Jump to content

The Nintendo Stock Slide


AngelCityOutlaw
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm playing Fire Emblem: Awakening, which is absolutely incredible. In 2013 I played stuff like Ni No Kuni, which is maybe one of the best JRPGs in the last 10 years. Before that, Skyrim, Skyward Sword, etc.

So personally, sure, my standards are high. But why shouldn't they be? There are so many games out there with stellar reviews from critics & fans alike, I'll never have time to play all of them. Why waste time with games that are only "good"?

Currently playing Fire Emblem as well - great game.

I also finally got Twilight Princess and it's great but holy shit, I'll never see the end. Waaaay too long. I doubt I'll see the end of Fire Emblem either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i remember correctly this wasn't like an anti piracy measure, but just simply a problem with the laser on the XB "Original", it didn't have the umph to push through the layers of a CD-R or something along those lines. I think the early 360's had a similar problem.

Yeah, the cheap Thompson disc drives that Microsoft used in a lot of earlier manufacturing runs of the system was complete shit. Mine originally came with a drive that never read CD-Rs and died completely within two years. Eventually they started using Philips and Samsung drives that fared much better, but they can be pretty hard to find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also finally got Twilight Princess and it's great but holy shit, I'll never see the end. Waaaay too long. I doubt I'll see the end of Fire Emblem either.

you just got around to playing Twilight Princess?

trust me, it ends. I beat it. took me like 2 months but I did it. I felt very accomplished. I don't own Fire Emblem but my best friend does and she beat it.

I, on the other hand, just got around to playing the FULL play through of Wind Waker (I never truly owned it despite the fact it was the game that got me interested in Zelda in the first place -- I only had friends that had it and I'd play it then or I'd watch) and I didn't realize how much shorter it seems than Twilight Princess. Maybe it's just me.

Edited by Garrett Williamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why waste time with games that are only "good"?
Super Mario 3D World and Pikmin 3 got pretty good review scores and are loved by many

Yeah, I don't necessary go by the rule of "only play games that get high scores" but if you did:

(MetaCritic averages):

Exclusives:

SM3DWorld: 93

Wind Waker: 90

Pikmin 3: 87

NSMBU: 84

LEGO City Undercover: 80

Best Version:

Rayman Legend: 92

Monster Hunter 3 U: 82

Not great Meta but still good and interesting/unique games:

EXCLUSIVES:

Wonderful 101: 78

ZombieU: 77

NintendoLand: 77 (only if you get it free/cheap)

And unless they drop the ball, DK, Smash, Kart, X, SMT vs FE, Zelda, Bayo 2, etc should all be fairly highly rated exclusives when they come out. This system easily has the most exclusives vs any console going forward.

Conversely, the only high scoring PS4 exclusive right now is Resogun, and on XBO is DR3, Forza and uh Peggle 2? I'm sure this will change in the future but that's all for right now.

The real problem here is you won't get too many new 3rd party exclusives on Wii U at this point unless the system starts taking off, and 3rd party non-exclusives, unless there is a specific reason why, are going to better on PS4/XBO, 360, and sometimes even PS3 (heck, PS+ practically gives you amazing games on PS3, so even if they don't look as good as 360/Wii U, they are free!).

So you have to weigh your options, you will be definitively limited in scope with the Wii U. This is its major handicap and it will not go away at this point due to the hardware limits / software tools.

Though in my particular situation: I have a PC. I'm not a master PC race guy, I love consoles and own like practically all of them. But.. there isn't a compelling reason for me to get a PS4/XBO yet, as nearly everything whats offered there is going to be on the PC too (and cheaper). So I actually have FAR more Wii U games to look forward to than PS4/XBO at this point. I actually really want a PS4, but until IT has something I can't get elsewhere, I can't really justify the cost. (I'll get one eventually, just because, but no rush on it yet)

If I didn't have a PC though, and couldn't afford both, I'd definitely would of gone for a PS4 over Wii U though.

but my guess with the PS1 is because it was the first system using a disc rather than a cartridge

Not the first, Turbo Graphic 16, Genesis, and NeoGeo had CD addons, and the Saturn and 3D0 were disc based consoles too. But Saturn had its own issues (hard to develop for architecture (see a pattern?), hardware focused on 2D and treated 3D as an afterthought, poor tools and documentation, mismanagement in the US branch, high cost at first, getting a bad rep on hardware, etc)

