How Microsoft and Sony could learn from Nintendo

Nintendo may have been slow to embrace new gaming trends in the last couple of generations, but they are undoubtedly a gaming institution. Despite this, there has been some criticism of Nintendo for being slow to learn from other gaming companies. With this in mind, I was wondering what Microsoft and Sony, on the other hand, could learn from Nintendo’s strategy.

The first idea that would undoubtedly benefit Microsoft, especially with the reputation of its online service, is the limitation of online communication. This no doubt is a controversial idea, with this being one of Nintendo’s biggest criticisms, but on the other hand it has also led to a better online community.

Engaging with the Miiverse community is much less toxic than the other multiplayer services. With the general toxicity of gaming as a whole community any attempt at controlling the way in which we engage with one another is sadly the lesser of two evils considering the vileness that can get spewed online.

Another idea that other companies could learn from Nintendo is the value of aesthetics over graphics. While Microsoft and Sony continue to expensively battle over making their boxes render more and more detail that many wouldn’t even notice, on the other hand Nintendo focuses on making its games look beautiful in design rather than through graphical clout. The sheer beauty of the likes of Breath of the Wild and Super Mario 3D World stand as testament to the power of making a game look good on what is considered weak hardware.

The use of colour seems to be the best aspect of a Nintendo game, where, despite reinforcing that annoying ‘kiddy’ image, this results in beautiful, varied locales and games that have a visual identity. On the other hand, the majority of games on Microsoft and Sony consoles seem to be generic shooters with no real visual identity other than brown and grey. In this way, the house of Mario stands ahead of the other two in terms of their visuals, despite their use of under-powered graphics hardware. Microsoft and Sony could do with more effort in making their games look colourful and full of visual charm, rather than gunning for ultra-realism.

The third thing that Microsoft and Sony could learn from Nintendo applies more to Microsoft than to Sony at the moment, with Crash N’Sane Trilogy coming out shortly and the release of WipeOut Omega Collection showing a better intent, it seems that where Microsoft is most lagging behind is in the treatment of its intellectual property.

Nintendo have been accused of focusing too squarely on Mario and Zelda in the past, but undoubtedly the company understands which of its IP have the biggest draws. With further 3DS releases of beloved IP such as Fire Emblem, it seems that Nintendo, as well as Sony, do well with the use of their franchises. Microsoft, on the other hand, seem to have a lack of those killer franchise titles that draw gamers in. Halo 5 was ultimately a disappointment on the Xbox One and other than Gears of War 4 it is difficult to come up with many ‘killer’ apps for the console.

Nintendo may come under fire for a lot of bad decisions, particularly with their being stuck in the past in the online space. However, there are a lot of decisions that are made right with the company, and if it leaves the console race altogether then gaming will be a worse place as a result. As we move forward in gaming, we need to learn lessons from even the console manufacturers we criticise, both in what they do right and in what they do wrong. Nintendo may be mocked and disliked by a lot, but there is no denying that its approach to the console race is interesting.

My Favourite Boss Battles Part 3: Ganondorf (Wind Waker)

I played through this boss battle on the HD remake for the Wii U. Having already found the game charming and beautiful, I was astounded by this boss fight, which served to be one of the most nail biting climaxes that I have ever seen in a video game. This battle earns its place on my list because it gave me an adrenaline high and the best atmospheric feeling yet.

What I found so atmospheric about this boss battle was the spectacle of your surroundings; Hyrule’s flood waters are pouring in fast, and time is running out for you to defeat Ganondorf. The battle is built up by the dialogue, where Ganondorf’s desperation is palpable and terrifying to witness.

You get a sense of desperation and imminent defeat upon facing an overwhelming foe, as it is quickly revealed to you just how strong Ganondorf is as an opponent. While not terribly impossible, fighting him head on is difficult without the help of Zelda’s Light Arrows. His attacks are ferocious and quick and as the battle unfolds there are numerous moments of panic as he seems to overwhelm the player easily at any given moment.

As boss battles go, I found the one with Ganondorf difficult enough to bring a surge of adrenaline to my system and set my heart pounding, but not so difficult as to be frustrating. Perhaps it is truly artful how well the difficulty has been balanced here that a player can feel overwhelmed by the boss, but not in a way that is discouraging.

The way the battle ends is equally exciting. The coup-de-grace to the final boss of Wind Waker is delivered with epic pacing, the final blow having real weight behind it as Link drives his sword into the head of his opponent. It is amusing that Wind Waker is considered such a childish entry into the series and yet has such a gruesome end to the enemy.

I think what makes this boss battle so enjoyable for me was just how masterfully-made it was. While it doesn’t stand out for any particularly unique element, it served as simply one of the most well-made boss battles I’ve ever played. It has been executed to the best extents and is fittingly difficult and heart pounding as a finale should be. 

