As Bart Simpson can say, Nintendo is a company of contrasts.
The company behind Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Metroid, Fire Emblem and many other iconic video game franchiser prioritizes pure play more than any other publisher. Donkey Kong Bananza, one of its big games for the Switch 2 launch, is about a big monkey that destroys everything in his way. While Sony's studios continue to tell the same story about the dangers of revenge, the most famous “Cycle of Violence” involves a Nintendo game a stunning Italian guy and a fire and breathe lizard fighting over a princess.
And yet, as a company, Nintendo is much less sweet and cuddly. Whether it is true of a Millions of Dollars for Pirate Copying, threatens fans recording or is the first publisher this generation that breaks the $ 80 ceiling for a standard publishing, Big N often makes it clear that it is not a friend for the consumer.
Super Mario Galaxy Conundrum
Here is an example that contains both the best and worst that Nintendo has to offer. It launched the Super Mario Galaxy + Super Mario Galaxy 2 last week at Nintendo Switch and Nintendo Switch 2. These are loved games, and fans have been clinging for several years to play them (especially 2, as it is excluded from 2020's Super Mario 3D All-Stars) on modern hardware for several years. Do great games? Good decision. Do they gather them forward? Good decision.
But that is the way Nintendo ported the fantastic games that remind me how frustrating it can be. These are games that were originally made for Wii and as such rely on movement controls sometimes. You can expect that because Nintendo brings the game to Switch and Switch 2 – consoles that are designed to play handheld – it would give a way to play without motion checks. It did this for Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword; It is not a ridiculous assumption. But no, movement controls are apparently not negotiable.
It also refused to update the camera checks, so instead of letting you have full control (as well as the norm in 2007 when the first game was released) you can only move it in stopping segments. And it's not even getting into pricing. Although he collected two matches that were restored for $ 20 each at the end of Wii's life cycle, Nintendo asks for the $ 70 for the collection. The games certainly look good. But why are they worth $ 30 more than they were over a decade ago?
Creative vs. Corporate?
You may be tempted to say that the company has the best developers with the worst company management, and many have said it before. But Nintendo's cool choice is not limited to game design. Which other publisher would put a random animated card about a child and a sensitive pacifier on his Youtube channel, seemingly advertising nothing? Which other company would get their worst console back as a peripheral for its subscription service, while changing absolutely none of the problems that made it flop the first time? Which other company would invest heavily in cardboard as the hot new thing? Which other company would say that it is not so interested in Buzzy Tech as Generative AI? Sure, many of Nintendo's interesting ideas are motivated by its creative developers. But the company's side must follow these ideas in order for them to reach us.
And that's what makes Nintendo so interesting. It's fantastic and it's bad. It is litigious and unharmed. It is creative and company. That is why I will always love it and hate it.
