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.

2D And Aesthetics vs Graphics

3D graphics arguably first became mainstream with the fifth generation of gaming consoles, featuring among its lineup the Sony PlayStation and Nintendo 64. Graphics became a talking point for many games, and polygon counts a significant measurement of prowess. Pioneers of 3D gaming included Super Mario 64 and Banjo Kazooie, which brought platforming, arguably the bread and butter of any major video game console at the time, into the next generation.

With a good thirteen years since the release of the first Sony Playstation, one could have been forgiven for thinking that with 3D graphics being achievable in most modern games for so long we would have seen the death of 2D graphics. Those old days of pixels would be looked back upon with a sad nostalgia where we would wonder how we ever could make anything out on such old technology.

Of course, many gamers know that this is definitely not the case. 2D gaming stands now as a stylistic choice rather than a limitation. Indie games are always coming out with pixel-styled graphics to pull us in on the charm of nostalgia. On top of this we have all kinds of video games where the gameplay is on a 2D plane including, yes, 2D platformers.

The reason for this is because, while graphical capabilities have multiplied, so too has the artistic merit of videogame creators. We’re no longer content with ever-more photo-realistic textures but we also want our games to have an identity, to have colour and to be aesthetically pleasing. Some may even argue that we want our games to be artful. One look at how beautiful Breath of the Wild looks, despite being on under-powered hardware, tells us all we need to know about the importance of aesthetics over graphical fidelity.

With that, the use of 2D graphics has become a valid creative choice with thematic and gameplay implications that have their own useful circumstances. Most platformers haven’t really benefited from the extra dimension, and have instead resorted to the collect-a-thon style gameplay touted by Banjo Kazooie many years ago. Instead, 2.5-D games, videogames with 2D gameplay but an extra layer of 3D graphics, seem to be stylish in the platform genre. Looking at Yoshi’s Woolly World, or New Super Mario Bros., it is clear to see why such a look would be charming. The use of the graphics in these games have helped towards creating a distinct visual style.

In 2017 we have Cuphead to look forward to; an interesting 2D platformer that uses modern-console capabilities to craft an eye-popping tribute to golden age animations. The levels look like they’re pulled right out of an old Disney cartoon and look stunning in motion. It seems that choosing to craft a 2D rather than a 3D experience was vital here to achieve the exact look and feel that the developers were going for artistically, and hopefully the end result will be enjoyable to play when it comes out later this year.

Don’t Starve is another example of a game that uses 2D graphics to its vast advantage to craft a cohesive visual narrative that is striking and interesting. Here the art is meant to evoke a kind of Tim Burton storybook style, with the bold black outlines and the creature designs themselves looking like something out of an Alice-in-Wonderland book. Oxygen Not Included, Klei’s next outing, looks to be utilizing a similiar art style but with more of a utilitarian Fallout Shelter overtone.

Instead of slowly going by the wayside as 3D capabilities have continued to evolve, the use of 2D gameplay has instead become an interesting and valid creative choice in gaming that a developer can use to great positive effect for their games.

It is interesting that the 2D style still hasn’t disappeared, and I think this shows that for all the graphical bombast that the latest and greatest modern titles throw at us, what is most important is the artistic choices in developing the game, and how the end result looks. We don’t need the next big graphical powerhouse with more skin pores per inch of character skin, what we do need as gamers is aesthetic; beautifully designed games made not with lofty eye-popping graphics in mind but instead made to look beautiful on their own merit. As console power hits the point of diminishing returns with graphical fidelity, we will begin to see more focus on the aesthetic and visual design rather than the power behind the game itself.

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 Importance of Console Wars

Console wars are an unusual thing to me. So many years in gaming have been spent dividing people into camps based on their choice of console, and the conflict that happens as a result is so far over-the-top that it is comical to watch an internet forum as they debate the pros and cons of different black boxes that play games.