So keys to success in the console world:

Ease of Development (both in hardware and in dev kits)

Low price point

Something special

Money to throw at things and willing to spend it

Brand Loyalty / Reputation

Customer Appreciation

Luck :)

Edited by Crowbar Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the first, Turbo Graphic 16, Genesis, and NeoGeo had CD addons, and the Saturn and 3D0 were disc based consoles too. But Saturn had its own issues (hard to develop for architecture (see a pattern?), hardware focused on 2D and treated 3D as an afterthought, poor tools and documentation, mismanagement in the US branch, high cost at first, getting a bad rep on hardware, etc)

So keys to success in the console world:

Ease of Development (both in hardware and in dev kits)

Low price point

Something special

Money to throw at things and willing to spend it

Luck :)

Well yes but did you see the SEGA CD end up being the most killer successful things ever? SEGA CD was an add-on, and most of its games were crap, other than Sonic CD. PS1 had some great games and the whole entire console revolved around the idea that it was powered by a disc drive.

The PS1 was like the first really official disc drive game system and it made it look good. Saturn came out like the same time the PS1 did, did it not? Like mid-late '94?

The PS1 made it big. The Saturn wasn't super successful and it also had Sonic's worst games (up until 2005) hahahaha so that poor system was bound to be the worst of the three. Sonic ended up being what kept SEGA alive. It still is hahahahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I'm guessing Mario Kart 8, Smash Bros., and Zelda U are going to be the tests as to whether or not the Wii U may gain momentum or not.

Yep. These are the true tests I believe. If the Wii U can't gain traction after this, then I consider the console in truly bad shape. I don't think that will be the case though- the last Mario Kart on Wii moved millions. Also, Nintendo have tons of lapsed fans just waiting on their favorite franchise to emerge. All the company have to do is go "WHAM" and announce a Starfox trailer, and just like that, the console will probably have a good kick in sales.

Also, I can't wait until Bayonetta 2 is released, just to hear the whining. I know that the original wasn't a huge seller, but after all the Ninten-doom, I'm looking foward to "*&^! Why can't they just release this in my console. Whaaaaaaa."

I know this sounds fanboyish, and perhaps it is. I actually want all consoles to succeed. I believe diversity = healthy market, I'm just sick of all the Nintendo hate. It's getting absolutely stupid at this point and is starting to sound like a broken record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G-Mixer:

I never said they were popular, just they came before and were CD based. (I also forgot about Phillips CD-I but lets quickly forget about it)

I also stated WHY the PS1 became big even though the Saturn came out first (by a few months) and they BOTH had CD media. Keep in mind, Sega was a big brand and Sony was basically a nobody to gaming. If it wasn't a perfect storm for Sony to come out with the hardware they did, they would of sunk pretty hard. They didn't win just because it was a CD based console, there were many other factors. CD-I and 3D0 were CD based and came well before PS1. It takes more than just that.

Also Sega CD and Saturn had quiet a few fun games (NiGHTS says "Sonic who?"). Not as many as their competition so it didn't help their cause, plus many other factors, but you should really keep an open mind. Just because a console doesn't "Win" doesn't mean it didn't have good games.

I believe diversity = healthy market

Exactly. Without diversity we wouldn't have all the new ideas and innovation. People keep saying Nintendo should get out of hardware, but look at how many innovations have come from Nintendo specifically because they were in the hardware business. Yeah, they made a ton of mistakes but so has Sony, so has MS. Nobody is perfect. Lets just see how it plays out, and enjoy the games as they come out!

Edited by Crowbar Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though in my particular situation: I have a PC. I'm not a master PC race guy, I love consoles and own like practically all of them. But.. there isn't a compelling reason for me to get a PS4/XBO yet, as nearly everything whats offered there is going to be on the PC too (and cheaper). So I actually have FAR more Wii U games to look forward to than PS4/XBO at this point. I actually really want a PS4, but until IT has something I can't get elsewhere, I can't really justify the cost. (I'll get one eventually, just because, but no rush on it yet)

I agree with this. And I think this comes down to the point that a lot of people seem to be missing: the "main attraction" of the PS4/XBone (which is the strong technical specs) don't make these unique. I tried the PS4, and it felt to me like the PS3 all over again. Maybe it's just me, and maybe I'm wrong by assuming that I'd feel the same about XBone/360, but I'd be really surprised. And this leads me to thinking: when will people get bored of getting the same console, with a few tweaks and better graphics? PS8? PS20? I feel like it's not a reliable route for consoles to take, because in the long run I'm pretty sure computers will outpower pretty much any traditional console eventually (and this is difficult for me to admit, because I'm a huge console fan).

