube controller were added to Super Mario Sunshine. Does anyone care? Since the controllers all had analog sticks, almost all software was written to be 3d games. Wii software that has no business using motion controls like platformers (2d or 3d) from Mario 5 to Mario Galaxy to Donkey Kong Country Returns made them mandatory forcing all players into a disappointing one or two controller set-up.
It is rare for someone to label Nintendo software, in the era of Modern Nintendo, as ‘innovative’. In almost all cases, it is the hardware that is declared innovative and the software serves no other purpose but to use that hardware. Wii Sports with motion controls and Wii Fit with the balance board are good examples.
Modern Nintendo software is chained to the default controller while Classic Nintendo software is not. Nintendo believes being a hardware/software hybrid company means they must do this in order to create new experiences. But the tragedy is that it causes the opposite effect. It does not allow other controllers to play the software. A common question asked during the Classic Nintendo Era was “What is your favorite NES controller?” and you might get an answer such as the “NES Advantage” to “NES Max” to “my wireless controllers”. In Modern Nintendo Era, this question is not even asked at all! It is unimaginable that any software would be played with a non-default controller unless it was a retro game (like a SNES-esque controller to play Mega Man X Collection).
On 3d
3d was always present in Classic Nintendo but was often placed on the side.3d technologies were used to make NEW games. Just because Mode 7 existed did not turn Link to the Past into a Mode 7 game. 3D polygons did not suddenly appear in the Mario series. Instead, a brand new game was made around this 3d polygon technology: Starfox. In general, Classic Nintendo used new technology to make new games. The sequels to classic games remained identical with their gameplay skeleton and perspective.
With Modern Nintendo, everything revolves around 3d. Everything. The console. The controller. And all software. Every game must have 3d. One could say the difference between Classic Nintendo and Modern Nintendo is the emphasis of 3d technology. 3D technology radically altered the controller and every single franchise for better or worse. Even if the switch to 3d greatly harmed the franchise (such as with Mario), there was no decision to ever again go back.
Modern Nintendo is actively hostile to developing anything in 2d which explains why all 2d games ceased and why all classic games, in general, stopped. With Mario, 2d Mario is meant to only be temporary until Miyamoto can figure out how to get 3d Mario to sell like 2d Mario. (Miyamoto is on record for saying that he does not like to make 2d Mario.) Once this happens, all 2d Mario production will likely end just as it did with Zelda (where the 3d Zeldas sell at the same level as 2d Zelda).
On Sequels
Classic Nintendo’s approach to sequels was to further explore the universe in those games. In the first interview with Nintendo Power with the making of Super Mario Brothers 3, Miyamoto said the game was to further explore the worlds of the Mushroom Kingdom (the 8 worlds of Mario 1 were now further fleshed out in Mario 3). Zelda’s universe was further fleshed out in its sequels as well.
Classic Nintendo also did not change the gameplay skeleton. Super Mario World still had the identical fundamental design of Super Mario Brothers. Link to the Past had the same gameplay skeleton as Zelda 1 and Zelda 2. (As an arcade/RPG hybrid.)
Games that were not sequels often had different gameplay skeletons, but they all had different universe.
Modern Nintendo runs all its sequels in the same formula: inject the hardware features into the game whether they belong there or not. On the Wii, every first party game incorporates the odd controller or hardware no matter what. Mario can only spin if you shake the Wii controller in Mario Galaxy. The player must use the sensitive analog triggers in Mario Sunshine. On the DS, Zelda must use the touch screen.
While Classic Nintendo sequels treated every sequel as an expansion on the universe of the game linked with the first game, Modern Nintendo sequels treats each sequel as separate isolated units with their own universes separated from the previous games. In other words, Mario Galaxy has no continuity to any of the other Mario games including its own sequel of Galaxy 2! If there is any continuity, is only from a Modern Nintendo game. Twilight Princess and Wind Waker refer back to Ocarina of Time. Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks refer back to Wind Waker. But keep in mind continuity does not mean expansion of the game universe. Twilight Princess uses the same exact Hyrule as Ocarina of Time. And games like Spirit Tracks will re-invent everything just to justify the gameplay doodad (in that case, trains).
