ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
Literature Text
In my time on the internet, I've heard many a callous argument against Nintendo. There's the absolutely laughable one that they're a kiddy company that only make kiddy games for kiddy kids and kitty cats. But there's one that I find at least slightly more valid. Perhaps you've heard this one, too. You don't have to look very far to find it. It's the one that says that Nintendo is completely unorginal and relies too heavily on “rehashing” their old intellectual properties. Now excuse me while I snicker facetiously behind my hand.
Now, some of you might be able to guess this, but I'm a hardcore Nintendo fan. It should be pretty obvious that I don't agree with these arguments in the slightest. While I do believe it would only benefit Nintendo to branch out and make more new IP and characters, I see nothing wrong with them revisiting old franchises. And before some of you race off to the comments to tell me what a biased nut I am, let me counter that by saying that there is a reason why I feel this way. Let me urge you to read on and find out what that reason is, keeping an open mind as you do that.
The argument that Nintendo relies too much on its old franchises is multifaceted and layered. One of those layers is based entirely around a misconception: that Nintendo has basically been remaking the same games for the past twenty-five years. This is no way true, and, if you say this, you aren't looking at the big picture. When Nintendo makes a new game in one of their key series, they don't simply take the old game, touch up the graphics, and ship it out. They always add new and exciting things to keep the game feeling fresh. And in no other series is this more evident than The Legend of Zelda.
Even on an aesthetic level, one can see each Zelda game has its own feel. Each has its own artstyle: from the cartoony, cel-shaded Wind Waker to the gritty, muted colors of Twilight Princess. Of course, the differences between these games are more than skin deep. Nintendo always takes it upon themselves to add new ideas to the formula with each new iteration. Majora's Mask had the three day cycle, mask collecting, and emphasis on characters and sidequests revolving around them. Wind Waker had the vast Great Sea that was open for you to sail across and explore. Skyward Sword had motion-controlled swordplay and revised overworld structure. Even Twilight Princess, which some criticize as being the least original Zelda game, still did quite a few things that hadn't been done before. And this can be said of all Nintendo franchises, whether it be Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Pokemon, etc.
There may be some of you who would counter this by bringing up games like Super Mario 3D Land and the New Super Mario Bros. series. “These games don't bring anything new at all, and simply focus on bringing up old elements from old games and updating them for the modern generation.”, you might say. Then let me stop you by saying that I actually agree with you. Recent Mario games have been tottering between nostalgic throwback and stale regurgitation. But I still think these nostalgic throwbacks have a place in the modern gaming world, so long as Nintendo uses them in moderation, which they don't seem to be doing as far as Mario is concerned. Regardless, I'm hoping Nintendo is stepping away from the retro throwbacks with their new 3D Super Mario game on Wii U, which has yet to be shown. I'm hoping they go more in the Galaxy direction by expanding on the scale of the Mario franchise as opposed to going back to basics.
Another facet of this argument that goes hand-in-hand with the previous point is that they release these so-called “rehashes” year after year. In response to this, I would like to ask a question: when was the last Zelda game released? Skyward Sword was released back in 2011. And what Zelda game was released before that? Twilight Princess in 2006. Now, I'm no calculus major, but I don't think 2006 and 2011 are consecutive years. True, we did have a few handheld Zeldas between those years but that's a whole different can of worms. The point is, Nintendo games aren't yearly iterations like the Call of Duty series. Except for Mario, but that's only in recent years.
The absence of new IP is another thing Nintendo is often criticized for, and is rather untrue. Nintendo consoles have a wealth of original IP to their credit. The Wii saw Red Steel, Muramasa, No More Heroes, MadWorld, The Last Story, and Pandora's Tower just to name a few. The more recent 3DS has seen games like Bravely Default and Rhythm Thief. And the Wii U has The Wonderful 101 and Shovel Knight to look forward to. But those are all third-party games. What new first-party IP does Nintendo have? Personally, I fail to see why it should matter whether any game is first or third-party in the grand scheme of things, but that's beside the point. There are new first-party Nintendo IP, and these are fairly recent too. There's Pushmo, Sakura Samurai, Dillon's Rolling Western, and Harmoknight. “But, Bladefinger, these are all downloadable games. What about something with a little more production value?” Well, you snooty folk, there's always Xenoblade Chronicles. It's okay if you overlooked it; it is rather easy to miss. There was only a massive fan campaign that garnered much media attention and led to the game's North American localization. It's not like its one of the highest rated JRPGs of the last generation...oh wait! It is! “But, Bladefinger, Xenoblade is developed by Monolith Soft, not Nintendo, so it's not first-party.” Well, you're right on one account and wrong on the other. It is developed by Monolith Soft. But let me tell you something about Monolith Soft: they're a first-party developer for Nintendo now, have been for quite some time. So, what was that you were saying about Nintendo having no new IP?
