Opinions: Nintendo's Risk-Taking.

[LensOfTruth]

Hey, everyone.
I've been thinking about Nintendo's reputation for risk-taking. What are your thoughts on some of Nintendo's biggest game-related experiments?

(I'm talking software, not hardware.)

Here are three that come to mind:


Metroid Fusion - Continuing the Super Metroid story is, in and of itself, a risky endeavor. Do the X parasites fit the story without sounding generic? How the X parasites blend with the Metroid lore worked well enough, and how SA-X creates interesting gameplay moments really stuck with me. Even though Fusion is more encapsulated than its SNES prequel, I think this risk paid off.


Super Mario RPG - Considering Squaresoft's success with Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, and Final Fantasy VI, why not trust them with a Mario-branded JRPG? As much as I adore this game, I concede that Smithy and co. don't really fit the Mario universe particularly. Still, it's a risk that paid off for Nintendo because the game is remembered so fondly by many. I have to admit, in a universe where SMRPG did poorly, I believe the exact same thing would have happened -- Nintendo would have just handed off the JRPG duties to different developers, such as Intelligent Systems and AlphaDream. (Because of strained business relationships prior to the N64's launch, this ended up happening anyway.)


Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker - This one's really hit and miss. On the one side, Nintendo pulled off excellent cel-shaded visuals rivaled only by Level-5, and it created an expectation that Zelda wouldn't always be a super serious series. On the other hand, the game was rushed, leading to fewer dungeons/temples and a fetch quest that could go several layers deep. (Get the wallet, collect the money, obtain/translate the maps, find the pieces.) Of course, it goes without saying that not all fans were ready for the visual style. Still, Wind Waker is generally regarded as a good Zelda, so it's another pay off for Nintendo's development staff.

What are YOUR thoughts?

[Sano]

Can't comment on the Metroid game as I have never played it so I don't want to just judge it based on name only. Sadly I must admit now that I have never played the Mario RPG.. yes I am a heretic, don't hurt me!.

I can say that I did play Windwaker! I do agree it was a risky move on Nintendo's part. The visual elements of the game did nothing in a good or bad way. It was very well done cel-shading though. I did make it to Ganon, but no matter how hard I tried I never could beat him. Countless tries later I eventually got rid of the console and the game. Well not one of the higher end Zelda games (Link to the Past will always be my favorite); the game did make a good addition to the Zelda franchise.

I don't really have any games to add to the discussion... Superman 64 is one of the worst games ever made... Don't know if Nintendo risked anything on that one though.

[Segata]

Fusion was no risk. It still played like 2D Metroid you expect. Prime, however, was a huge risk. They put a flagship series in the hands of an inexperienced studio and changed the perspective to the first person. There was a lot of negativity before release. I'd say Starfox on SNES was very risky.

Recently Breath of the Wild is the most ambitious game they have made in years. Same with Splatoon.

The biggest risk Nintendo has done last few years is allow many 3rd party studios handle their IPs like Zelda and Mario in new ways we never saw before. Yeah Capcom made some handheld Zeldas but Tecmo made a Warriors Zelda game.

Funding Bayonetta 2 and Tokyo Mirage Sessions.

[PartridgeSenpai]

Nintendo is so often a company that strives for "innovation for innovation's sake" that I'd say damn near every game they release is at least a little bit risky, if not quite so.

They were absolutely unflinching on their insistence of Star Fox Zero's control scheme, and it made the game far more decisive than it would have been otherwise.

Nothing like Pikmin had ever been done before on a console. It was a fairly radical new idea, and was definitely risky.

Putting Luigi in a weird action adventure game at the launch of the Gamecube while their Mario game loomed on the horizon? They embittered quite a few people with that (even if those people were upset for really no reason).

Motion controls had never been done before on a console to such a level with the Wii. If they hadn't had the foresight to market the Wii as a family console everyone could use, it may have bombed and changed the course of gaming history where there was never the outflow of copy cats, or by extension even the resurgence of VR like the HTC Vive and its repackaged motion controlled-focus.

The DS? A handheld with TWO screens? Why would that even be necessary? Wasn't one enough before? Why release so many hardware revisions for it?

Nintendo is a company that loves partaking in risk, and is the better for it. Perhaps they're just some of the ones who know better when to hold (like with the Wii) or when to fold (like the N64 DD or Virtual Boy) than some of their competitors *cough* Microsoft *cough*

[ElkinFencer10]

The only risk Nintendo has taken that I (note: me, not critics or consumes at large) thought wasn't fantastic was the Virtual Boy. Even some of the riskier things for which I didn't particularly care were almost always well planned and well made even if not to my taste personally. The reason that people love the Nintendo brand is BECAUSE they take risks because with taking risks, your company won't stand out from the crowd; that's why the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 (and, at least in a lot of ways, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One) are so damn indistinguishable.

[LensOfTruth]

Another side of Nintendo's risk-taking is outsourcing. I think it's worked out for Metroid with Retro Studios, and not so much for Team Ninja's Other M. It worked for Donkey Kong Country with Rare and Retro Studios, but not so much for Namco's Donkey Konga. After Starfox 64, the series has had a hard time. From Dinosaur Planet's redesign to Namco's Starfox Assault. I haven't played Platinum's Starfox Zero, but I hear the control scheme kind of ruins it.

It's a shame, but Nintendo doesn't do a lot of in-house work for non-Mario and non-Zelda franchises. If you ask me, what they need is the Nintendo touch, but maybe I sound like a Nintendo fanatic. What does everyone else think?

[Sarge]

The irony, though, is that most of the things people complained about from Other M weren't Team Ninja's fault, they were Nintendo's.

[BogusMeatFactory]

I look at donkey Kong Country tropical freeze, Luigi' s mansion on 3ds, and I say, Nintendo is in the right place. They have so much control over the development process that even if they are not directly developing for it, they are making sure the little touches and special moments say Nintendo.

There have been issues in the past sure. some products don't own out, but look at Mario strikers, fzero gx and so much more.

[Sarge]

Nintendo has actually done a good job of keeping projects in-hand in the past, too. Look at the Oracle games for GBC. Those were developed by Flagship/Capcom, but they feel undeniably "Nintendo". Sega took on F-Zero, and succeeded magnificently. Metroid Prime. Wario Land: Shake It! Punch-Out!! for Wii. They hit more often than they miss.

[Exhuminator]

The irony, though, is that most of the things people complained about from Other M weren't Team Ninja's fault, they were Nintendo's.

Absolutely agreed. Team Ninja did their part of the job admirably. The actual problems were Yoshio Sakamoto's fault.