Nintendo's worst mistakes.

[CastletonSnob]

Nintendo is a very successful business, and gaming wouldn't be the same without them. Unfortunately, they've had their share of missteps.

What do you consider the worst decisions Nintendo have ever made? My pick would be sticking with cartridges for the N64, causing them to lose third party support.

I say sticking with cartridges for the N64 was the worst mistake Nintendo ever made, not backing out of the SNES CD add-on project with Sony. For two reasons:

1. If Nintendo had chosen to use CDs for the N64, they likely would have kept more third parties and beaten the Playstation, or at least not have lost as badly.

2. Because Final Fantasy VII was originally going to be on the N64, but because of Nintendo’s decision to stick with cartridges, Square jumped ship to Sony, where FFVII became a killer app for the PS1.


Third parties would have had no reason to take a chance with a newcomer in Sony if the N64 used CDs, because Nintendo was still the market leader at the time. And I think Sony would have joined the console market with or without Nintendo. The SNES CD add-on was just their way of getting their foot in the door.

If the N64 used CDs and Nintendo kept all the third parties, the Playstation might very well have just been another also-ran in the console market.

 

[BirthNote]

Choosing to name a system Wii U instead of the Wii 2

 

[Diddy Kong]

Ignoring Donkey Kong for way too long, even to this present day.

 

[Ridley_Prime]

Nintendo choosing not to buy Rare, which affected more than just Donkey Kong. While his series has had the struggle of being inconsistently supported to this day, other Rare IP’s have been even less fortunate despite occasional attempts on Microsoft’s end. Nintendo was the only one that could push the British studio to greatness at almost every turn, and without them together, you see what you get now.

 

[jamesster445]

Yeah screwing over Sony on the Nintendo Playstation because Nintendo didn't want to use CDs.

Not only did this lead to the CD-I games. But it created their biggest and longest running competitor that is still around.

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

Objectively? The Year of Luigi. It set false expectations for more anniversaries; plummeted Nintendo's value; and gave certain games easter eggs that are really weird without context, aging them in the process.

In terms of personal opinion? Giving Smash characters individual trailers. Completely took the soul and potential for fun obscure newcomers out of Smash since you can't make an exciting trailer for Who Are You Running From or Jill & Drill Dozer like you can Sephiroth or Joker. A master stroke in marketing though.

Nintendo choosing not to buy Rare, which affected more than just Donkey Kong. While his series has had the struggle of being inconsistently supported to this day, other Rare IP’s have been even less fortunate despite occasional attempts on Microsoft’s end. Nintendo was the only one that could push the British studio to greatness at almost every turn, and without them together, you see what you get now.

I've said this a milion times but it bears (and birds) repeating: I have a feeling Rare's current lineup under Nintendo would've actually been worse. Nintendo would likely force their established IPs into Rare's projects like with Star Fox, and as much as I love Captain Syrup I do not want to live in a world with "Wario's Sea of Thieves" - plus the implications raised by "Rare would be better off with Nintendo because Banjo and Conker would be active!" are kind of harrowing considering that pretty much everyone who could make either revival happen has expressed disinterest meaning that, intentionally or not, that's implying corporate-mandated games nobody wants to make - the very thing people assume ActiBliz and Game Freak are doing and criticising them for. Also DKCTF is a blessed game and I wouldn't sacrifice it for the world

 

[Ridley_Prime]

From what I recall hearing, Sony was going to get all the profits for the games on the proposed Nintendo PlayStation, so it's not like they were completely innocent either.

While Nintendo did create their biggest rival as a result of their negligence, I don't see it as black and white as the birth of PlayStation being big bully Nintendo screwing over the helpless victim Sony, when Sony was the bigger company at the time. It's a kind of thing where you can use hindsight to act like it was Nintendo in the wrong which led to the rise of PlayStation, but remember this was all happening at a time when there were many entrants into the console market and almost all completely failed. Sony was the only one that succeeded (barring Microsoft who forced their way in later), so Nintendo had no way to predict Sony would be the one to make it work.

