Making games that weren't pieces of shit. Compare what you could get on an Atari in 1985 to what was available on the NES in 1985, not even in the same league. Most early NES games aren't even that good, they just weren't unfiltered sewerage like Atari games so that was all they needed.
CPK was a great early platformer, but it's konami, not namco, and it's also inspired by an earlier game from 1982, Smurf. Not sure who developed Smurf, afaik it was released as a sort of 1st party coleco game? Mobygames only lists one western guy (who worked on many shovelware stuff like Barbie and other licensed stuff), but that's only for the Atari 2600 port, not the original Coleco Game which is much better.
Anyway while those games are noteworthy, they cant compare with the fluidity and control depth of SMB.
Nintendo games clearly have a thing for excellence in gameplay first and foremost.
Other companies do too, though. Of course Namco, Konami etc also were top tier game makers.
Nintendo's success is probably a mix of luck (the Famicom boom + NES boom in the west later) and actual talent in both game development and business.
CPK was a great early platformer, but it's konami, not namco, and it's also inspired by an earlier game from 1982, Smurf. Not sure who developed Smurf, afaik it was released as a sort of 1st party coleco game? Mobygames only lists one western guy (who worked on many shovelware stuff like Barbie and other licensed stuff), but that's only for the Atari 2600 port, not the original Coleco Game which is much better.
Anyway while those games are noteworthy, they cant compare with the fluidity and control depth of SMB.
Nintendo games clearly have a thing for excellence in gameplay first and foremost.
Other companies do too, though. Of course Namco, Konami etc also were top tier game makers.
Nintendo's success is probably a mix of luck (the Famicom boom + NES boom in the west later) and actual talent in both game development and business.
snes was the only good console in town and had all the titles. Don't tell me Sega was real competition, most titles are crappy jank and lacked any of the sophistication seen in a single snes title
The key success for Nintendo was their strategy of Lateral Thinking with Withered Technology. By focusing on getting the most out of worse tech, they were able to release products that were comparable to the competition but had much higher profit margins. Every time Nintendo followed this strategy it was a huge success (except for Wii U but that's not retro), and every time they did not the system was a disappointment (N64, Gamecube and Virtual Boy)
Good branding based around their extensive lineup of first party IPs that they actually acknowledge and treat with dignity, not taking big risks and just sticking to what works, keeping the cost of hardware and development under control.
Building good relations with toy stores right after the Crash and maintaining them, then having a merciless grip until the threat of antitrust hearings made them relax it.
That and the lockout chip.
>What are the key success factors to Nintendo's success?
third party support in third and fourth gen.
ALSO handheld
Also pocket monsters (pokémon)
Also branding
I imagine Nintendo of Japan used their Yakuza connections to secure better distribution in that region, and basically strong armed any and all Japanese developers to make games exclusively for them. In Burgerland, the so-called "crash" made Nintendo creative, advertising the NES as a toy that can play popular games like Donkey Kong. From there it just got entrenched as a 'thing'.
i meant more of like, all of nintendo's consoles look like they're made by the same company. Like the control pad from a NES matches the GameBoy layout, is carried through to the SNES layout, etc.
They were kind enough to recall the first faulty Famicoms and fix the overheating issue with them unlike Intellivision, C64, ZX Spectrum, and other stuff with molten hot chips that only got improved designs years later.
Duck Hunt and the light gun are the sole reason Nintendo is still so popular after all these years. That's what made the NES take off in North America. Cowboys and hunting.
tentacle hentai
Making games that weren't pieces of shit. Compare what you could get on an Atari in 1985 to what was available on the NES in 1985, not even in the same league. Most early NES games aren't even that good, they just weren't unfiltered sewerage like Atari games so that was all they needed.
this and nothing else
nope
confirmed for not being alive in that generation
Smiley, non threatening protaganist
People really wanted to play a game about a plumber stomping on mushrooms creatures. They just didn't know it yet.
good marketing and pilfering namco ideas. thats about it.
Yeah sure
excellent retort. do you have anything of substance or is this what passes for a nintendo fan?