This is why I think Nintendo is headed in the right direction. I believe that by innovating (DS, 3DS, Wii, Wii U all brought something new and unique), they are working on securing the long-term future for console gaming. It's a risky thing to do, but I believe in them. And I really don't see how the PS1-2-3-4 and XBox-360-1 formula could keep going forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Nintendo has never really known how to properly deal with third parties in an actual competitive hardware market. During the NES era, in the wake of the American console market crash, they had the benefit of being pretty much the only major player around.

They set up some really strict rules which third parties had to follow in order to publish for their system, which was somewhat understandable given the anything goes atmosphere for the Atari which helped spur the crash with oversaturation. But they had some pretty ludicrous rules like putting a strict limit on how many games a company could release for the system per year, which is what made Konami form Ultra Games to get around those rules.

Once Sega decided to directly challenge Nintendo, they saw an opportunity to attract third parties disgruntled by all this stuff by offering much more lenient terms. I think it was rumored around that time that Nintendo started using coercion tactics to keep several third parties under their lap, though I haven't read much into it. Nintendo remained largely complacent during the SNES years since they still had so much momentum from the NES so they could afford it. Once Sony entered the market and once again started doing what Sega did by offering third parties more of what they wanted, the real decline started happening.

Like I said Nintendo is first and foremost a video game company and are more concerned with what works for them personally rather than third parties. I read some anecdotes from an interview with someone who was working with Nintendo during the Gamecube years, and they were approaching Nintendo's management with the idea of contracting a developer to sell a "Halo killer" for the system. They had held meetings with Reggie and the rest of Nintendo's management, and from how they acted this guy got the impression that this kind of stuff was a completely alien concept to them. Wish I could find that article cause it was pretty interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Nintendo has never really known how to properly deal with third parties in an actual competitive hardware market. During the NES era, in the wake of the American console market crash, they had the benefit of being pretty much the only major player around.

They set up some really strict rules which third parties had to follow in order to publish for their system, which was somewhat understandable given the anything goes atmosphere for the Atari which helped spur the crash with oversaturation. But they had some pretty ludicrous rules like putting a strict limit on how many games a company could release for the system per year, which is what made Konami form Ultra Games to get around those rules.

Once Sega decided to directly challenge Nintendo, they saw an opportunity to attract third parties disgruntled by all this stuff by offering much more lenient terms. I think it was rumored around that time that Nintendo started using coercion tactics to keep several third parties under their lap, though I haven't read much into it. Nintendo remained largely complacent during the SNES years since they still had so much momentum from the NES so they could afford it. Once Sony entered the market and once again started doing what Sega did by offering third parties more of what they wanted, the real decline started happening.

Like I said Nintendo is first and foremost a video game company and are more concerned with what works for them personally rather than third parties. I read some anecdotes from an interview with someone who was working with Nintendo during the Gamecube years, and they were approaching Nintendo's management with the idea of contracting a developer to sell a "Halo killer" for the system. They had held meetings with Reggie and the rest of Nintendo's management, and from how they acted this guy got the impression that this kind of stuff was a completely alien concept to them. Wish I could find that article cause it was pretty interesting.

yeah, so much this. I remember hearing that being a third-part developer for NES was a serious pain. SNES seems to be the only time they really got a bit more competitive with that stuff, considering the fact the Genesis came in as a challenger and threat to Nintendo.

G-Mixer:

Just because a console doesn't "Win" doesn't mean it didn't have good games.