I've said this a milion times but it bears (and birds) repeating: I have a feeling Rare's current lineup under Nintendo would've actually been worse. Nintendo would likely force their established IPs into Rare's projects like with Star Fox, and as much as I love Captain Syrup I do not want to live in a world with "Wario's Sea of Thieves" - plus the implications raised by "Rare would be better off with Nintendo because Banjo and Conker would be active!" are kind of harrowing considering that pretty much everyone who could make either revival happen has expressed disinterest meaning that, intentionally or not, that's implying corporate-mandated games nobody wants to make - the very thing people assume ActiBliz and Game Freak are doing and criticising them for. Also DKCTF is a blessed game and I wouldn't sacrifice it for the world

While I agree that Rare under Nintendo now wouldn't be great like back in the day (a point I had realized before also), they still would've been good for awhile in the case of Donkey Kong Racing and other Rare games on the Gamecube that wouldn't of been cancelled. I don't think every non-DK attempt by Rare at a Nintendo IP would've resulted in a blunder like Star Fox Adventures though. Remember too that game was rushed as a result of MS buying Rare at the time, so the game would've been better in another timeline. While there's doubt that Banjo would be as active now, he probably still would've gotten more besides just being in Smash and just having figurines made. There would've been a better attempt some gens earlier than what we got from Nuts & Bolts at least. That's fair as far as DKCTF, though I have to wonder how many good games we'd have in a world with both Rare and Retro Studio under Nintendo's belt.

I've mostly moved on from what could've been with Nintendo-Rare, but I'll never not see Iwata not buying Rare and letting them go as a mistake, because it most certainly was. Nintendo had also lost relationships with other Western teams at the time in between the Gamecube and Wii.

 

[Demon Dragon]

Hoo boy...

1. Their taking down of fan projects and channels that post their music, even when it is obvious that it is not being done for profit.
2. Their decision to shut down the eShop for 3DS and Wii U
3. The fact that they do not give two ****s about their dead franchises or bother to create a new IP because they assume that everyone only wants Mario
4. Ridiculous censorship in some of their games (ex. the SNES versions of Wolfenstein and Mortal Kombat, Treehouse's sh*t localization of Fates)
5. Their flagrant usage of scalping and the artificial scarcity tactic
6. NINTENDO. SWITCH. ONLINE.
7. The Wii U. Just everything about it.
8. As mentioned above, the fact that they squandered a potentially amazing collab with Sony for the SNES CD-ROM in favor of Phillips's "games"
9. Their refusal to admit to Joy-Con drift
10. The Nintendo Creator's Program

I could do this all day.

 

[CastletonSnob]

From what I recall hearing, Sony was going to get all the profits for the games on the proposed Nintendo PlayStation, so it's not like they were completely innocent either.

While Nintendo did create their biggest rival as a result of their negligence, I don't see it as black and white as the birth of PlayStation being big bully Nintendo screwing over the helpless victim Sony, when Sony was the bigger company at the time. It's a kind of thing where you can use hindsight to act like it was Nintendo in the wrong which led to the rise of PlayStation, but remember this was all happening at a time when there were many entrants into the console market and almost all completely failed. Sony was the only one that succeeded (barring Microsoft who forced their way in later), so Nintendo had no way to predict Sony would be the one to make it work.

I don't like how the history of the Playstation is often framed as the big bully Nintendo screwing over the helpless victim Sony.

 

[CastletonSnob]

Yeah screwing over Sony on the Nintendo Playstation because Nintendo didn't want to use CDs.

Not only did this lead to the CD-I games. But it created their biggest and longest running competitor that is still around.

The SNES CD add-on partnership failing had nothing to do with CDs. Sony wanted most of the profits for the Playstation.

The story of the SNES PlayStation: When Nintendo and Sony nearly hooked up

This astonishing piece of video gaming history might sound like some kind of inane practical joke, but it's the real deal - and had things gone a little differently over 20 years ago, we could have been talking about it today in the same reverent tones as the actual 32-bit PlayStation itself.

www.trustedreviews.com

In 1991, the New York Times reported Sony had "retained all licensing rights for any compact disk game developed for the new system," meaning the deal with Sony left Nintendo uncharacteristically holding the short-end of the stick.

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

The Wii U is one of the most interesting and blatant of Nintendo's mistakes, largely because its eventual failure lies in so many various factors that came together at the worst possible time.

The company's forays into different kinds of gameplay had been a mixed success by that point. The DS & Wii had certainly been major successes, but Nintendo's history was rife with interesting experiments that ultimately didn't really yield significant dividends; the e-Card reader, GBA/GC link cable, Virtual Boy, and so forth. The key factor there was that such ventures tended to be accessories for the actual consoles or odd side projects like the VB that weren't the major focus of their efforts. The Wii U was them going all in on a gimmick as the centerpiece hardware, and the big gamble of new gameplay interaction falling flat on its face.