Classic Nintendo same-franchise games differentiated one another by the degree they expanded their universe. Modern Nintendo same-franchise games differentiate themselves by what gameplay doodad they add. Having no emphasis of expanding the universe in first party Nintendo games is the number one reason why people call Nintendo software ‘stale’ and why they should make new IPs (because the complainer wants to see new content). This is why even though new gameplay doodads are added in, the universes, the content, of Modern Nintendo games feel stale.
Multiplayer
While multiplayer is emphasized in both Modern and Classic Nintendo, they are done in different ways. Modern Nintendo separates games distinctly by ‘single player game’ and ‘multiplayer game’. Classic Nintendo blurred this line. Super Mario Brothers games were commonly played multiplayer but also single player. Donkey Kong Country’s appeal was greatly in how it was a co-op experience. With the exception of Metroid and Zelda, almost all first party software emphasized both single player and multiplayer in the same game. Super Mario Kart is a great example of being a great single player experience and a multiplayer experience.
Mario Kart
Mario Kart is the only Nintendo franchise to still not adopt Modern Nintendo ways and has remained consistently true to its roots even during its dark Gamecube days. If there is any decline, it is in the Mario Kart single player experience. But each Mario Kart sequel, like any Classic Nintendo sequel, remains true to the gameplay skeleton and looks to expand, not to replace. Modern Nintendo would do something bizarre like replace the karts with airplanes, but Classic Nintendo is making the karts different, with different stats, which is an expansion of the Mario Kart universe.
How did Mario Kart get spared the Modern Nintendo insanity? The big reason is that the gameplay skeleton cannot be misidentified. Mario Kart is about racing. It is not about a character’s feelings or about doing puzzles. Keeping the gameplay skeleton intact has given Mario Kart an immunity to whatever doodad is placed in the hardware or controller. Mario Kart Wii has multiple controller schemes which is reminiscent of Classic Nintendo.
Surprise
Classic Nintendo software had the player generate the surprise. The player would cause an action which created reactions in the game. The classic example is the new Mario player who kicked the turtle off screen only to find it bounce back and hurt him. Surprise! Another example would be the player lighting fire to every tree in Legend of Zelda and is surprised by how he can burn stuff down.
Modern Nintendo relies on the developer to generate the surprise. Instead of the turtle bouncing back because the player kicked it, it is replaced by a bullet bill who’s surprise was being placed in a spot the player didn’t expect. Instead of giving the player something like bombs or fire and letting the player go wild, Modern Nintendo only allows the player to fire or bomb at a few certain spots in the game. The ‘surprise’ is to come from developers creating a complex scripted experience such as bombing a wall only to cause an unexpected domino reaction.
The result is that Modern Nintendo software has a very low replay factor. Meanwhile, Classic Nintendo software still sells and is constantly played and replayed.
Art
The difference in game art between Classic Nintendo and Modern Nintendo is the difference between a man’s barber shop and a woman’s beauty salon. Classic Nintendo game art is functional. Modern Nintendo game art is stylistic. While Classic Nintendo relied on the gameplay to elicit emotions, Modern Nintendo relies more on the game art to elicit emotions. Modern Nintendo believes the art experience and the game experience are one of the same.
Modern Nintendo looks at the functional Classic Nintendo pixel art as styles. There is an 8-bit style, a 16-bit style. When Modern Nintendo sees a Classic Nintendo fan wear a shirt that has 8-bit Mario or Zelda on it, Modern Nintendo sees only an art style and thinks it has a certain amount of charm.
But nothing could be further from the truth. How can there be ‘style’ in pixelated images? It the absence of style that is the style of Classic Nintendo. The entire commotion about ‘art style’ in Zelda is wholly a Modern Nintendo phenomenon. Art styles were never an issue in Classic Nintendo Era because game art was purely functional. The game universe was the master of the art style instead of the art style being the master of the game universe.
For evidence of function being the charm behind oldschool images, check out this pixelated form of Minecraft. Yet, people adopt these very blocky images of Minecraft as shirts, symbols, and soon to be plushies. Why? Minecraft is purely functional in its art. It would be ridiculous to call it a ‘style’.
If you want to see an art style, go to an art museum. These are video games. Function rules.