Hey I never said that. GameCube didn't win and it has some of my favorite games of all time. The GCN and the N64 are my two personal favorite game consoles of all time. Saturn just didn't seem to do it for me. Granted, I didn't play it all that often. But I hated the Sonic games for it. And I got SEGA consoles for Sonic mainly. That's why I never owned a Dreamcast either, despite the fact that I really liked it. I only ever owned a GameCube from that generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing multi-platform ports is usually a pretty bad idea when it comes to gauging how good a system is. There are so many factors you need to take into account from the developer's part. If the port is made by an inexperienced team or just as a cash-grabbing afterthought, then yeah of course it's not going to be very impressive compared to its original version (and this can even apply for ports to more powerful hardware). I remember when the PS2 version of Splinter Cell was coming out, I was reading a thread on NeoGAF (which was just called Gaming Age at the time IIRC) and everyone were laughing at how it looked in the screenshots. But at the same time amazing games made specifically for the PS2 were coming out like Shadow of the Collosus or Transformers which could easily trump the average Xbox game visually.

Except Shadow of the Colossus had an atrocious framerate most of the time, which was the tradeoff for having those good graphics.

The vast majority of multiplatform games that I came across or read about generally had their most underpowered version be the PS2 version, even more so when you have sucky programmers on the team (hi there Sonic Team!). Games that were ported to the PS2 from the GCN or Xbox had to be cut down graphically and technically (RE4, Psychonauts are two examples that come to mind). GCN games generally tended to have better textures and higher framerates, and the Xbox's biggest selling point seemed to be Halo and the console's graphical power. And to this day I still haven't come across a PS2 title that pulls off something like Metroid Prime 2 without having an atrocious framerate a la Shadow of the Colossus.

I'd dig out my crates of ancient Electronic Gaming Monthly mags to do more research, but they're in storage on the other end of the continent. :(

you just got around to playing Twilight Princess?

trust me, it ends. I beat it. took me like 2 months but I did it. I felt very accomplished. I don't own Fire Emblem but my best friend does and she beat it.

I, on the other hand, just got around to playing the FULL play through of Wind Waker (I never truly owned it despite the fact it was the game that got me interested in Zelda in the first place -- I only had friends that had it and I'd play it then or I'd watch) and I didn't realize how much shorter it seems than Twilight Princess. Maybe it's just me.

Yeah, Wind Waker is shorter than Twilight Princess. I'd compare the former to Majora's Mask and the latter to Ocarina of Time: the first is a weird Zelda experience with only a couple of required dungeons and a ton of side content, while the second is a more "traditional" Zelda game with a ton of dungeons.

Though in my particular situation: I have a PC. I'm not a master PC race guy, I love consoles and own like practically all of them. But.. there isn't a compelling reason for me to get a PS4/XBO yet, as nearly everything whats offered there is going to be on the PC too (and cheaper). So I actually have FAR more Wii U games to look forward to than PS4/XBO at this point. I actually really want a PS4, but until IT has something I can't get elsewhere, I can't really justify the cost. (I'll get one eventually, just because, but no rush on it yet)

My view is definitely close to yours. While my post was negative about the WiiU...doesn't mean I don't plan on getting one, it was more of me going "I can see where the so-called 'hardcore' slice of CoD-playing gamers are coming from". These people are console gamers...meanwhile, all the games they want come out on PC, that I can probably run on a better framerate, get mods to kill the bugs, and in the case of first-person games, play with far better controls. That makes the "powerful" consoles a bit less appealing to me, compared to something like the WiiU that revolves around Nintendo's first-party titles and whatever weird stuff the occasional dev likes to release on it.

At some point I'll probably end up getting a PS4 as well like I did with the PS3, for things like JRPGs and Naughty Dog's inevitable upcoming games.

I agree with this. And I think this comes down to the point that a lot of people seem to be missing: the "main attraction" of the PS4/XBone (which is the strong technical specs) don't make these unique. I tried the PS4, and it felt to me like the PS3 all over again. Maybe it's just me, and maybe I'm wrong by assuming that I'd feel the same about XBone/360, but I'd be really surprised. And this leads me to thinking: when will people get bored of getting the same console, with a few tweaks and better graphics? PS8? PS20? I feel like it's not a reliable route for consoles to take, because in the long run I'm pretty sure computers will outpower pretty much any traditional console eventually (and this is difficult for me to admit, because I'm a huge console fan).

This is why I think Nintendo is headed in the right direction. I believe that by innovating (DS, 3DS, Wii, Wii U all brought something new and unique), they are working on securing the long-term future for console gaming. It's a risky thing to do, but I believe in them. And I really don't see how the PS1-2-3-4 and XBox-360-1 formula could keep going forever.

