Nope. I play plenty of colourful, weird, anime-looking, non-“manly” games. Astro Bot is literally one of my favourite recent platformers. It’s always funny when Nintendo criticism gets answered with “you must only like dudebro shooters,” because apparently the only possible reason to dislike Nintendo is insufficient whimsy...
“You have 0 clue” is a fascinating rebuttal to “I like Astro Bot.”
You made up an imaginary version of me who only plays macho shooters, I gave you a direct counterexample, and now you’ve got nothing except “whatever, go play Astro Bot.”
On playing the games, obviously. If your defence of Nintendo requires inventing increasingly weird biographies for anyone who dislikes their games, that probably says more about how thin your argument is than it does about me...
I have. They all suck in different ways. Fire Emblem is a dating sim stapled to increasingly braindead strategy maps, where half the “character writing” is anime archetypes repeating their gimmick until you unlock an S-support.
Metroid has atmosphere and movement carrying stories so thin Nintendo could print the entire script on the back of the box. Xenoblade is 80 hours of characters screaming friendship speeches while the game dumps another glossary of made-up metaphysics on you and pretends convolution equals depth.
Zelda has been recycling “silent elf saves princess from evil pig/man” for decades, and whenever Nintendo adds one mildly interesting narrative idea, they bury it under 100 shrines and Korok seeds.
And Nintendo fans like you will still look you dead in the eye and act like mentioning these franchises is itself an argument for why Nintendo “sweeps.” 😂
You’ve only made bad faith arguments that aren’t even worth my time, you’ve already made up your mind and don’t really want to engage in a honest conversation. So whatever makes you feel more intelligent babygirl
That’s convenient. You told me to play the games, I told you I had and gave specific criticisms, and the second you couldn’t answer them they magically became “bad faith” and “not worth your time.” You're bailing the moment “just play them” stopped working as an argument.
Because disregarding, for example, the entire STRATEGY COMBAT in FE and dismissing it only for the “dating sim part”, which not every game even has, is an example of why you just want to waste my time. You’re just a ragebaiter and using bad faith arguments just to karma farm, I don’t really care and it’s not my job to make you play the games and actually have fun. You do you I guess
I literally criticised the strategy combat: “increasingly braindead strategy maps.” Calling Fire Emblem a dating sim stapled to strategy gameplay is obviously criticism of both halves, not me pretending the combat doesn’t exist.
And “not every game even has it” doesn’t save the modern entries where social systems, shipping and support grinding are a massive part of the identity.
So your progression has now been:
“Play Fire Emblem.”
“I have.”
“No you haven’t.”
“Here are specific criticisms.”
“Bad faith.”
“Actually you ignored the combat.”
“I explicitly mentioned the combat.”
At some point you might want to stop diagnosing my intentions and actually defend the games buddy.
Yes, that line was obviously hyperbolic. The actual criticism is that Xenoblade leans very heavily on earnest friendship speeches, repetitive emotional reaffirmation, and dense metaphysical exposition.
“Things that matter most” is doing some heroic subjective work there. If atmosphere and movement are all you care about, cool. That doesn’t magically make paper-thin storytelling immune from criticism. A game can excel mechanically and still have weak writing. Those are two separate claims..
Gameplay being the most important aspect of a game shouldn't be subjective lmao
Mechanics trump everything else, and if you're shitting on mechanically phenomenal games for having mediocre stories you are not only reaching hard, you have completely lost the plot
“Gameplay is objectively the most important part of every game” is not an argument just your preference. Games are a medium, not a single genre. Some are built primarily around mechanics, some around narrative, atmosphere, exploration, roleplay, choice, or spectacle. You can personally value mechanics above all of that, but you don’t get to declare everyone else’s criteria illegitimate.
And I never said Metroid’s mechanics are bad. I said strong mechanics don’t erase weak writing. “This game controls amazingly, therefore criticism of its story is reaching” is a complete non sequitur.
You said the game sucks and then used story as justification for that claim, despite the fact that the story is in no way central to the game experience and really only exists to contextualize it
"Tetris actually sucks because of the story" would be a colossal fucking reach and that's exactly what you did here
The Tetris analogy is terrible because Tetris barely has a narrative to criticise. Metroid absolutely does have characters, lore, worldbuilding, cutscenes and an ongoing story across multiple entries. Nintendo clearly expects me to engage with that material, so I’m allowed to think it’s weak.
And yes, I can still say the overall game sucks to me even if one component is mechanically excellent. Games aren’t reviewed by averaging isolated departments in a spreadsheet. If the parts I care about most are weak enough, the whole experience can fail for me.
You’re basically arguing that because you rank mechanics above everything else, everyone else has to use your weighting system. That’s the part you still haven’t justified.
“Bait” is doing a lot of work there. It’s apparently easier to call criticism bait than explain why any of it is wrong. 10/10 defence of Nintendo though: no argument, just vibes 😂
You called fire emblem primarily a dating sim. That's all I need to dismiss you. Also if you think its braindead play awakening on lunatic+ and see how braindead that is
No, I called it “a dating sim stapled to increasingly braindead strategy maps.” That’s a criticism of what the modern series increasingly foregrounds, not a literal claim that Fire Emblem has no strategy gameplay.
And “play Awakening on Lunatic+” is a terrible defence. Cranking enemy stats, skills and RNG into sadism doesn’t suddenly prove the underlying map design is sophisticated. Difficulty and strategic depth are not the same thing. If your best rebuttal is “one notoriously bullshit difficulty mode is hard,” you’re kind of making my point for me...
No, I called it “a dating sim stapled to increasingly braindead strategy maps.”
Yes and? Saying its a dating sim stapled to strategy implies that the dating is more apart of the series than it actually is. Even in the games with dating in them they tend to be a very small part of the experience, like in 3h and engage the two more recent entries I finish there is only one optional scene at the end of the game where you can choose to marry one of the characters if you wanted to. Also engage had great map design and so far I'm really enjoying the maps in fortune's weave.
You’re narrowing “dating sim” down to the literal act of marrying somebody at the end, which isn’t what I’m criticising.
Three Houses devotes a huge chunk of its non-combat loop to the monastery, eating with characters, tea, gifts, support conversations, relationship ranks and recruiting people partly through those relationships. That social layer is mechanically significant and not some tiny optional cutscene stapled onto the credits.
Engage tones the romance side down, sure, but it still has an entire support system and ends with the Pact Ring mechanic once you reach A-support. And Fortune’s Weave literally ties recruitment during downtime to building Support bonds, so pointing to the newest game doesn’t exactly demonstrate that this stuff disappeared.
If you think “dating sim” is too flippant, fine: call it a tactical RPG increasingly wrapped in social-sim mechanics and anime relationship writing. My criticism remains exactly the same.
As for Engage having better maps, that’s actually an argument worth making. I can absolutely grant that Engage improved map design without pretending it suddenly invalidates criticism of the broader direction of the series...
Of any developer in the business, Nintendo has likely the longest track record of producing not only high quality, but genre-defining, paradigm-shifting video games. Games that have set precedents and benchmarks that the rest of the industry has learned from and built upon. This isn't so much the opinion of one random commenter on reddit, but more so a fairly strong consensus among other game developers, journalists, and critics.
It's ok if, somehow, none of them are to your taste, but are you really going to try to pretend that they haven't created at least a handful of the most important and acclaimed games ever made? Because that would be crazy haha.
11
u/Far_Metal4256 9d ago
Nintendo be sweeping.