Asking About Nintendo's Approach

Many gamers are quick to throw disrespect at Nintendo. They are seen as having a ‘kiddy’ public image and suffered a PR disaster in the aftermath of the Wii, due to their embracing of the ‘casual’ market. Many gamers that consider themselves ‘hardcore’, or ‘mature’ have turned their back on the company. There are a lot of gamers that, thanks to the highly-emotional nature of console wars, have called for Nintendo to cease console production and move purely into software, or even to abandon the games industry entirely.

I think that this opinion is jumping to an early conclusion when you consider Nintendo’s position within the industry. Not only that, but losing Nintendo would be a sad thing for every gamer that is interested in the future of gaming.

A lot of people think that Nintendo don’t have the resources to build a powerful gaming machine that can rival Sony and Microsoft. On the other hand, many people also think that they do have the resources, but that it is a foolish decision for Nintendo not to make a graphical powerhouse machine to compete on the same level.

However, this argument is flawed on many of its premises. For one, in financial and resources terms, Nintendo are a huge company. They can easily afford to build a machine that can blow the PS4 and Xbox One out of the water. 

Any PC gamer can attest to the fact that one can cheaply and easily build a rig that can achieve far more than any of these consoles, sometimes even at a cheaper outset than the consoles themselves. 

If they wanted to, Nintendo could build a console that wipes the floor with any machine on the market today, and for that matter, so could Microsoft. Sony I’m not too sure about, given the dire financial straits that they reportedly suffered in the past, but I’m sure they could do so as well given the investment in PSVR and PS4 Pro.

The issue is that such an approach is ultimately futile. It is the nature of consoles that on the day of the release, enthusiast-level PC gamers can build machines that make them look like a joke. All we have right now is an arms-race of ever-higher graphical power, and what is that really achieving? All we’ve gotten is Call of Duty but with more freckles on our characters’ arms. It is not a foolish decision for Nintendo to do away with what really is a futile way of competing with the market.

Fighting on the battlefield of graphics is an exercise in silliness. It is the logical equivalent of those sad arguments we all had as kids between making ever more powerful superheroes that can beat everyone else’s heroes; ‘my guy has a super-everything shield and super-ultra-rays that can smash through your everything shield!’

It is especially futile now that we seem to be approaching the graphical level of diminishing returns. Looking at the pure improvements on offer, I would say that the current generation has achieved very little in terms of extra prettiness. Games certainly do look more polished, sure, but the jump from PS2 to PS3 was a far bigger leap than PS3 to PS4 in graphical terms. It’s gotten to the point that we’re literally splitting hairs; we’re impressed because Lara Croft has a few more strands of hair on one system than on another.

That’s not to say that graphical investment is bad; I love better looking games and some of the stand outs of this generation look simply gorgeous. But most gamers understand and live by the motto of ‘graphics don’t matter’. I personally believe that it is art design, not the graphics that makes a game look beautiful. Some of the Wii U games look astonishing; I dare you not to be charmed by the bombastic show of colours that is Mario Kart 8. What is more important is not the sheer horsepower under the hood but how you use that horsepower to achieve a beautiful result.

However, when we consider Nintendo’s situation, we should really understand what it would mean to make a ‘graphical’ console. It would be making a statement that they intend to compete on the level of Sony and Microsoft. Ultimately, these consoles become mass-market machines. This market includes Fifa, Call of Duty, Assassin’s Creed and more; the big third-party titles that bring in the billions. Nintendo would be making a statement that its selling point was now exactly the same as the other consoles.

But is this a good idea, really? As much as there have been third-party games that have published on Nintendo platforms, how successful have they been in the past? How confident are we that third party developers would, given they have no obligations to, throw their weight behind Nintendo, given their sometimes-shaky relationship with the company in the past? My guess is that if the past is any indication, Nintendo simply cannot afford to rely on that kind of investment.

Not only that, but is that what we need as an industry? Do we need another company to sell us Call of Duty on a new machine with more graphical detail, with more fish that move away from us as we swim to them? I remember there being a massive call not long ago about innovation in gaming.

Like it or not, Nintendo is a company that asks questions. Why do we need to use controllers? Why should we have to stop gaming when the TV is turned off? Why do we need just one screen on a portable device?

I hate to use the word ‘innovative’ in reference to Nintendo because it is a tired argument, but perhaps there is a reason it is a tired argument with regards to Nintendo’s strategy. I think that what Nintendo is trying to do is a hell of a lot more healthy than what other companies are trying to do in the gaming industry. Ultimately, what I feel about Nintendo is that they are trying to bring better ways to engage with gaming, rather than just running through the motions.

We need companies that ask questions, and come up with answers that nobody asked for. We need companies that feel comfortable making Wii U’s instead of Xboxes. We need a company that focuses less on the mainstream trends, and instead focuses on how to bring gaming forward as a medium. Nintendo may have been guilty of some major cock-ups, but ultimately, I see that their vision is to ask questions. Crazy questions, stupid ones even. But they are questions nonetheless, ones that challenge our views.

Of course, that is not to say that Nintendo is without criticism; their treatment of some of their IP has been awful, and the way they have monetised nostalgia is downright unethical at times. The Wii U was a colossal failure because of Nintendo’s obsession with reinventing the wheel time and again. Their approach to mobile and online spaces has been sadly lacking and oftentimes woeful, and again, unethical if you look at the way they treat Let’s Players.

But for all of the ire we can fire in Nintendo’s direction, do we really think that the games industry would be a better place without them? Nintendo are a gaming institution, and are as important, if not more important than the Sonys and Microsofts of the world. Given that the Switch has shown moderate success,  there is still something to be said about asking questions. 

In terms of the ‘console wars’, I think Nintendo see the futility of the graphical arms race, and what it is ultimately offering to the games industry. We don’t need consoles that bring us more power; that race is already won with the PC. What we need in the industry is innovation. What we need is a company that asks questions. And for all their criticisms, I think we all know that if Nintendo leave the console industry entirely, it won’t be a day for celebration. It would be a day for mourning.