Why Nintendo’s Handheld Market Didn’t Significantly Decline
Nintendo has always had competition in their handheld market since the Game and Watch. Analysts believe that Nintendo’s handheld market has remained strong because Nintendo makes it very difficult for competitors to enter.
There is a better reason why the handheld market held up when the home market dramatically declined. The reason is that Classic Nintendo has dominated the handheld line. Modern Nintendo has not infested the handheld line until recently with the 3DS.
Nintendo’s handheld consoles are designed around function and, beyond that, are unremarkable just as Classic Nintendo hardware used to be. The purpose of the handheld is to serve the job of gaming on the go. No doodads could be included with the handheld because they would get in the way.
Everything about Nintendo’s handheld line exudes Classic Nintendo (except various controllers because handhelds cannot use controllers). While Nintendo does put out new versions of their handheld hardware, they always follow the rule of function. They don’t throw in doodads just to make some strange game. (Remember that the NES had two hardware designs to it not including the Famicom.)
During the N64 and Gamecube days, it became seen as if Nintendo’s handheld line was the ‘old Nintendo’. How much 2d Mario graced each Gameboy iteration? Almost too many to count from the Super Mario Lands (and Wario spin-offs) to the NES/SNES ports of the main Mario games. The Gameboy games always held that classic feel from both first party and third party games. Much of this was due designing games to fit the handheld’s purpose.
In the Classic Nintendo way, Nintendo would do much experimentation with first party software with the handheld line. New Nintendo series were made such as Kirby or Pokemon or Brain Age or Nintendogs. In order to innovate, Nintendo did not have Mario sucking up enemies and call that the new Super Mario Brothers. Instead, Nintendo used the game mechanic to launch a new game series of Kirby. The Super Mario Brothers games remained Super Mario Brothers.
The dominance of Classic Nintendo on the handheld line is a significant reason why the handheld line has remained so vigorous and strong while the home console line greatly suffered not just in sales but in the reputation from gamers. When Modern Nintendo pokes its head in from Mario 64 DS to Metroid-with-character-feelings Fusion, the results tend to be lackluster at best.
Conclusion
The shift from Classic Nintendo to Modern Nintendo is the biggest reason why Nintendo entered dramatic console decline. The reason why the video game controller was ‘broken’ and not ‘accessible’ (which is why the Wii remote was made) wasn’t an act of Nature or cyclical event. It was because Nintendo broke the controller. Just as Nintendo broke their staple games such as Super Mario Brothers. This is why Nintendo wishing that it wants to go Modern Nintendo with its handheld line is very worrying.
Keep in mind that the Wii was presented and marketed as Classic Nintendo whether Nintendo realizes this or not. The Wii’s advertising was similar to that of Atari or Classic Nintendo when showing people actually playing the games. The controller design was simple. The console design was simple and unremarkable (but not ‘bad’. Not like the grandiose PS3 which was hardware focused). When you look at sales for the SNES rom of Mario Collection or how NES themed hardware and software tends to sell (NES classics anyone?), it shows people respond to Classic Nintendo. The dramatic reversal in Wii sales as the company focused on ‘hardcore games’ is a microcosm of the shift from Classic Nintendo to Modern Nintendo.
Classic Nintendo is not about ‘old’ games or nostalgia. Classic Nintendo is a mentality of what a video game should be. As it was Classic Nintendo that created and defined the console market, it is no coincidence that expanding the market ultimately followed a Classic Nintendo context. Console expansion is likely impossible without adopting the Classic Nintendo (or even Classic Atari) context from game making to marketing.
Modern Nintendo doesn’t have a future. All the growth is coming from Classic Nintendo actions. What is worrisome is that Nintendo views the 3DS as ‘making 3d games more accessible’ which means ‘making Modern Nintendo mainstream’. And this will be impossible. The market has had over fifteen years of Modern Nintendo. Just as more accessible camera and controls didn’t make either Mario Galaxy sell like 2d Mario, despite lush with rich orchestra music, neither will 3DS screens suddenly cause massive interest in Modern Nintendo games.
Five years ago, Iwata said, “Expand or die.” Now, we tell him, “Classic Nintendo or die.”
A reader interrupts. “But Malstrom! ‘Classic Nintendo or die’ is saying the same exact thing as ‘Expand or die’.”
Exactly.
