As I try to catch up on my email, I think I’ve had a more negative tone lately. Much of this is due to the gaming currents of the time. But instead of being an old man and hitting my cane on the table about how something is ‘wrong’, why not try the opposite? What do I want from a Nintendo console?
1) Permanent Digital Ownership
I want to buy only one digital version of Super Mario Brothers and be done with it. I should be able to use that copy of Super Mario Brothers for any Nintendo hardware into the future. After all, I am purchasing the license, correct?
The tying of digital games to the hardware makes me not want to buy any games. I do wish to make a library. I would LOVE to buy every Virtual Console game and create an awesome retro library that I can hang out and have fun. But with this library’s lifespan being dependent on the hardware, it is a no go. The solution would be a permanent Nintendo account.
Nintendo keeps relying on integration of hardware and software for its games. But is not the Internet also software? If I could buy Super Mario Brothers as a permanent account game that would exist with future Nintendo hardware, my spending would increase by 1000% percent.
I would also begin purchasing digital games from current game makers since I already bought Super Mario Brothers and now I can buy something else. But by forcing me to buy Super Mario Brothers for every hardware, there is no money left for the poor, starving, living in a box, garage developer trying to sell his game so he can feed his starving family of 18 children. Can we think of the developer?
“But we will lose money!” says Nintendo. If you wish to prosper in gaming, allow the gamer to prosper.
2) Let me choose my controller.
One thing that turns me off Nintendo consoles is how Nintendo forces every game to use a crazy controller. I prefer the NES style where we could get more value from our games by using a variety of controllers. The Wii almost did this with its adaptive port on the bottom.
While the SNES didn’t have much in a wide range of controllers, it was mostly because the SNES controller was so freaking good. We didn’t need another controller to play Street Fighter 2 like the Genesis players did. But even the SNES had its turbo controllers, had that bazooka gun, and even had a mouse with Mario Paint.
What would really help the Wii U is if the Wii U controller was optional. “But that would ruin our advantage of integrated hardware and software,” says Nintendo. But I ask where is the customer in all this? What is more important is for Nintendo to be integrated with the customers. Allow the gamer to be in control of his gaming experience. In fact, the OS of a game console should allow every button to be reconfigured to something else. Just think of how amazing this would have been when Mega Man Collection came out for the Gamecube.
3) Multiple controllers in a package
We hear all this stuff about ‘integrated hardware and software’ about the necessity of including the Wacky Controller in a game console. But this argument collapses when we realize that the Wacky Controller is expensive and takes the place of the other controller.
Ever since the home version of PONG, game consoles came with TWO or more controllers. Game consoles were multiplayer machines first. The NES came with TWO controllers. The SNES came with TWO controllers. Starting with the N64, Nintendo only included one controller. It is believed the Wii became popular due to the multiplayer effects. A better Wii value would have been TWO controllers in the package.
“But we make so much money from selling controllers independently.” But games consoles lost much of their magic once they began to be sold with only a single controller. What’s next? Sell game consoles without ANY controllers? Why is one important and not two?
If the controller wasn’t wacky, console companies could afford to include more than one in a box and increase the value of the box tremendously. The ‘must buy extra controller’ is one sour note that keeps me away from ‘jumping in’.
4) Continue the experiences that worked…
People say Nintendo’s consistency shows that their game sequels work. It shows the opposite. If Nintendo’s consumers were happy with the franchise games, they would stick with the Nintendo console to get the next Mario, Zelda, or Metroid. Instead, the audience that dominates Nintendo’s systems are children who have no history of Mario, Zelda, and Metroid. Today’s Mario, Zelda, and Metroid games are not selling to the old audience but people who have no recollection of previous games.
“Why is this bad?” Nintendo asks. It is bad because the audience should grow along with population growth and with the increase of spending income.
The Mario game that is released today should satisfy just like the Mario games of the 1980s. The Metroid game that is released today should satisfy like the Metroid games released a while ago. In the case of Metroid, Other M does not satisfy (if it satisfies anyone at all) like Super Metroid does.
I am not asking for more of the same. I am asking for proper analysis that identifies what makes these games satisfy be continued in future versions. When we buy a game that has Metroid on it, we have expectations that it satisfy like a previous Metroid did.
“But we can’t do that,” says Nintendo, “because now we have so many different generations who see the games differently.” But these generations are not equal. The fanbase of Super Mario Sunshine does not equal the fanbase of Super Mario Brothers.
Wii Sports worked because it continued the experience that the NES sports games did. I believe previous golden moments of gaming are fertile ground for tomorrow’s blockbuster console.
5) Don’t continue what doesn’t work
We don’t need more Wii Music or Gamecube Connectivity. If players don’t like 3d Mario, then perhaps it is better to rethink what is going on. If players don’t like Aonuma Zelda, it is time to re-examine it. If players don’t like Metroid: Other M, by God, please don’t make more!
This may seem like common sense, but Nintendo tends to go about things like “We want to do X. X didn’t sell. Therefore, we need to figure out how to get X to work.” I want them to re-consider the entire validity of X in the first place when it doesn’t sell.
Do readers have any suggestions to add to this list? I’m welcome for more. I suspect this is just a start.
Malstrom's Articles News 