The bad marketing has been cited and rightfully so, however there were other major elements at work. Simply put, the Blue Ocean crowd that they successfully grabbed with the Wii didn't come back for its successor, with Nintendo seemingly unaware that so many of the most casual players had moved on to the mobile gaming scene that exploded in the waning years of the aughts. Rather than just competing with Sony and Microsoft, the Wii U was effectively fighting against a marketplace with much cheaper games and in a more convenient means to play them. And even those that wanted touch screen gaming with more depth already had the DS & 3DS to fill that gap.

That of course leads to the very fundamental problem of Nintendo failing to even get the hardcore fandom to buoy up the console, like the N64 and Gamecube. They had become so intent on reinventing the wheel, experimenting with odd side titles/gimmicks that they ultimately didn't deliver a library to fans that had already felt put off by certain decisions in the Wii era. They were solving problems that didn't exist, putting out spin-offs no one was asking for, and coming off more and more out of touch with what their fanbase in any way wanted. It wasn't necessarily arrogance, but it was the same kind of presumption of customer loyalty that led to the overpriced launch of the 3DS and a tone-deaf belief that the 4th New Super Mario Bros game in 6 years was going to be a system seller. Things like the initial lack of interest in the indie scene speaks to how overconfident they were in their library before reality really set in.

Star Fox Zero itself is, in many ways, the perfect example of the misguided intentions of the time period, a simultaneous retread of tired ground and an unnecessary attempt at redoing a series with a novel gameplay mechanic that felt contrived. It was a title that failed to grab new fans while alienating existing ones and rather than coming off as a new innovation instead seemed like a piece of media desperately trying to justify its existence to an audience that wasn't even playing it.

There was a silver lining to all this, though. Beyond the actual quality games that did come out for it, the system's failure was the punch to the nose that Nintendo may have needed to finally shake off its worst instincts, acknowledge its key errors, and refocus their efforts on making a console that actually delivered on what its predecessor once promised to be. The Switch has embraced indie titles, delivered the kind of sequels hardcore fans had really wanted, and positioned itself around a new concept of play that appealed to casual fans without hindering the design of the games themselves.

Wii U was a mistake... and in many ways its good that it was.

 

[Oddball]

I was working in a toy store when the Wii U came out. You wouldn't believe how many people (parents and grandparents mostly) that didn't realize it was a different system and not just an accessory for the Wii.

Of course you also run into similar problems with things like Playstation 3 or any other ssystem that decideds to number itself, but the Wii U was the worst of them.

 

[SomeSamiFan]

Personally, my biggest gripes with Nintendo are...
Hating fan projects
Sweeping Miis under the rug (I don't care what you say about Miitopia Or Smash Ultimate, the Miis are still being disrespected to this day!)
Killing off franchises and leaving them to rot (like Advance Wars)
Trying to please LITERALLY EVERYONE (and making mistakes in the process) aka trying to make themselves look better than they are
The Wii U's marketing
Joycon drift
Nintendo Switch Online in general
The N64 thumbstick (if you know, you know)
Neglecting the GameCube controller (seriously, that thing was awesome!)
Shutting down emulators of games they don't even produce anymore. (I much prefer the physical game than an emulator but seriously, Nintendo... this stuff is getting insane.)
And a bit more that I can't think of rn...

 

[chocolatejr9]

Since it was brought up earlier, I feel I should mention that Nintendo not buying Rare was a more complicated situation than most people realize.

HOWEVER, and this is probably a hot take, I DO think Nintendo should be more open to the idea of acquisitions in general. Not necessarilly the big names, mind you (though with Microsoft, Sony, and Tencent going on a rampage with buyouts, they may have to at some point), but at the VERY least they should bite the bullet on companies like Hal, IntSys, or even Game Freak (assuming Creatures Inc. is okay with Nintendo having a majority ownership of The Pokemon Company as a result of said buyout), who have all proven their undying loyalty to the Big N.

I... don't really know if that counts as a "mistake", but I wanted to get it out there.

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

Along those lines, Nintendo's inconsistent approach to utilizing smaller companies like indie ones for their IP's has also been wasted potential. It's encouraging to see stuff like WayForward working on Advance Wars, but there's so many other inactive franchises that could use the same thing, and realistically this is the kind of thing that could have bore fruit five to eight years ago. Especially during the dry periods of the Wii U (or even the bigger install base with the 3DS), an indie developed sequel to something like Golden Sun would have been a life preserver to a lot of fans.