I used to struggle to see the reasoning behind console wars, but I do believe that a big part of why people are so emotionally heated over console choices is to do with buyer’s remorse; a feeling of negativity over spending a lot of money on a luxury product and the need to therefore justify the purchase to one’s self. Games consoles, with their prices frequently ranging in the plus-£200 bracket, are very expensive and difficult to justify as purchases. The need to reason with one’s self over such extravagant expenditure is probably one of the reasons why gamers become so emotionally-charged over their console; they are simply defending their choices, and given that so much money is seemingly at stake, it is understandable why such arguments occur.

Another reason why arguments occur is because gamers are unusually invested in one console over another. However, I don’t think that this investment is completely misguided; for example, if the PS4 absolutely destroyed the Xbox One in terms of sales and Microsoft decided as a result to completely discontinue support for their console, many gamers would be left with a useless black box with no official support that they have spent well over £200 to purchase.

But, I think that competition is a great thing in the games market, as in any other market. I appreciate that there are so many different brands involved in videogaming, from AMD and NVIDIA, to Xbox and PlayStation, this level of competition is good for the consumer, because it pushes these companies to do better. Competition, in general, means lower prices and better products.

This is why I think that the first console war that many gamers remember; that of SEGA Vs Nintendo, was so important to modern gaming. We, as a community, have much to thank Nintendo for, as they brought back consumer confidence in an industry thought dead and buried, and gifted us with many of the modern gamer tropes we see today. If you play a game, chances are that a Nintendo game influenced it somehow.

On the other hand, SEGA were seen as the dark horse of the 90’s, and had a goal of de-throning Nintendo from their position at the top of the gaming world. Many gamers recall a playground battle between SEGA kids and Nintendo kids, stemming mostly from which of the two consoles they got from their mothers. I didn’t experience such console animosity, but the 90’s were definitely the most iconic years for console wars.

What I think made SEGA so important to the story, however, was that they laid the foundations for consoles to come. Before the Mega Drive, Nintendo had a virtual monopoly over the console market. If you wanted to play video games, you either played on the PC (which has its own interesting history, especially in the UK), or you played Nintendo games. Then came the Mega Drive, and Sonic with it, and suddenly a console war began in earnest. Then after this came the PlayStation, and we all know how gaming history has gone on from there.

What I think that SEGA did that was so important, was show that somebody could challenge Nintendo. Suddenly, competing in the console market became viable. If Nintendo were the ones to bring back console gaming to the masses, SEGA were the ones that turned it into a true industry, with competing companies vying for consumer attention and dollars.

Console wars are very important, and while many gamers will shout at each other from across the Internet in flaming sessions of hatred over their choice of gaming black boxes, and many others will scoff at the former, the competition that is the reason behind all of this is very important to the industry. We should embrace how console wars have forced an arms race of sorts, meaning that companies are always trying to one-up each other and deliver the best entertainment possible in the hope that they will capture our hearts and earn dominance over gaming. We should also thank SEGA for their contribution in showing how viable it is to compete in a fledgling industry, and for shaping the modern gaming market that we know today. 

The Cruel March of Time: Sonic The Hedgehog

Sonic the Hedgehog is my first memory of playing a video game. My parents got me a Mega Drive system from the local Cash Converters and set it up with a CRT TV on top of an old, broken down washing machine repurposed for use as a table. I was drawn in by the colours and the fast gameplay, and of course, the ‘cool’ hedgehog running around those bright levels. In just a few months’ time I had become a fan, and had amassed a collection of STCs (Sonic The Comic), and tapes of the Adventures of Sonic The Hedgehog show.

A hit of pure colour and nostalgia
(image from http://www.soniczone0.com/games/sonic1/greenhill/)

At his core, Sonic was the embodiment of 90’s culture and the cheese associated with it. Everything in the 90’s was ‘X-Treme to the max!’, and most products were sold by young teens wearing sunglasses and skateboarding, while also shouting ‘whoa!’ in their best Bill and Ted accents. That is why he has aged so badly.

Cool is a term that is always changing. What is trendy right now won’t be trendy with the passing of time. With the rise of the Internet and the faster-paced social culture we now in, memes can be created and destroyed in a matter of hours. We now live in an era of ‘viral’ culture.

Which is why to base a character purely on ‘coolness’, like Sonic, is ultimately dooming him to a life of cringe.