Of course, not everyone is going to agree with me. There will be some who stubbornly ignore the obvious evidence that Nintendo isn't shamelessly crapping out cheap sequels in an endless quest for cash. There will be some who criticize Nintendo for telling the same stories over and over again and using the same characters over and over again. If you do say this, let me ask you, “What does it matter?” If the gameplay is good and if you're having fun, what earthly difference does it make if Bowser has kidnapped Peach for the umpteenth time? Look at games like Braid or Super Meat Boy. What are you doing in those games? Rescuing a “princess”. But do you hear anyone complaining? Not at all! Because the games are well-designed and challenging, no one cares that the plot is so trite you can recite it from memory with your eyes closed. This same thing applies to Nintendo games as well. It doesn't matter that I'm rescuing Princess Peach yet again. This time I'm doing it in space, rocketing between planetoids, and having a grand time all the while.
Let me expand on this a bit further by comparing Nintendo to another giant of a separate industry, DC Comics. Who is the biggest character in DC's repertoire? Batman, of course. When was Batman first created? 1939, and he's still alive and kicking to this day, appearing not only in comics, but in highly successful TV shows, movies, and video games to boot!
How is it DC has managed to keep the Batman franchise up and running for so long? Well, they don't settle to just release the same comics drawn by the same artist time after time. Instead, they reboot the series every so often, bringing in new artists and writers to bring a new interpretation to the Dark Knight's world. But the basic plot always remains the same. Batman is Bruce Wayne, a wealthy heir who watched his parents get shot in a mugging while he was nothing more than a child. Traumatized by the event, he dons the persona of Batman and swears to fight the criminal underworld and be a symbol for all who would take a stand against injustice.
By the line of logic used by most people against Nintendo, Batman should have died out long ago and be nothing more than a distant memory today. This is what I'm trying to say: just as there is always room for new interpretations of Batman, there will always be room for new interpretations and new ideas in Mario and Zelda. And this can be said of any video game franchise, whether it belong to Nintendo or Sony, first or third party. That's the beauty of art. A modern interpretation of an old work is every bit as valid as a completely new work.
I'm not going to try and rationalize why certain persons think Nintendo only rehashes Mario and Zelda and nothing else. There are far too many factors in play to deduce that. Who knows but that one such person might read this and come to realize they'd been looking at Nintendo the wrong way all this time, but I doubt it. Still, at least I was here to tell you why.
Now, some of you might be able to guess this, but I'm a hardcore Nintendo fan. It should be pretty obvious that I don't agree with these arguments in the slightest. While I do believe it would only benefit Nintendo to branch out and make more new IP and characters, I see nothing wrong with them revisiting old franchises. And before some of you race off to the comments to tell me what a biased nut I am, let me counter that by saying that there is a reason why I feel this way. Let me urge you to read on and find out what that reason is, keeping an open mind as you do that.
The argument that Nintendo relies too much on its old franchises is multifaceted and layered. One of those layers is based entirely around a misconception: that Nintendo has basically been remaking the same games for the past twenty-five years. This is no way true, and, if you say this, you aren't looking at the big picture. When Nintendo makes a new game in one of their key series, they don't simply take the old game, touch up the graphics, and ship it out. They always add new and exciting things to keep the game feeling fresh. And in no other series is this more evident than The Legend of Zelda.