 

[Quillion]

The Wii U is one of the most interesting and blatant of Nintendo's mistakes, largely because its eventual failure lies in so many various factors that came together at the worst possible time.

The company's forays into different kinds of gameplay had been a mixed success by that point. The DS & Wii had certainly been major successes, but Nintendo's history was rife with interesting experiments that ultimately didn't really yield significant dividends; the e-Card reader, GBA/GC link cable, Virtual Boy, and so forth. The key factor there was that such ventures tended to be accessories for the actual consoles or odd side projects like the VB that weren't the major focus of their efforts. The Wii U was them going all in on a gimmick as the centerpiece hardware, and the big gamble of new gameplay interaction falling flat on its face.

The bad marketing has been cited and rightfully so, however there were other major elements at work. Simply put, the Blue Ocean crowd that they successfully grabbed with the Wii didn't come back for its successor, with Nintendo seemingly unaware that so many of the most casual players had moved on to the mobile gaming scene that exploded in the waning years of the aughts. Rather than just competing with Sony and Microsoft, the Wii U was effectively fighting against a marketplace with much cheaper games and in a more convenient means to play them. And even those that wanted touch screen gaming with more depth already had the DS & 3DS to fill that gap.

That of course leads to the very fundamental problem of Nintendo failing to even get the hardcore fandom to buoy up the console, like the N64 and Gamecube. They had become so intent on reinventing the wheel, experimenting with odd side titles/gimmicks that they ultimately didn't deliver a library to fans that had already felt put off by certain decisions in the Wii era. They were solving problems that didn't exist, putting out spin-offs no one was asking for, and coming off more and more out of touch with what their fanbase in any way wanted. It wasn't necessarily arrogance, but it was the same kind of presumption of customer loyalty that led to the overpriced launch of the 3DS and a tone-deaf belief that the 4th New Super Mario Bros game in 6 years was going to be a system seller. Things like the initial lack of interest in the indie scene speaks to how overconfident they were in their library before reality really set in.

Star Fox Zero itself is, in many ways, the perfect example of the misguided intentions of the time period, a simultaneous retread of tired ground and an unnecessary attempt at redoing a series with a novel gameplay mechanic that felt contrived. It was a title that failed to grab new fans while alienating existing ones and rather than coming off as a new innovation instead seemed like a piece of media desperately trying to justify its existence to an audience that wasn't even playing it.

There was a silver lining to all this, though. Beyond the actual quality games that did come out for it, the system's failure was the punch to the nose that Nintendo may have needed to finally shake off its worst instincts, acknowledge its key errors, and refocus their efforts on making a console that actually delivered on what its predecessor once promised to be. The Switch has embraced indie titles, delivered the kind of sequels hardcore fans had really wanted, and positioned itself around a new concept of play that appealed to casual fans without hindering the design of the games themselves.

Wii U was a mistake... and in many ways its good that it was.

You know, the problems of the Wii U are well-known at this point, but this video puts forth the argument that the problems started showing up towards the end of the Wii era. During the Wii era, Nintendo as a whole was very concerned about how their simpler, casual games were for the most part doing better than their more traditional, complex games. At the same time, they also knew that casual fans won't become dedicated consumers the way dedicated gamers do, so they had to come up with a way to transition them.

While some would say the Wii U era began with its 2012 release, I would say that the spirit of the Wii U era's indecisive appeal began with The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword in 2011. Like Star Fox Zero, in some ways it's a conflicted combination of retreading old ground and inserting contrived mechanics and design decisions. It retreads the idea of having two sets of dungeons to collect useless-in-gameplay items, an informative companion, and tried-and-true level themes like forest, water, volcano, and desert; it inserts contrived mechanics like stamina, motion controls, and dowsing. Skyward Sword earned its divisive reception because it hit a sourspot between appealing to casual gamers and dedicated gamers. Dedicated gamers didn't like the linearity (at least at the time), motion controls, the easiness of the combat, or the heavy plot exposition and gameplay handholding. Casual gamers didn't like the complexity of the puzzles or the emphasis on directionally slashing to get around enemy blocking. Like the Wii U itself and many of its games, Skyward Sword just didn't know who it was made for.