Look at any memes on Sonic the Hedgehog and you will see what I mean. He is the butt of most internet jokes. Every critic loves to loathe him, and every Internet persona loves to mock him. Sonic is not just uncool, he is the unfortunate victim of a pile-on at the hands of the whole Internet. 

I’m not trying to say that the position is undeserved; after a spate of low-quality titles and cringy attempts to redefine the character, ultimately coming to a head with Sonic 2006 and now the much-reviled Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric, that blue hedgehog is just about the most mocked character that one can think of.

As a fan from being a child, and someone who managed to cope with years of bullying thanks to the blue bomber (and yes, someone who even made DeviantArt recolours, I was one of those people), it makes me sad to see the public image that has befallen Sonic. While many do appreciate him as a mascot, most agree that he was a product of his time.

The problem with all of this is that Sonic’s bottom line was ‘coolness’. He was meant to be the next big thing that made the last big thing look lame. He was designed to be inherently ‘faddy’. That I called him the quintessential symbol of the 90s is testament to that fact. He had adopted just about everything that was a trend in those times, including sunglasses, guitars, a Macy’s Day Parade balloon, and an awkward stint as a DJ in a Dreamcast promotional video. 

Roll on the 2000’s; the popularity of the PS2, and the Xbox 360 generation after that. Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto and the modern FPS, and a new focus on ‘gritty action titles’ became the flavour of the day. There was no room for a Way-Past-Cool Blue Hedgehog; that was kiddy stuff. Even the big N itself suffered a little at the hands of the Gritty Times; look at the poor reception of the Gamecube, and the trouble it is having even to this day with its image of being ‘childish’. Thanks to the Nintendo Wii targeting a different audience, and 2010’s hipster-retro trend, Nintendo properties have survived, however, relatively unscathed. On the other hand, SEGA treated the world to Shadow the Hedgehog, in a desperate attempt to stay cool in this ‘gritty’ era.

The issue is that Sonic was never made to last. Mario was never meant to be everything ‘trendy’ about a particular era. He was always just himself; a colourful, impactful mascot. He never had to do anything cool to be popular, because Nintendo relied on a different bottom line than SEGA did when they designed Sonic the Hedgehog.

While there has been a recent uptick in the quality of titles released in the Sonic name, such as Colours and Generations, Sonic the Hedgehog has never, and will never, become quite as significant or as ‘cool’ in the public consciousness as he once was. Thankfully, his original Mega Drive games are good enough to stand the test of time; it is only a shame that as a mascot, Sonic hasn’t stood that same test.

But in another way, maybe Sonic the Hedgehog has stood that test. Maybe he is not meant to be cool today, but rather, an ironic look back at the things we did in the 90s that made us cringe. Maybe instead of trying to keep up with the times, what Sonic needs to do is own his cheese. Most of what the Internet now sees in Sonic they are using to mock 90s culture and laugh at it, and maybe that is a way forward for SEGA’s mascot. With Sonic Mania coming out, I feel confident that the developers are ‘getting it’, and understanding that Sonic is a product of his time, and using that ‘time’ to sell, rather than the mascot himself. By aiming for our nostalgia, Sonic has been kept somewhat alive, but lacking of an identity as eponymous as Mario’s, he has not thrived in the same way from that nostalgia. But maybe if his developers look hard enough and achieve the right balance of mocking 90s culture while at the same time embodying it, perhaps there is a way to take such mocking memes as Sanik and ‘Gotta go fast’ into something popular.

I have mentioned before that the march of time is always cruel, and Sonic perhaps more than most has suffered from that. I think that he was doomed from the start, because being a blue talking hedgehog that spoke in cliché slogans was never going to be edgy for long. As gaming has matured and its audience, perhaps in an immature way, called for gritty ‘realistic’ games, the Sonic franchise has stumbled and struggled to find its identity. However, recent iterations like Colours and Generations show some magic and life in the hedgehog yet, and I believe that now the marketing around Sonic may just be able to find that right balance of 90s mockery and nostalgia to inject a new life into the mascot that he may be able to set himself above his current, meme-fuelled disdain.