Even on an aesthetic level, one can see each Zelda game has its own feel. Each has its own artstyle: from the cartoony, cel-shaded Wind Waker to the gritty, muted colors of Twilight Princess. Of course, the differences between these games are more than skin deep. Nintendo always takes it upon themselves to add new ideas to the formula with each new iteration. Majora's Mask had the three day cycle, mask collecting, and emphasis on characters and sidequests revolving around them. Wind Waker had the vast Great Sea that was open for you to sail across and explore. Skyward Sword had motion-controlled swordplay and revised overworld structure. Even Twilight Princess, which some criticize as being the least original Zelda game, still did quite a few things that hadn't been done before. And this can be said of all Nintendo franchises, whether it be Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Pokemon, etc.
There may be some of you who would counter this by bringing up games like Super Mario 3D Land and the New Super Mario Bros. series. “These games don't bring anything new at all, and simply focus on bringing up old elements from old games and updating them for the modern generation.”, you might say. Then let me stop you by saying that I actually agree with you. Recent Mario games have been tottering between nostalgic throwback and stale regurgitation. But I still think these nostalgic throwbacks have a place in the modern gaming world, so long as Nintendo uses them in moderation, which they don't seem to be doing as far as Mario is concerned. Regardless, I'm hoping Nintendo is stepping away from the retro throwbacks with their new 3D Super Mario game on Wii U, which has yet to be shown. I'm hoping they go more in the Galaxy direction by expanding on the scale of the Mario franchise as opposed to going back to basics.
Another facet of this argument that goes hand-in-hand with the previous point is that they release these so-called “rehashes” year after year. In response to this, I would like to ask a question: when was the last Zelda game released? Skyward Sword was released back in 2011. And what Zelda game was released before that? Twilight Princess in 2006. Now, I'm no calculus major, but I don't think 2006 and 2011 are consecutive years. True, we did have a few handheld Zeldas between those years but that's a whole different can of worms. The point is, Nintendo games aren't yearly iterations like the Call of Duty series. Except for Mario, but that's only in recent years.
The absence of new IP is another thing Nintendo is often criticized for, and is rather untrue. Nintendo consoles have a wealth of original IP to their credit. The Wii saw Red Steel, Muramasa, No More Heroes, MadWorld, The Last Story, and Pandora's Tower just to name a few. The more recent 3DS has seen games like Bravely Default and Rhythm Thief. And the Wii U has The Wonderful 101 and Shovel Knight to look forward to. But those are all third-party games. What new first-party IP does Nintendo have? Personally, I fail to see why it should matter whether any game is first or third-party in the grand scheme of things, but that's beside the point. There are new first-party Nintendo IP, and these are fairly recent too. There's Pushmo, Sakura Samurai, Dillon's Rolling Western, and Harmoknight. “But, Bladefinger, these are all downloadable games. What about something with a little more production value?” Well, you snooty folk, there's always Xenoblade Chronicles. It's okay if you overlooked it; it is rather easy to miss. There was only a massive fan campaign that garnered much media attention and led to the game's North American localization. It's not like its one of the highest rated JRPGs of the last generation...oh wait! It is! “But, Bladefinger, Xenoblade is developed by Monolith Soft, not Nintendo, so it's not first-party.” Well, you're right on one account and wrong on the other. It is developed by Monolith Soft. But let me tell you something about Monolith Soft: they're a first-party developer for Nintendo now, have been for quite some time. So, what was that you were saying about Nintendo having no new IP?
Of course, not everyone is going to agree with me. There will be some who stubbornly ignore the obvious evidence that Nintendo isn't shamelessly crapping out cheap sequels in an endless quest for cash. There will be some who criticize Nintendo for telling the same stories over and over again and using the same characters over and over again. If you do say this, let me ask you, “What does it matter?” If the gameplay is good and if you're having fun, what earthly difference does it make if Bowser has kidnapped Peach for the umpteenth time? Look at games like Braid or Super Meat Boy. What are you doing in those games? Rescuing a “princess”. But do you hear anyone complaining? Not at all! Because the games are well-designed and challenging, no one cares that the plot is so trite you can recite it from memory with your eyes closed. This same thing applies to Nintendo games as well. It doesn't matter that I'm rescuing Princess Peach yet again. This time I'm doing it in space, rocketing between planetoids, and having a grand time all the while.
Let me expand on this a bit further by comparing Nintendo to another giant of a separate industry, DC Comics. Who is the biggest character in DC's repertoire? Batman, of course. When was Batman first created? 1939, and he's still alive and kicking to this day, appearing not only in comics, but in highly successful TV shows, movies, and video games to boot!
