Populism generally means ‘the masses’ which was the theme for both the DS and Wii. And when the masses responded, a curious reaction occurred. Hatred came from our friends, the ‘hardcore gamers’, and within the Game Industry itself. On this site, we have highlighted these reactions.
But the most interesting reaction is from Nintendo itself. Nintendo appears to greatly dislike the populist reaction of the DS and Wii.
“Then why did they make the 3DS and Wii U?” asks a reader.
The 3DS is not a continuation of the DS philosophy. In the same way, the Wii U is not the continuation of the Wii philosophy. While the DS was positioned as a populist product, the 3DS was not. The 3DS was not designed to get ‘the masses into gaming’. Not with that high price tag and headache inducing visual output.
The DS and Wii are reminding me of Mario and Zelda. Mario and Zelda had a huge populist reaction to them. Everyone played them. Later, Mario and Zelda games came out that were nothing like Mario or Zelda. Only the brand was the same.
“Why did they do that, Malstrom?” asks the curious reader.
The problem with making new games is that they are riskier than the existing install base that a sequel sells. Nintendo tries to have their cake and eat it too. They want to make new games, but they always sell them through existing brands. The delusion at Nintendo is that they think this works. But neither Mario or Zelda have been the phenomenons they were when they were released. In some cases, a game might have sold more units (like Ocarina of Time), but that has more to do with population growth and all and not the populist reaction at the time. When 2d Mario appeared on the DS and Wii, you saw a very unique reaction occur from the market. To this date, the best selling month of any video game console ever made in the United States is entirely due to Super Mario Brothers 5. This populist reaction stunned Nintendo and even defied the normal ebb and flow of the console cycle.
Wii Sports and Wii Fit are examples of this populist reactions.
“If it sells so well, why not make more?”
I have always wondered about this, reader. Officially, Nintendo says ‘entertainment depends on surprise. We must do new things.’ Strangely, this rule only applies to things Nintendo developers do not wish to make (like Mario and Zelda). Nintendo has shown themselves quite happy to keep making the same game over and over again with 3d Mario or Aonuma Zelda. However, if you suggest on making another 2d Mario after twenty years of not having one, they throw a fit!
Since the issue is not about making the same game again, it must be something else. One thing that I’ve noticed after observing Nintendo closely is that they are extremely hostile to the idea of the market being in control of Nintendo’s destiny. They seem to like to believe that Nintendo is in control of the market’s destiny. To get a sense of this arrogance, Nintendo actually believed they would get everyone to embrace 3d content in all forms, including games, just because of the 3DS. “Now’s the time for 3d!” Nope.
“So Mario and Zelda are not Mario and Zelda.”
That’s right. One sweet victory for this blog is to successfully differentiate Mario between 2d Mario and 3d Mario. This was not done before the DS and Wii came out. Also, Zelda is differentiated between Classic Zelda and Aonuma Zelda (Ocarina of Time is stuck in both worlds with Aonuma having a minor role but designing OoT’s awful dungeons like the Water Temple). Of course, with Metroid we would have three different types of Metroid: Classic Metroid, Retro Metroid (Metroid Prime games), and Sakamoto Metroid (where Sakamoto abuses Metroid to try to be an anime director).
“So these non-Mario and non-Zelda games are branded as Mario and Zelda because they wouldn’t sell otherwise.”
Correct. I’ve been wondering why Miyamoto has suddenly begun talking about Mario as a ‘Mr.TV’ character who kept appearing in all different sorts of games. What Miyamoto is talking about is not what Nintendo did. The ‘Mr.TV’ character who kept appearing in different sorts of games was done in Punch-Out!, Tennis, Wrecking Crew, and such. But the ‘Mr.TV’ concept does not apply to taking a completely different game and lying to customers by declaring it the sequel as Nintendo did with Mario 64 being the sequel to Super Mario World (or Other M being the sequel to Super Metroid). It is one thing for Mario to ride a go-kart in Super Mario Kart. But imagine if Nintendo said Super Mario Kart was the successor to Super Mario World. No way. It is a completely different game.
People like myself are not upset with the existence of 3d Mario or Aonuma Zelda. We’re just upset that 3d Mario is trying to be the Mario game (when it isn’t) or Aonuma Zelda is trying to be the Zelda game (when it isn’t). When it does this, it denies the fact that actual Mario and Zelda games are no longer being made.
“So what does this have to do with the 3DS and Wii U?”
Since Nintendo believes it can do something completely different and sell it under the same brand (e.g. 3d Mario under the ‘Super Mario Brothers’ brand), 3DS and Wii U will be completely different philosophies trying to sell under the same brand.
Why is Nintendo using the same brand? People thought it was a marketing disaster because people are confusing the 3DS as an iteration to the DS line of products. What no one considered was that this was the mission all along. Not clarity but confusion. Nintendo is intentionally using the same branding to get these customers at ease at buying something they normally would reject. It is exactly the same reason why Nintendo threw in as many tanooki tails as possible in the Mario 3d Land game to confuse and coax 2d Mario fans to play Mario in 3d.
What I like about populist gaming is that it is giving the market what it wants, what excites the masses. The approach Nintendo is on now is more about trying to trick these masses into buying games Nintendo wishes to make. Apparently, Nintendo hated making the DS and Wii blockbuster games. If they didn’t, why are they so reluctant to continue making them?
“zOMG! Conspiracy theory!”
Perhaps you would like to explain why after seven years after the MASSIVE blockbuster game of NSMB DS, there is no follow-up and none being planned? It makes no business sense.
Ignorance was how Nintendo got the pass before. We all assumed Nintendo thought it had to make everything 3d because 3d was the new ‘fad’. But after the success of NSMB and Super Mario Brothers 5, ignorance cannot explain Nintendo’s lack of follow-up. It must be intentional.
A real game company would already have another 2d Mario out and be designing the next Zelda game as ‘New Legend of Zelda’ since NSMB DS did so phenomenally well. But we don’t have that, do we? Instead, we keep having Nintendo developers telling us the future of gaming is always in the games they wish to make (and never in the games we want).
Speculating why a business does not wish to keep making best selling products is not a ‘conspiracy theory’. It is a major red flag, and it is something to be investigated. If the motivation is not commercial, what is the motivation?
If asking where is my Mario and Zelda game is at to be a ‘conspiracy theory’, then so be it. Where is the continuation to the best selling game of all time? Why is Nintendo turning down money and easy console sales? I’d like to see someone, anyone, deliver an answer.
Malstrom's Articles News 