Of course, it didn't help that Skyward Sword was apparently "Sonic Forces rushed" in that they had trouble getting the Wii Motion Plus to work in the first place for about three years before designing the rest of the game in one-and-a-half-to-two years, and this probably played a role in its heavy backtracking, unintuitive level design of the Surface, and the emptiness of the Sky among the previously mentioned issues.

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

2011 definitely was the genesis of the "dark age" that dominated a lot of Nintendo circa 2012-2016. Not only was the somewhat underwhelming launch of the 3DS a sign that the company was fumbling the momentum they had with the DS to a degree, but the release of Skyrim and its comparison to Skyward Sword was illustrative of just how of touch they would be in the couple of years. Joke about the game's jank, its constant re-releases, and it's infamous opening all you want, but when it came out it was significant, engaging, and next level in a way that SS simply wasn't.

The latter's combination of hit-and-miss gameplay gimmicks and another further stretching of the same formula Ocarina of Time had created over a decade earlier made it feel a bit out of place with where gaming was going, and the game's reputation suffered for it. It was a quality title, but it was the canary in the coal mine of Nintendo feeling irrelevant to both the industry and to a lot of fans until the Switch's release.

 

[fogbadge]

You know, the problems of the Wii U are well-known at this point, but this video puts forth the argument that the problems started showing up towards the end of the Wii era. During the Wii era, Nintendo as a whole was very concerned about how their simpler, casual games were for the most part doing better than their more traditional, complex games. At the same time, they also knew that casual fans won't become dedicated consumers the way dedicated gamers do, so they had to come up with a way to transition them.

While some would say the Wii U era began with its 2012 release, I would say that the spirit of the Wii U era's indecisive appeal began with The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword in 2011. Like Star Fox Zero, in some ways it's a conflicted combination of retreading old ground and inserting contrived mechanics and design decisions. It retreads the idea of having two sets of dungeons to collect useless-in-gameplay items, an informative companion, and tried-and-true level themes like forest, water, volcano, and desert; it inserts contrived mechanics like stamina, motion controls, and dowsing. Skyward Sword earned its divisive reception because it hit a sourspot between appealing to casual gamers and dedicated gamers. Dedicated gamers didn't like the linearity (at least at the time), motion controls, the easiness of the combat, or the heavy plot exposition and gameplay handholding. Casual gamers didn't like the complexity of the puzzles or the emphasis on directionally slashing to get around enemy blocking. Like the Wii U itself and many of its games, Skyward Sword just didn't know who it was made for.

Of course, it didn't help that Skyward Sword was apparently "Sonic Forces rushed" in that they had trouble getting the Wii Motion Plus to work in the first place for about three years before designing the rest of the game in one-and-a-half-to-two years, and this probably played a role in its heavy backtracking, unintuitive level design of the Surface, and the emptiness of the Sky among the previously mentioned issues.

where on earth did you hear this apocryphal tale of SS being rushed?

 

[Quillion]

where on earth did you hear this apocryphal tale of SS being rushed?

They admittedly haven't fessed up about Skyward Sword having rushed design and testing phases (they should though), but looking both at the hints that were dropped as well as design decisions in both this game and other non-Zelda games, it actually becomes obvious in hindsight.

• Miyamoto stated that they spent about two years getting the Motionplus to work, a statement echoed by Aonuma. That said, Aonuma states that while development started after Twilight Princess, the core idea came from Fujibayashi's proposal after he was done with Phantom Hourglass, meaning the first year or so after Twilight Princess was just them kicking around ideas, so SS's development was likely just 4 years.
• They admitted that Dowsing was implemented so that they wouldn't have to spend the time making landmarks that naturally draw the player's attention. That in itself is a big no-no in game design by all accounts, having to rely on the game's "guiding mechanics" to show you where you need to go as opposed to having the "guiding mechanic" strictly be a crutch for the extremely clueless. Contrast this to how Breath of the Wild was meticulously playtested so that they made absolutely sure things that drew the player's attention were doing their job (granted Aonuma admitted in that section that this meant shorter actual development time, which probably played a role in BotW's low enemy variety, undercooked weapon and crafting systems, and underwhelming quests but eh).
• Although he stated that Skyward Sword's smaller scale in exchange for density was intentional, Aonuma did want to make the Surface more interconnected to better cater to the exploration crowd. It wouldn't have been impossible in a technical sense either, as Metroid Prime on the Gamecube proved that a Metroidvania-standard world consisting of interconnected hallways and chambers as opposed to a big open field would work on the Wii. The only explanation is that they didn't have the time to flesh that part out.
• While many call Skyward Sword's heavy backtracking lazy, knowing the limited time they had to design and test the game puts the backtracking in a new light, as a similar fate befell Devil May Cry 4 which had similar problems with backtracking.
• After much internal debate on whether to use Motionplus, they admitted that Wii Sports Resort was the catalyst that solidified their decision to use it. However, among those who like motion controls in itself, most agree that Skyward Sword's own motion controls pale in comparison to the meticulously polished controls of Wii Sports Resort. Aonuma actually wanted to give up on Motionplus at one point, so it's very likely that they were forced to cobble something together just to have some time left for design and testing. This is actually quite similar to why Super Mario Sunshine was relatively unpolished compared to the other 3D Mario games, as despite it imitating Mario 64's mechanics when possible, it had less development time than Mario 64 (a year and a half compared to Mario 64's 21 months). Shigeru Miyamoto said that there was a mandate to get Sunshine out by summer, and even he feels that game should have spent more time in the oven.