How is it DC has managed to keep the Batman franchise up and running for so long? Well, they don't settle to just release the same comics drawn by the same artist time after time. Instead, they reboot the series every so often, bringing in new artists and writers to bring a new interpretation to the Dark Knight's world. But the basic plot always remains the same. Batman is Bruce Wayne, a wealthy heir who watched his parents get shot in a mugging while he was nothing more than a child. Traumatized by the event, he dons the persona of Batman and swears to fight the criminal underworld and be a symbol for all who would take a stand against injustice.
By the line of logic used by most people against Nintendo, Batman should have died out long ago and be nothing more than a distant memory today. This is what I'm trying to say: just as there is always room for new interpretations of Batman, there will always be room for new interpretations and new ideas in Mario and Zelda. And this can be said of any video game franchise, whether it belong to Nintendo or Sony, first or third party. That's the beauty of art. A modern interpretation of an old work is every bit as valid as a completely new work.
I'm not going to try and rationalize why certain persons think Nintendo only rehashes Mario and Zelda and nothing else. There are far too many factors in play to deduce that. Who knows but that one such person might read this and come to realize they'd been looking at Nintendo the wrong way all this time, but I doubt it. Still, at least I was here to tell you why.
© 2013 - 2024 Bladefinger
Comments3
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
I will rush to the comments and tell you you're bigoted, and nothing you say will stop me. 
If your goal in writing this essay is to provide a rational rebuttal to the "Nintendo is unoriginal" argument, you would do well to dial back the hyperventilating fanaticism and insult your ideological opponents less often. To properly refute an argument, it's generally good practice to examine why and how it came to be and expose the flaws therein. To do that, you'll have to stop and look at the argument from another perspective, like you do when you write about New Super Mario Bros.
If you're going to use abbreviations, be sure to write them out for your readers once or twice. Your definition of "IP" was buried in the end of a sentence, and you didn't use the abbreviation until the middle of the next paragraph, by which time I had forgotten the phrase entirely. (Also, you use it--and the word "throwback"--about fifty times. Synonyms are good.)
Sure, Monolith Soft is working with Nintendo as a first-party developer, but were they at the time Xenoblade was in development? Where do you cite this possibly critical information?
"Logic used by most people" is passive voice. "By the line of logic most people use against..." is a much stronger sentence because it uses active voice. And who are these "most people"? Where are the statistics to support this?
You undermine your point by the conclusion you appended to this essay. If you doubt that what you write will make anyone rethink their attitude to Nintendo, why are you writing it?
Stylistic foibles aside, you make a reasonably solid argument. I too enjoyed the comparison to Batman, although many of the comic industries critics have the same critiques of the superhero franchises' constant reinventing as these hypothetical "most people" do about Nintendo. And many people dislike the Hollywood remakes, too. Hmm.
If your goal in writing this essay is to provide a rational rebuttal to the "Nintendo is unoriginal" argument, you would do well to dial back the hyperventilating fanaticism and insult your ideological opponents less often. To properly refute an argument, it's generally good practice to examine why and how it came to be and expose the flaws therein. To do that, you'll have to stop and look at the argument from another perspective, like you do when you write about New Super Mario Bros.
If you're going to use abbreviations, be sure to write them out for your readers once or twice. Your definition of "IP" was buried in the end of a sentence, and you didn't use the abbreviation until the middle of the next paragraph, by which time I had forgotten the phrase entirely. (Also, you use it--and the word "throwback"--about fifty times. Synonyms are good.)
Sure, Monolith Soft is working with Nintendo as a first-party developer, but were they at the time Xenoblade was in development? Where do you cite this possibly critical information?
"Logic used by most people" is passive voice. "By the line of logic most people use against..." is a much stronger sentence because it uses active voice. And who are these "most people"? Where are the statistics to support this?
You undermine your point by the conclusion you appended to this essay. If you doubt that what you write will make anyone rethink their attitude to Nintendo, why are you writing it?
Stylistic foibles aside, you make a reasonably solid argument. I too enjoyed the comparison to Batman, although many of the comic industries critics have the same critiques of the superhero franchises' constant reinventing as these hypothetical "most people" do about Nintendo. And many people dislike the Hollywood remakes, too. Hmm.