>>45156974You can't compare Nintendo and Gamefreak. I understand that there are some superficial similarities, but the key difference is Nintendo is genuinely experimental and open to feedback. If something works, Nintendo doesn't arbitrarily cut it from the next entry to "keep the old games unique", they bring that shit over to the next entry unless it outright clashes. Sometimes you get situations like with the FLUDD where shit is mechanically good but it gets left in the dust anyways because stupid cunts turned their noses up at it and bitched.
Wii U was a strange case where they tried to deliver what they thought people would want and it blew up on them due to poor marketing and maybe some less than stellar execution.
>people didn't like waggle so they toned down motion controls and focused on something more traditional>people wanted HD so they gave us HD>people loved backwards compatibility so they built in a Wii mode for full compatibility with everything barring GCN discs>people loved the DS so they tried to consolize it with the touchscreen on a gamepad>Wii sold like hotcakes so they kept the Wii branding in hopes of its familiarity helping it sell to casualsThe Wii U actually didn't do much to innovate, it was a conglomeration of historically successful ideas that backfired because they couldn't stick the landing. Unironically, the Switch is actually more of an innovation as far as I know. Not in terms of a handheld with TV connectivity, but the fact that it overclocks itself to push out better visuals for TV play.
Mind you, this is just talking Nintendo as a single company. Intelligent Systems, at least when it comes to Paper Mario, is more in line with Gamefreak's line of thought which is generally "we're gonna do exactly what we want on our terms and we don't care how much fans hate it".