Honestly, I hope that more people realize Skyward Sword had rushed design and testing. At least that way, people could look at it more critically instead of bashing its linearity, backtracking, and handholding.

 

[fogbadge]

They admittedly haven't fessed up about Skyward Sword having rushed design and testing phases (they should though), but looking both at the hints that were dropped as well as design decisions in both this game and other non-Zelda games, it actually becomes obvious in hindsight.

• Miyamoto stated that they spent about two years getting the Motionplus to work, a statement echoed by Aonuma. That said, Aonuma states that while development started after Twilight Princess, the core idea came from Fujibayashi's proposal after he was done with Phantom Hourglass, meaning the first year or so after Twilight Princess was just them kicking around ideas, so SS's development was likely just 4 years.
• They admitted that Dowsing was implemented so that they wouldn't have to spend the time making landmarks that naturally draw the player's attention. That in itself is a big no-no in game design by all accounts, having to rely on the game's "guiding mechanics" to show you where you need to go as opposed to having the "guiding mechanic" strictly be a crutch for the extremely clueless. Contrast this to how Breath of the Wild was meticulously playtested so that they made absolutely sure things that drew the player's attention were doing their job (granted Aonuma admitted in that section that this meant shorter actual development time, which probably played a role in BotW's low enemy variety, undercooked weapon and crafting systems, and underwhelming quests but eh).
• Although he stated that Skyward Sword's smaller scale in exchange for density was intentional, Aonuma did want to make the Surface more interconnected to better cater to the exploration crowd. It wouldn't have been impossible in a technical sense either, as Metroid Prime on the Gamecube proved that a Metroidvania-standard world consisting of interconnected hallways and chambers as opposed to a big open field would work on the Wii. The only explanation is that they didn't have the time to flesh that part out.
• While many call Skyward Sword's heavy backtracking lazy, knowing the limited time they had to design and test the game puts the backtracking in a new light, as a similar fate befell Devil May Cry 4 which had similar problems with backtracking.
• After much internal debate on whether to use Motionplus, they admitted that Wii Sports Resort was the catalyst that solidified their decision to use it. However, among those who like motion controls in itself, most agree that Skyward Sword's own motion controls pale in comparison to the meticulously polished controls of Wii Sports Resort. Aonuma actually wanted to give up on Motionplus at one point, so it's very likely that they were forced to cobble something together just to have some time left for design and testing. This is actually quite similar to why Super Mario Sunshine was relatively unpolished compared to the other 3D Mario games, as despite it imitating Mario 64's mechanics when possible, it had less development time than Mario 64 (a year and a half compared to Mario 64's 21 months). Shigeru Miyamoto said that there was a mandate to get Sunshine out by summer, and even he feels that game should have spent more time in the oven.

Honestly, I hope that more people realize Skyward Sword had rushed design and testing. At least that way, people could look at it more critically instead of bashing its linearity, backtracking, and handholding.

you think 4 years is rushed? I dread to think what you make of MM

I also can’t help but notice you don’t actually source your claims about rushed design testing just comparisons

 

[Quillion]

you think 4 years is rushed? I dread to think what you make of MM

I also can’t help but notice you don’t actually source your claims about rushed design testing just comparisons

Four years wouldn't be rushed normally, but things do change during development. Some things may need more time than originally intended, eating into the time that would be reserved for other things.