Well...they already do lol :D Consoles have been underpowered compared to PCs for years now. It's why Deus Ex had massive loading times on the PS2 (because they couldn't load the whole area of a level at the same time, so they broke them down into smaller pieces), and why Crysis took longer to make it consoles after coming out on PC first.

This is because the more powerful you want a computer, the more expensive it is, so consoles often have to sacrifice power for a competitive price. Meanwhile, if PCs weren't already running laps around them at launch, they will be by the end of the console's lifespan, because the hardware of consoles stays the same for the entire gen (for the most part) while new hardware is developed and released in the meantime.

But yeah, that is my most major problem with the PS4 and the Xbox One...hey look, more zombie games and brown war shooters, with the same art direction, controls, and graphics! Yaaaawn. Thank god for Nintendo and weird PC indie devs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Wind Waker is shorter than Twilight Princess. I'd compare the former to Majora's Mask and the latter to Ocarina of Time: the first is a weird Zelda experience with only a couple of required dungeons and a ton of side content, while the second is a more "traditional" Zelda game with a ton of dungeons.

Twilight Princess is probably the closest thing to Ocarina of Time there has been in the Zelda series. I don't mean in quality, though Twilight Princess is personally my favorite. Like it's technically the closest thing to Ocarina of Time than any other game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twilight Princess is probably the closest thing to Ocarina of Time there has been in the Zelda series. I don't mean in quality, though Twilight Princess is personally my favorite. Like it's technically the closest thing to Ocarina of Time than any other game.

You mean to tell me a Zelda game is really close to ANOTHER Zelda game?! :razz:

I bought a 3DS because Link Between Worlds looked good (and my god, it was) and that inspired me to buy a Wii Mini and Twilight Princess...it's a good thing my job gives me a discount on these things. Now I find myself addicted to a series I played but was never really into before - this has made me start caring about Nintendo again. Like a lot of people have said though, I'm not going to purchase a Wii U until more games, first-party games mainly, come out for it. The trouble is, it's like Nintendo doesn't care what anyone out there wants. I mean, people have wanted a new star fox for quite some time and they still won't give it to you. Last night, I was reading an interview with Miyamoto where he said he's not sure what they could do with the F Zero series that would bring anything new and exciting to the table. Yet, they will release a million god-damned Mario Kart, Party and "New" Super Mario Bros. every year or two, but there's nothing they can add to a racing game that has been dormant for 11 years? Bullshit.

What is with this trend in Japanese game companies in the past few years? There is fan demand and room to create new fans via the product old fans want, yet they flip you the bird every time? We all are familiar with Square-Enix and their Final Fantasies, but my personal favorite is Capcom.

It has been seventeen freakin' years since Darkstalkers 3. We are fast approaching two damn decades of fans demanding a brand spankin' new game. Darkstalkers is the only series I know of where there are just as many compilations of the first and 3rd game as there are actual entries in the series. I recall when the HD re-release came out, some guy from Capcom said that Darkstalkers 4 would probably never happen now because sales of Resurrection were poor. I actually burst out laughing. No shit it didn't sell well - people have been playing that game and its 3 compilations for seventeen years. They don't want to buy it for the fourth or more time; they want a new game.

It's as dumb as Ford threatening to make a new car if sales of the Model-T improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That kind of blows my mind. They could easily just go the IDM innovation route and recruit well-known music artists to cover F-Zero tracks or create entirely new ones for new areas and it would sell HUGE.

On top of that, build custom machines on the gamepad. I mean really I just came up with this after like half an hour of thinking about it, it's not that hard.

Edited by The Derrit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean to tell me a Zelda game is really close to ANOTHER Zelda game?! :razz:

I bought a 3DS because Link Between Worlds looked good (and my god, it was) and that inspired me to buy a Wii Mini and Twilight Princess...it's a good thing my job gives me a discount on these things. Now I find myself addicted to a series I played but was never really into before - this has made me start caring about Nintendo again. Like a lot of people have said though, I'm not going to purchase a Wii U until more games, first-party games mainly, come out for it. The trouble is, it's like Nintendo doesn't care what anyone out there wants. I mean, people have wanted a new star fox for quite some time and they still won't give it to you. Last night, I was reading an interview with Miyamoto where he said he's not sure what they could do with the F Zero series that would bring anything new and exciting to the table. Yet, they will release a million god-damned Mario Kart, Party and "New" Super Mario Bros. every year or two, but there's nothing they can add to a racing game that has been dormant for 11 years? Bullshit.