Do you, or you simply like to post inflammatory stuff just because?
If you find the truth inflammatory you aren't ready for this discussion. Why are you such a contrarian?
Uooh..
CPK was a great early platformer, but it's konami, not namco, and it's also inspired by an earlier game from 1982, Smurf. Not sure who developed Smurf, afaik it was released as a sort of 1st party coleco game? Mobygames only lists one western guy (who worked on many shovelware stuff like Barbie and other licensed stuff), but that's only for the Atari 2600 port, not the original Coleco Game which is much better.
Anyway while those games are noteworthy, they cant compare with the fluidity and control depth of SMB.
Nintendo games clearly have a thing for excellence in gameplay first and foremost.
Other companies do too, though. Of course Namco, Konami etc also were top tier game makers.
Nintendo's success is probably a mix of luck (the Famicom boom + NES boom in the west later) and actual talent in both game development and business.
Utterly BTFO
Top-tier game design, controls, music and visuals
>right
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
It must be something other than THAT surely!
All seems pretty "default" to me.
1) true exclusivity
2) games good enough to be exclusive and still sell billions
No game has ever sold billions.
good games
mainly from Capcom and Konami
>success factors to success
Now you're writing with power!
Focus on kids games that didn't suck.
Their handhelds and consoles could often interact, supergameboy, Pokemon stadium, that deck for the game cube.
snes was the only good console in town and had all the titles. Don't tell me Sega was real competition, most titles are crappy jank and lacked any of the sophistication seen in a single snes title
The key success for Nintendo was their strategy of Lateral Thinking with Withered Technology. By focusing on getting the most out of worse tech, they were able to release products that were comparable to the competition but had much higher profit margins. Every time Nintendo followed this strategy it was a huge success (except for Wii U but that's not retro), and every time they did not the system was a disappointment (N64, Gamecube and Virtual Boy)
>every time they did not the system was a disappointment (N64, Gamecube and Virtual Boy)
The N64 was a success. It sold 33 million units.
Disappointment would be the Sega Saturn which only sold 9 million units worldwide.
Good branding based around their extensive lineup of first party IPs that they actually acknowledge and treat with dignity, not taking big risks and just sticking to what works, keeping the cost of hardware and development under control.
snes just did it better. I'm not aware of a single Super-x game that wasn't an amazing graphical and gameplay update from the previous gen
Building good relations with toy stores right after the Crash and maintaining them, then having a merciless grip until the threat of antitrust hearings made them relax it.
That and the lockout chip.
Aggressive price fixing
>What are the key success factors to Nintendo's success?
third party support in third and fourth gen.
ALSO handheld
Also pocket monsters (pokémon)
Also branding
I imagine Nintendo of Japan used their Yakuza connections to secure better distribution in that region, and basically strong armed any and all Japanese developers to make games exclusively for them. In Burgerland, the so-called "crash" made Nintendo creative, advertising the NES as a toy that can play popular games like Donkey Kong. From there it just got entrenched as a 'thing'.
pandering to children
apple-esque clean and consistent presentation
The American NES and SNES looked absolutely horrible, they didn't have "Apple-esque clean and consistent presentation" until the DS Lite and Wii.
i meant more of like, all of nintendo's consoles look like they're made by the same company. Like the control pad from a NES matches the GameBoy layout, is carried through to the SNES layout, etc.
I like the rounded edges on the JP/EU SNES, but the power and reset sliders on the NA SNES look better.
Quality designers and scummy businessmen
All I know is that I played Ocarina of Time and then I spent the rest of my life paying nintendo money for stuff
They were kind enough to recall the first faulty Famicoms and fix the overheating issue with them unlike Intellivision, C64, ZX Spectrum, and other stuff with molten hot chips that only got improved designs years later.
Making games for kids.
Continuing to make games for kids.
Tetris on the GB.
Duck Hunt and the light gun are the sole reason Nintendo is still so popular after all these years. That's what made the NES take off in North America. Cowboys and hunting.
Making video games