That's why I call Skyward Sword "Sonic Forces rushed" as we know that Sonic Forces, in spite of a release delay, spent a lot of time trying to build and program the engine and only around a year doing the actual design (8:02).

 

[fogbadge]

Four years wouldn't be rushed normally, but things do change during development. Some things may need more time than originally intended, eating into the time that would be reserved for other things.

That's why I call Skyward Sword "Sonic Forces rushed" as we know that Sonic Forces, in spite of a release delay, spent a lot of time trying to build and program the engine and only around a year doing the actual design (8:02).

sounds like pure conjecture to me. You’re just assuming these things must have happened based on very little

 

[Quillion]

sounds like pure conjecture to me. You’re just assuming these things must have happened based on very little

In one of the links I posted, Miyamoto stated that two years of the game's development cycle was caught up in experimentation. Combine that with Aonuma's statement that they went through with Fujibayashi's only after Phantom Hourglass was done, and it becomes clear that the first year was the team struggling to put together an idea while the next two years were filled with experimentation, struggle, and internal debate over the Motionplus.

 

[fogbadge]

In one of the links I posted, Miyamoto stated that two years of the game's development cycle was caught up in experimentation. Combine that with Aonuma's statement that they went through with Fujibayashi's only after Phantom Hourglass was done, and it becomes clear that the first year was the team struggling to put together an idea while the next two years were filled with experimentation, struggle, and internal debate over the Motionplus.

hang about, you think spending two years experimenting with the controls is rushed design? which miyamoto specifically describes as time not wasted

also that link doesnt work

 

[Quillion]

fogbadge : Look, my point is that it's clear the team spent way less time making Skyward Sword's level design than they should have, which led it to be small and backtracky among other things. The game's many guidance systems also feel like a shortcut to not make landmark-driven level design, something that was admitted about dowsing in particular.

 

[fogbadge]

fogbadge : Look, my point is that it's clear the team spent way less time making Skyward Sword's level design than they should have, which led it to be small and backtracky among other things. The game's many guidance systems also feel like a shortcut to not make landmark-driven level design, something that was admitted about dowsing in particular.

it’s not actually you’re just filling in blanks. In fact miyamoto said the game ended up being delayed

 

[Quillion]

fogbadge : Miyamoto said their original plan was to get it out in three years. But the Iwata Asks interview with Aonuma and his staff states that they started development after Twilight Princess while only selecting the core concept after Phantom Hourglass. It seems that when they decided to delay the game, they just got done getting Motionplus to work and hadn't even started on the level design.

 

[fogbadge]

fogbadge : Miyamoto said their original plan was to get it out in three years. But the Iwata Asks interview with Aonuma and his staff states that they started development after Twilight Princess while only selecting the core concept after Phantom Hourglass. It seems that when they decided to delay the game, they just got done getting Motionplus to work and hadn't even started on the level design.

they also said that before PH was out that it would be Zelda game that controlled like no other, meaning that they had the gameplay idea from the start and the core concept probably refers to the story

 

[Quillion]

they also said that before PH was out that it would be Zelda game that controlled like no other, meaning that they had the gameplay idea from the start and the core concept probably refers to the story

The Iwata Asks interview says that Fujibayashi was the one who proposed using Motionplus in the first place, meaning his core concept was the gameplay.

 

[fogbadge]

The Iwata Asks interview says that Fujibayashi was the one who proposed using Motionplus in the first place, meaning his core concept was the gameplay.

but they were already experimenting with the gameplay, the motion plus was to enhance that

 

[Quillion]

but they were already experimenting with the gameplay, the motion plus was to enhance that

Fair enough assessment, though Aonuma said that development took a turn for the worse once they decided to use Motionplus.

 

[fogbadge]

Fair enough assessment, though Aonuma said that development took a turn for the worse once they decided to use Motionplus.

i dont dispute that one

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

This is just based on my impressions, but Skyward Sword always felt like a game that did genuinely live up to certain design aspects… it's just that such things there were fairly flawed.

I mentioned before that Star Fox Zero was in many ways the game that best embodied the problems of the time period (down it's release in the nadir of Nintendo relevance that was 2016) and in that same sense, I'd say that Skyward Sword is the estuary between two eras. On one hand, it very much falls into the Wii timeframe of an exciting title with a control method that is incredibly engaging when it works and is a real novelty in a lot of ways. As noted however, the already existing issues that so badly affected the next couple of years (lack of control options, excess hand holding, gimmickry at the expense of consistency) define the Wii version of SS in a lot of ways.

