Now to deal with the latest "logical argument" from Zod95.
I bet he would make a great swiss cheese maker because everything he argues is full of holes.
I really wonder if I should even bother with this guy...
Let's reformat his post into a better arrangement.
| Zod95 said: This quote is already a summary of what you substantially said. But let me try to summarize it even more. So, after my clear and complete statement, what you're telling me is that: 1 - Nintendo has shaped game design many times throughout their history in this business. 1 - Nintendo shaped videogaming in the past but it's not shaping anymore. Since the middle of the 5th gen that Nintendo doesn't do state-of-the-art. And even until the 5th generation Nintendo never had the courage to leave its best cows and shift them for something new. Since 1985 (Super Mario Bros) until nowadays (New Super Mario Bros Wii U) that Nintendo fans are drinking the same milk over and over again. To give you an example of what I consider to be really evolving and ever creating something new, look at Naughty Dog: Crash Bandicoot in the 5th gen, Jak & Daxter in the 6th gen and Uncharted in the 7th gen. This is also shifting greed for courage, which Nintendo isn't able to (it will never leave Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, etc.). |
General Zod, I got your Kryptonite right here.
Nintendo shaped videogaming in the past. Nintendo SHAPES (present tense) videogaming in the present.
And Nintendo will shape videogaming in the future.
I named a host of games from the 7th generation in that brief list, Zod95.
A sampling includes Brain Age, Nintendogs, New Super Mario Bros., Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wii Fit.
Brain testing games, pet simulators, 2D side scrollers, sports compilations, variety game compilations, & exergaming were all over the place after Nintendo created these games.
New Super Mario Bros. paved the way for the return of 2D side-scrolling platform games.
Well looky looky who comes out with a 2D side-scrolling platformer next.
Dat Nintendo INFLUENCE!!
Without Wii Fit, there would be no Zumba Fitness videogames or no EA Sports Active. No Gold's Gym Cardio Workout.
No Jenny McCarthy worrying about Your Shape. No Jillian Michaels delivering Fitness Ultimatums. No Mel B spicing you to Get Fit.
No displays of Your Shape: Fitness Evolved at XBox 360's E3 2010 press conference. No Nike + Kinect Training for the XBox 360.
No Wii Fit from Nintendo's Wii and no Brain Age (Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training) from Nintendo's DS...
...No Body and Brain Connection (Dr. Kawashima's Body and Brain Exercises) for Microsoft's XBox 360 & Kinect.
For one example.
No Nintendogs from Nintendo's DS, no Kinectimals for Microsoft's XBox 360 & Kinect.
Yet again for one example.
As for the WiiWare/PC/Mac game Frobot, the developer Fugazo once said right on their website:
"Imagine if Wii Tanks and The Legend of Zelda had a baby. That baby's name would be Frobot."
An interview with the Frobot developers
That's just ONE of the MANY MANY games Wii Play inspired.
AND you see right in word the influence of The Legend of Zelda in games you would never expect.
As for Wii Sports...well...
By the way, last time I heard of Crash Bandicoot he was on the back of a milk carton. Did they find him yet or is he still missing?
The reason Nintendo can still put out Mario, Zelda & the rest all these years later is BECAUSE they keep them fresh.
All that "new" stuff you're talking about either has limited weight in the market and/or is not selling anymore.
You conflate "new" with "good" never realizing that Nintendo gives you "best" with their so-called "old".
That's why you don't see any more Crash Bandicoot or you don't see any influence of Jak & Daxter/Rachet & Clank in the industry.
Don't see you complaining about Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty which have been coming out for years & years & years.
Neither do I see you complaining about Gran Turismo which is old as well. Heading towards 20 years old in fact.
Funny how nobody complains about James Bond movies & they have been coming out since 1963. A half-century ago!
Face it, you're resentful of Nintendo's everlasting success. You realize that they are not going ANYWHERE & that bugs you.
You'll just have to deal with it. Nintendo's the King. They're the Boss. They're here to stay.
And best of all, they get better & better every single day.
One more sample of that Nintendo Influence.
| Zod95 said: 2 - Without them doing what they do, the rest of the industry is lost. 3 - Nintendo leads the way yet these guys can't even return the favor for the guidance Nintendo provides. 2 & 3 - Let me tell you they are already lost into the realistic graphics of Gran Turismo, the technology of Crysis, the non-linear gameplay of SWAT4, the remarkable depth of Total War, the innovative gameplay of LA Noire, the ever appealing massive content of Pro Evolution Soccer, the strategic thinking and amazingly fun online of Killzone, the extreme adrenaline and astonishing beauty of TrackMania, the immersive online of World of Warcraft, etc. And thank God they managed to be lost this way...lost from Nintendo's greediness and lack of courage to change and evolve. When you say in (1) that Nintendo shaped the industry, I'm glad to see that there are countless of great games like Crysis that show 0% influence from Nintendo. So, and addressing your point 3, they owe nothing to Nintendo. |
Last I heard Gran Turismo is basically the same game every time with new cars...cars that never show signs of damage when they crash.
Just a pretty graphical display, that's all. That's all the series was...graphics.
Crysis 3 didn't live up to EA's expectations, I don't know if you heard. They spent so much money & got so little sales.
EA: Crysis 3 and Dead Space 3 did not meet expectations
SWAT 4? Never heard of it. Must not be too many people getting "lost" in it.
According to VGChartz, the game sold around 10,000 or 0.01 million worldwide (SWAT 4 from Game Database).
L.A. Noire. Nice game. Interesting subject matter. Let me know when they join the 10 million+ club (L.A. Noire from Game Database).
You talk about Nintendo being old & repetitive yet you put up a perennial sports game like Pro Evolution Soccer as the counter example???
