What do you wish Nintendo would do or would have done

["Scary" Wolf]

The Wii U was a mess with controller options. (And in general). The Wii U Gamepad was required to go into the settings and other apps. (Wii Remotes couldn't even be used even though it called the Wii U). The GC adapter was made, but was locked to Smash Bros U. Some games leave out Wii U Pro Controller support. Wii U Gamepad was clearly shoehorned in some games. Where's the system updates for patching in controller compatibility instead of patching out homebrew in 2021?

Of course the original Wii also wasn't perfect about this either, but I guess the novelty of the motions controls was there. GC controller support for the menus would have been appreciated so I don't have to keep bringing out the Wii Remote if I want to switch games. Some games could have used the option to have GC/classic controller support. And slapped on motion controls was annoying.

(I wonder why Nintendo just flat out left the Wii when it sold 100 million systems. I think they stopped making system updates after 2010, but they still make some for Wii U).

VC wasn't even available at launch. NES and SNES was available a couple months into 2013. GBA games were available in 2014, N64 and DS in 2015. Wii in 2016, but no GC. Wii had NES, SNES, N64 at beginning. (Although it did slow to a crawl after a while). And for transferring VC games from Wii to Wii U, you would still have to pay 1-2 dollars for each title to get "Wii U enhancements". And some Wii VC games never even got a Wii U release. Also, GameCube controller support would be lost. (And the GC controller adapter might as well be called the Smash Bros adapter).

After almost five years with the Switch, I don't see Nintendo ever addressing themes, customization, folders, apps, online improvements, joycon drift, saves, etc. Some of those things don't even need a PS4/Xbox One, or even PS3/Xbox 360 power to have. Nintendo has done some of those things before. (At least GC controller support was finally patched in).

 

[Thomas the Tank Engine]

Speaking of the Wii U, here's what I wish Nintendo would have done with the system:

1. The name - I'm beating a dead horse here but everyone agrees that the Wii U name was objectively terrible and confusing, especially considering how many Wii things were just called 'Wii [whatever]'. I'd say using the Wii name in general would be a dumb idea since no one really cared about the Wii name by 2012, but calling it the Wii 2 would at least prevented any confusion.
2. The specs - The Espresso CPU used in the Wii U was based off of the architecture of the Broadway CPU used in the Wii, which was itself based on the architecture of the Gecko CPU used in the GameCube (hence the old 'Wii is two GameCubes duct taped together' meme). The main (or really only) benefit of them doing this was that it allowed for complete backwards compatibility with Wii games (and GameCube games, if you homebrew your system). The downsides, however, were numerous: the CPU was the weakest part of the entire system considering that it was, at its very core, based on a CPU that had been released in 2002. This meant that devs would often have to offload CPU grunt to the GPU, resulting in the GPU basically having to run at the level of (or worse than) the GPUs in the PS3 and 360. What I wish Nintendo would've done instead is just sticking a late 2011 or early 2012 AMD APU in the system, which were fully capable of emulating Wii (and GameCube) games via Dolphin, so Nintendo could have just developed their own Wii emulator to use in order to emulate whatever Wii disks you stuck in the system at 480p (cause I couldn't imagine Nintendo letting the games render higher than what the Wii officially supported). This would've also had the benefit of the system not using a CPU that was goddamn ancient nor a GPU that was also kinda old (Wii U's GPU was based on the Radeon R700 architecture, which was released in 2008) and hey, maybe the Wii U would've gotten more ports of games that were also on the Xbone and PS4 (and not also on the PS360) then since it'd be using more modern hardware.
3. The bundles and pricing - Look, the 8 GB basic bundle of the system was dumb and you were a fool if you bought one (my wii u is the 8 gb basic version btw). They should have only had the 32 GB version and the launch price should have been $250. I know Nintendo already took a loss on the Wii U thanks to the Gamepad, but I just feel the system would have sold better had they priced it at $250 for the system by itself (and maybe $300 if they really wanted to do some deluxe bundle with a game) instead of $300 for just the system and $350 for the deluxe version.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

As someone who grew up with Nintendo his whole life, I wish Nintendo would get their heads out of their egotistical asses and think a lot more serious about the industry!

When people discuss console wars, why do people usually say "PlayStation or Xbox?" but leave Nintendo out of the question? Because Nintendo can't seem to make their consoles have the same amount of power as Sony or Microsoft's consoles. Yes, the Switch may be an improvement in terms of hardware and we've been getting a lot of acclaimed titles Nintendo kept missing out on previous generations. However Nintendo still falls into the same traps of not being able to market all types of demographics, not giving a shit about online services, and putting a C&D on fan made projects, not knowing the meaning of "Free Promotion".