What is with this trend in Japanese game companies in the past few years? There is fan demand and room to create new fans via the product old fans want, yet they flip you the bird every time? We all are familiar with Square-Enix and their Final Fantasies, but my personal favorite is Capcom.

It has been seventeen freakin' years since Darkstalkers 3. We are fast approaching two damn decades of fans demanding a brand spankin' new game. Darkstalkers is the only series I know of where there are just as many compilations of the first and 3rd game as there are actual entries in the series. I recall when the HD re-release came out, some guy from Capcom said that Darkstalkers 4 would probably never happen now because sales of Resurrection were poor. I actually burst out laughing. No shit it didn't sell well - people have been playing that game and its 3 compilations for seventeen years. They don't want to buy it for the fourth or more time; they want a new game.

It's as dumb as Ford threatening to make a new car if sales of the Model-T improve.

Be careful what you wish for regarding Capcom...I wanted an Okami sequel and we got freaking Okamiden. :(

But yeah...I've wanted Metroid 5 for years now, about a decade. Fusion ended on such a cliffhanger it hurt. But nooooo.

I'd love more Metroid. I'd love some new series. But they don't seem keen on making them, and every time I see a new Mario game coming out, my mentality is always to roll my eyes and go "again?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love more Metroid. I'd love some new series. But they don't seem keen on making them, and every time I see a new Mario game coming out, my mentality is always to roll my eyes and go "again?".

I think Metroid: Other M scared them out of doing another one. 8-)

I honestly hope not, though.

But I have no issue with Mario. The only time I've truly been sick and tired of Mario is New Super Mario Bros. The Wii version and the original DS version were great. But now they're overdoing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of people that want Nintendo to go third-party. Frankly, I don't really think going third-party will solve Nintendo's problems. Their problem ironically is that they aren't doing enough to innovate in the "gamer" space. Sure, the Wii did gangbusters with its motion controls, which brought in millions in sales, but where's the overlap of those millions with people with a vested interest in gaming as a hobby? And no, this forum and the comment sections on various news sites aren't indicative of the gaming audience as a whole.

With the Wii, they said "well, we haven't latched on to the 'hardcore' as much, but fuck it! Our machines print money!" As a Nintendo fan, it's hard to watch other fans tossing out the Wii's insane numbers like some kind of knee-jerk defense against taunts from other gamers without understanding where those numbers came from. It wasn't from the hardcore. Let's face it, while Nintendo certainly is trying to bring the hardcore back(and admittedly they started in the later years of the Wii), they're in this position because they left the hardcore a long while ago to pursue their "Blue Ocean" strategy.

Now you may be thinking "well you just said they 'failed' to innovate! Where's your argument for that poppycock?" Here it is. Yes, they've definitely done something with the Wii, but it wasn't an innovation that caught on with the gamer audience as a whole. Look at the Oculus Rift. Most people in the gamer space are raving about its functionality and what it can do for gaming experiences. Aside from obvious differences, the reason the "Rift" is looked on more favorably is because it caters to what gamers want. For whatever reason, gamers didn't want what Nintendo had in mind for motion controls. We can make plenty of generalizing statements as to why, but the fact of the matter is that it didn't catch on with the people that are out there buying games on a regular basis.

Additionally, consoles come equipped with wider types of functionality, such as video services, but most importantly for games that have multi-player functionality, a reliable online service that is intuitive and easy to use with a variety of compelling online-enabled software. I have to split for now, but I'll compare Nintendo's current situation to pre-2.0 Final Fantasy XIV: The devs initially wanted to make something completely innovative and different to "compete" with the dozens of other games on the market while trying not to cannibalize their own sales of FFXI by being too similar. What ended up happening was that the game tanked and several people ended up falling on their swords because they didn't understand the idea that the market demands that there be a standard level of functionality that might possibly be shared among competitors and such, but it HAS to be there or else the user just won't get it. They rectified this and two years later they have a successful game that while still not appealing to everyone, is a far cry from their previous effort. The comparison is slightly flawed(and admittedly I just thought of it like 3 minutes ago), but I feel this is where Nintendo is at. Put even more simply, "you gotta learn the rules(i.e. meet the "standard" in this case), before you break 'em(i.e. innovate in your industry).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...