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. 

The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past Review

Many internet debates about which Zelda is the best in the series normally point to one of two options: Ocarina of Time, or A Link to the Past. One was the series’ transition to 3D gameplay, and the foundation for most of the future games in the series, as well as a strong influence on most 3D titles that came out since, while the other was a massive adventure on the SNES and a return to the top-down formula of the first Zelda title, and supposedly the most ‘Zelda-like’ of its many sequels.

The first thing that struck me about A Link to the Past was its graphical beauty; while Ocarina of Time doesn’t appear to have aged well (unless one plays the 3DS remake) thanks to the limited power of the consoles of its time, the SNES title stands up as colourful and beautiful. I think this is because there is not much more detail that could be offered in a pixel-based 2D game than what came about during the 16-bit console era. Perhaps because of the limitations of 2D graphics, developers were forced to make their games stand out in terms of beauty rather than pure horsepower, a practice that is, sadly, dying today as we live in the era of trying to get as many skin imperfections on a character’s face as possible. Moreover, I think the use of colour in this game is exemplary and the bright world offers a beautiful, engrossing picture.

I went into A Link to the Past expecting something more along the lines of the original Legend of Zelda game, that is, an extremely open-world game, with obscure clues and a progression that seems to delight in making one wonder what they are supposed to be doing. While I don’t dislike that kind of gameplay at all, fans of the Legend of Zelda many have noted the shortfalls of such an approach, and more cynical minds saw that it was simply a strategy to sell game walkthroughs (uncited; I believe this was also revealed in a developer review that this was the exact reason for certain secrets in the game, but I’m unsure where to find the exact quotation). Given that a Sequelitis video by Egoraptor hailed A Link to the Past as more ‘Zelda-like’ than Ocarina of Time, and closer to the original formula, I was expecting to have to look toward online walkthroughs to progress in the game.

Thankfully, however, with Link to the Past this isn’t the case. It seems that with the luxury of a bigger budget, better technology and better localization, the developers of the SNES title managed to provide the game with a reasonable amount of guidance without, at the same time, opening it to accusations of hand-holding as later titles in the series.

Interestingly, this was the game that laid down the story foundation for the series. While fairly middle-of-the-road as far as fantasy stories go (there’s a MacGuffin that has secret powers, a princess that is kidnapped, and a big bad wanting to use the MacGuffin for his own nefarious purposes), forms a good basis for the story and is paced just as well as the development of the gameplay mechanics. The initial build up to the first dungeon is, in particular, ominous and brings a sense of oncoming danger, which helps to motivate the player and also guide them along the story.

A Link to the Past’s story is very similar to Ocarina of Time in many respects, and many items and story elements make appearances in both the former and the latter. I think it was around the time of the SNES game’s development that real hints of the Zelda timeline came about. The end result of the story development in Link to the Past is of nostalgia and fun nods that will satisfy many a Zelda fan with their inclusion.

Of course, at the time of the release the main function of the story development was to give the game its own identity, one that sets it apart from other game series even to this day. The story may not be particularly unique in its approach to what is essentially a generic fantasy plot, but it has enough unique elements to feel like its own. Many elements, like the Triforce and the Master Sword, set Zelda uniquely apart from its fantasy contemporaries.

The sound of the game is particularly worthy of mention. Many iconic themes of Zelda lore have made their debut here, and the quality is top-notch as one would expect. The rendition of the overworld theme here is a laudable effort, which seemed to represent exactly what Link to the Past was about; updating the classical top-down Zelda formula with more modern sensibilities. The clash of the cymbals propels one forward to adventure and the toning is more epic as a result of the use of instruments to bring home the theme. The result builds upon that now-legendary theme in a way reminiscent of how most of the game itself is an expansion upon 2D Zelda.

Most of the music is produced equally as well, with some weak links in the lack of variety between dungeon themes, and the way in which music loops causing the repetition of some tracks to become annoying to the ear if one spends too long in a certain area.

The influences of A Link to the Past are easily felt through any 2D action-adventure game to this day, both in games that came out around and after its initial SNES release and new games released today that purport to bring back such gameplay into the modern era. In addition, the story influence of A Link to the Past is monumental, creating the iconic status of the series as we know it today. Its importance cannot be understated both for Zelda and for games in general. 

Thanks to its iconic influence sending waves throughout the industry, the result upon playing a game that was released so far back in the past is one of instant nostalgia, not to mention surprise upon finding that so much of A Link to the Past has not aged badly in the slightest. 

Thanks to an accessible story that has lasted through the ages, gameplay that is never obtuse enough to be frustrating, sound design that evokes fond feelings and a perfect mix of both story-based and adventure-based gameplay, the overall package offered by A Link to the Past gives us a worthwhile game that will win the heart of any gamer, Zelda fan or not.