The major difference between it and various of the more maligned games of the time period is that the core of the title is solid. As the HD release demonstrated, there was always, at worst, an 8/10 game there that was badly hindered by Nintendo's then mishandled execution at bridging the hardcore vs. casual gap via "exact" motion controls. It possessed a depth that an Other M fundamentally lacked, and an ambition that a New Super Mario Bros U seemed to be in short supply of. Really, Skyward Sword was lucky in that the systemic mistakes that hurt other Nintendo releases shortly before and after weren't quite baked into it; those more of an awkward topping that no one was really demanding be added.

 

[Ridley_Prime]

2011 definitely was the genesis of the "dark age" that dominated a lot of Nintendo circa 2012-2016. Not only was the somewhat underwhelming launch of the 3DS a sign that the company was fumbling the momentum they had with the DS to a degree, but the release of Skyrim and its comparison to Skyward Sword was illustrative of just how of touch they would be in the couple of years. Joke about the game's jank, its constant re-releases, and it's infamous opening all you want, but when it came out it was significant, engaging, and next level in a way that SS simply wasn't.

The latter's combination of hit-and-miss gameplay gimmicks and another further stretching of the same formula Ocarina of Time had created over a decade earlier made it feel a bit out of place with where gaming was going, and the game's reputation suffered for it. It was a quality title, but it was the canary in the coal mine of Nintendo feeling irrelevant to both the industry and to a lot of fans until the Switch's release.

Despite the 3DS’s rough slow start, it eventually became pretty successful. I thought the Wii U would similarly pick up momentum when I eventually got one fairly late in its lifecycle, but was dead wrong. Outside of being able to buy older games on the virtual console store which will soon be defunct, it sucked for pretty much anyone who got a Wii U, seeing superior ports of games they previously bought on the Switch, especially Mario Kart 8 after seeing Deluxe. Almost no one in their right mind would've gotten a Wii U if they knew how the Switch would be, absorbing like 95% of the U's library.

If there is ever another Nintendo flop on that level, I just won’t buy whatever they’re selling. I learned my lesson from the buyer's remorse I had with the Wii U, and can expect whatever system after to have nearly all the games the prior failed system had be ported.

I don’t think there’ll be another failure quite like the Wii U though, but just in case there is, I’ll wait it out. The years go by faster as you get older, and as you get older, find you gotta be wiser on how you spend your money instead of making leap of faith purchases.

That aside, part of your post made me realize I’ve always been more into games made by teams that have either worked with Nintendo or are under Nintendo’s wing than ones made by Nintendo in-house. Even with the dark age of 2011/12 to 2016, there were some titles like Retro’s DKCTF that was seen as a light in the darkness, but I guess Nintendo in-house was seen as a joke even by many fans after Skyward Sword when compared to other games at the time. They got better after with Switch launch titles like Odyssey and BotW, but even now, games not made by Nintendo in-house like Metroid Dread are what’s carrying the Switch for me at the moment aside from Smash.

 

[AnonymousRex]

For me its the way they handle legacy games and how they can treat their fan's communities, projects, etc. Oh yeah, and the virtual boy. That one could have stewed in the pot a little while longer (25 years or so lol)

 

[Quillion]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think DoctorM64 is to blame at all, but I can't help but think that if AM2R didn't have the awful timing it did, Nintendo wouldn't go on their crusade against fan projects.

 

[Oracle Link]

Choosing to name a system Wii U instead of the Wii 2

Then Again Xbox One Exists!
Also a Future Mistake:
Cutting the Smash Roster too much down!

 

[CastletonSnob]

I doubt the Nintendo/Sony partnership would have lasted long. Nintendo and Sony have VERY different philosophies when it comes to video games and business as a whole.

 

[BirthNote]

Then Again Xbox One Exists!
Also a Future Mistake:
Cutting the Smash Roster too much down!

Honestly that confuses people constantly too lol. There were reports of people accidentally buying the Xbox one x cuz they thought it was the Series X. Their naming system is a complete mess

 

[Ridley_Prime]

The naming system hasn’t really hurt Xbox because they’ve still always been a big brand. The confusion name of the Wii U hurt Nintendo though since they were already losing relevancy to the public eye during the Wii’s twilight years as pointed out.