What I'm saying is Nintendo refuses to adapt to the times, and even when they do, it comes off as "Whatever" rather than actually keeping up. Hopefully in later years and future consoles, they'll keep up.

I don't think it's exactly a misstep that Nintendo can't make more powerful consoles or doesn't participate in the console wars (which I find is supremely petty). I'm not sure what kind of effort Nintendo is doing to market to "all types of demographics", but I feel the console war identity is an issue by marketing of the other systems and just general psychological "team sport" mentality it exploits. Nintendo does have a strong IP lineup, though, and I just like its library more. Despite your argument that "not being able to market all types of demographics", I have a perception, accurate or not, that Playstation and Xbox does cater more to the "dudebro gamer" demographic than Nintendo's more general appeal.

I do agree that Nintendo has serious contempt for its fans and its online infrastructure is basically fossilized, which is pretty unique downside for Nintendo. Nintendo really does need to change that and stop being so overprotective to the point of hurting fans like this.

No offense, but you're sounding like the type of person who spent the entirety of the Wii generation complaining about how Nintendo abandoned real gamers and is only making stuff for moms and casuals nowadays.

Edit: Nintendo has found themselves a very successful niche with the Switch and I really don't see any compelling reasons why they should just throw that away and just make a third box that's nigh-identical to what Sony and Microsoft are doing just because some people want them to. Are there definitely things Nintendo can do to improve? Yes, but completely changing the hardware philosophy they've got right now is not one of them.

Yeah this is true. As I said, Playstation and Xbox, I feel, cater to a narrower demographic than Nintendo. This is especially reflected in the games' lineups which a lot and I mean a lot of major great games are M-rated/17+ fare. Not saying they should be docked for being this way, as they're excellent games and people should play them, but like they're not made with my demographic in mind, where young women are more likely (but they can still enjoy violent games!) to play the likes of Animal Crossing, Sims, Stardew Valley, Mario platformers, Pokemon, etc.

---

As for the Wii U, I also felt its announcement and release was premature, even years ago, when the Wii didn't really seem like it was dying. Maybe my perception of time was flawed, but I felt the Wii U was announced in bad timing.

 

[winstein]

If we're sticking to Mario, since this is posted on the Marioverse boards, I have a few things I would love to see:

Dr. Mario to be a more established series

If you are aware of my opinions on Dr. Mario, you might know that I find it to be a series with potential that squandered it quite early because it felt like it stagnated while its contemporaries Puyo Puyo and Tetris thrived very early on and are still loved to this day. Dr. Mario had a million-selling pair of games on the NES and Game Boy, but every game after that never had the success the first game did, where the newer games never broke a million. Now the games are relegated to minor releases, where Miracle Cure is only like $10, which is indicative of how little it offered, even compared to Super Mario Run (plus, it lacked some conveniences like selectable characters or music).

Dr. Mario World ignited my interest in Dr. Mario because that game felt much more innovative compared to a lot of the Dr. Mario games in the past, and a versus mode that is the most fast-paced and fun, especially compared to Mario Kart Tour which didn't feel like it moved the needle much because its console games already did the heavy lifting. While Dr. Mario World has its detractors for not playing like a traditional Dr. Mario game, I liked that it didn't play like a traditional game because this allowed it to do things that the main games are unlikely to do, since this series is incredibly resistant to innovation. Both Tetris and Puyo Puyo offered multiple ways to play throughout their games, like how in Puyo Puyo's anniversary games there are some modes that include one with gigantic Puyos and another where every piece is 2x2 sized.

I do not know if a new Dr. Mario game is planned, but I hope that any new and positively-received things brought to the table by World carries over to the new game, otherwise it felt like World's contribution to the series were wasted.

Addition of secondary cast in the Mario RPGs

Although the RPGs can be a fun time, I do feel that the addition of an established Mario character would make things interesting. It certainly did for Partners in Time with the addition of the Baby Bros. It might be an unpopular opinion but I felt that the dynamic between Mario, Bowser, and Peach (and Luigi in the Mario & Luigi series) felt tiresome after many games with them, so the addition of another major character would be nice. Like maybe for example, if Donkey Kong personally appears as a major character then it would result in something different from past games, or maybe Sarasaland might be involved and with Daisy included in the setup, something different would result from it.

New DK-styled Mario Platformer

I can foresee that we never see a platformer reminiscent to Mario's first-ever game because of the justification that Super Mario as the more popular platformer series rendered it redundant (similar reason Paper Mario is not a full RPG, while Mario & Luigi is favoured), but I would be open for a new Mario platformer in the style of the first Donkey Kong, where he is given a flexible moveset to compensate for his lower jump, and to have Donkey Kong as the adversary as a result.

Thank you for reading.