"'Growing out' of Nintendo is an entirely understandable sentiment. Blaming them for it, however, is not."
So writes commenter juxtapixel on last week's post, and I've got to agree. I've long been a little bit baffled at the never-ending knell for a traitor that audiences have rung for Nintendo pretty much ever since the beginning of the Wii generation (see also 'What Can Nintendo Say That Will Impress You', 'The Curse Of The Gifted Child', and Wii Music, Coda).
But, okay -- I, too, will cop to an initial, reflexive sense of betrayal at Nintendo's new market strategy (I sheepishly dredge up 'Nintendo Rolls On Us', from 2007).
I got over that, though. Mostly. A lot of the persistent dissatisfaction heavy gamers express toward -- well, everything -- has a lot to do with rose-colored lenses, in my opinion. Not realizing we're simply growing up, we cling to this vague idea that games were better at some nebulous point in history. News flash! The entire world was way cooler when we were children (which is why I've done so much writing on nostalgia and childhood imagination lately).
We have rigid quality expectations today where one design flaw is a total dealbreaker, when as kids we played and adored far more broken things (which is why I was frustrated with what I perceived to be an arbitrary critical/audience response to games like Mirror's Edge and Silent Hill Homecoming).
So have we been blaming Nintendo for ditching us when it's in fact we who've changed?
I think the answer to that one is 'only somewhat.' After all, we all liked Mario Galaxy (pretty much). Smash Bros Brawl sold so well last year that it's making us look bad this year (that I kinda dislike that game has nothing to do with Nintendo). We all want a new Zelda. No, like, a real one.
And while you could argue that the business initiatives on Nintendo's part that seem unfamiliar to us now are just the modern era's incarnation of the innovation it's always pioneered, that's a flawed argument.
After all, if Nintendo's always been successfully reaching the mainstream and changing the definition of "video game" like it does with Wii Fit and Wii Sports Resort, "we" wouldn't have stayed a niche for so long.
But Wii sales are on the decline. Is it because everyone who wants one already has one? Is it because of the economy? Is it because Wii Sports, Wii Fit and Wii-mote waggle really were a "fad," as many suggested would turn out to be the case?
As we discuss our sentiments toward Wii (did you vote in the sidebar yet? Please?) and Nintendo's evolving market position -- and as our industry hardware sales languish in an alarming Summer slump -- it's worth asking.
Satoru Iwata has a perfectly logical explanation today, though. Nintendo's biggest head-scratchers from last year, Animal Crossing: City Folk and the misstep that is Wii Music, just were not the mega-sensations the company thought they'd be. Had those titles, which released in the second part of 2008, sold as well as that year's first-half hits, Mario Kart Wii and Wii Fit, Nintendo reasons that Wii sales would still be going strong. Iwata says it'll get it right this year, expecting Wii Sports Resort, Wii Fit Plus and New Super Mario Bros each to sell 10 million units globally in the fiscal year.
The company relies on what it often calls "evergreen" titles to keep selling and sustain hardware growth for month, even years, and City Folk and Wii Music shed their needles unexpectedly soon. Why do you think that was?
By the way, Iwata also admits that the E3 presentation was a little bit off (the Vitality Sensor was referred, with scornful bemusement, as "Wii Tampon" all over the show floor that week). This shows that Nintendo's at least aware it has a communication disconnect sometimes, in terms of helping audiences "get" what it is it's trying to do at any given time.
***promise i'm not starting a trend of abusing parentheticals, forgive this temporary anomoly, love ya