Let's get serious here, Zod95. 
Killzone huh? Here's Killzone series' sales (Killzone from Game Database). All that strategic thinking couldn't get any one of their games past 3 million. Must not be having enough amazing fun.
World of Warcraft is worthy of touching the hem of Nintendo's garment. They've breached the 10 million barrier.
Blizzard is a developer who like Nintendo doesn't rush a quality product. And they sell for the long term.
Oh! Something I just ran across comparing Blizzard & Nintendo. From the StarCraft Legacy forums. You might find it interesting.
Has Blizzard Taken Inspiration From Nintendo?
A very intriguing post on page 2 of this thread from a poster named Triceron:
| From StarCraft Legacy forum - Post #20 Triceron said: There's more to it than that. The success of the MGS franchise and Gamecube's new Metroid Prime series is what lead Blizzard to create Ghost. Ghost has been described as having Metroid Prime style gameplay, cept in 3rd person, and has been often compared to it. Ultimately this didn't seem to work out with the Spy elements they intended, nor did the multiplayer, so they halted the project. |
Yep. Sounds like another company "lost" from "Nintendo's greediness" and "lack of courage to change and evolve".
Have you played Metroid Prime? Have you played Super Metroid? What's the first glaring difference you notice when comparing these games?
I'll give you a minute.
Oh & about Crysis showing 0% influence from Nintendo? YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!
That's why Crytek spent all those millions & millions for a game that can barely muster a million & a half in sales between 3 different versions.
Crysis 3 sales from Game Database: X360 = 0.67 million (670,000). PS3 = 0.54 million (540,000). PC = 0.29 million (290,000).
Oh but it got good Metacritic scores so I suppose that's all that counts.
I would rather have the purchases personally but that's just me.
| Zod95 said: 4 - Why are they gonna pay Capcom or EA or Activision or Rockstar money that they have earned themselves? 4 - They don't need to pay anything to other devs, just invest in new studios, new games, better games. They don't do that. They keep the money are continue milking the same cows. Once in a while, they create new IP's but they're never state-of-the-art, nor the old IP's sequels are. |
Nintendo has the most efficient power-packed business model in videogaming. They need to do EXACTLY what they're already doing.
What you're talking about is bloat. Buying up a bunch of studios doesn't make better games.
Sony has the most 1st party studios in its portfolio yet virtually none of their games really match the timelessness & sales power of Nintendo's.
First of all Nintendo allowed an unproven developer named Retro Studios to produce one of the key franchises, the Metroid series.
Nintendo has collaborated with many developers in creating titles for their systems.
It is thanks to Nintendo that Monolith Soft still exists to the relief of fans of the Xeno series.
Nintendo has absorbed the heart & soul of Hudson Soft into its NdCube office.
You talk to Platinum Games & ask them how much they want to be a 2nd party developer for The N.
It's not milking cows, Zod95. When a creative work is timeless, it continues to be produced because people love it.
People still get excited for James Bond. People still get excited for Star Trek & Star Wars.
Doctor Who came out in 1963 & people still love it 50 years later in 2013.
If people listened to what you had to say, we wouldn't have 1987's Ducktales because Huey, Dewey, & Louie came out in the 1930s.
Nobody gets tired of Superman movies, of Batman movies, of Spiderman movies even though these characters came out between the 1930s & 1960s.
It is no different for videogames.
And another thing. Let's kill this talk of "IP's". That's lawyer talk. Real people don't talk like that.
There are GAME SERIES. FRANCHISES. Not IP's.
Nintendo has HOSTS of game series. They just added a pack of new ones in the recently-outgoing generation.
And they're state-of-the-art, that's why they get those state-of-the-art sales.
Nintendo's sequels don't really feel like sequels BECAUSE they do so much different within the series that it stays fresh.
You're so short-sighted that you just see Mario on the cover & think it's the same game over & over again.
Mario alone has been put in so many different scenarios & gameplay styles in his history that it's simply too hard to count.
Only Nintendo had the guts to put platform king Mario in a racing game, a tennis game, a fighting game, a board game, an RPG.
Sega would only keep Sonic in platforming if they didn't learn from Nintendo's example.
Even WITHIN his homebase platforming genre he has changed. Who else would have the guts to put 2D Mario in 3D but Nintendo?
And on top of that MAKE IT WORK?
The Legend of Zelda went from overhead to side-scroller to 3D. Went from land to water to air.
Played digitally, by analog, by touchscreen, by motion. On foot to horses to boats to trains.
You need to stop with this foolishness. When they look in the dictionary under the word 'Innovation', you'll see a Nintendo logo in the description.
NOBODY has kept it as fresh as Nintendo. That's why they survive & thrive all these years.
| Zod95 said: 5 - Nintendo spends less & sells their games for less BECAUSE they were smarter in their expenditure. 5 - Yest they are, really smart. Like I said earlier, they avoid massive money spending and monsters of uncontrolled quality. The result? Repetitive IP's, miserable intellectual achievements, focus only in kindergarten niches. |
Nintendo is focused on the EVERYBODY market because that's where the most appreciation & sales reside.
EXTREMELY smart, Zoddy, my boy. That's why they're the last true gamemaker still in business making games & consoles.
EXTREMELY smart to have that sister home console/handheld console business model that ensures their longeivity.
No one else has been able to replicate that. Sony sure tries, bless their heart, but nobody else has done it. Microsoft won't even attempt it.
Nintendo's monsters of uncontrolled quality line the list of the best-selling games of all-time.
DOMINATED by Nintendo. NINTENDOMINATED by Nintendo. Good GOD what a rout!
All the intellectual achievements they have made. Hardware design, controller design, game design, sales strategies.
Nintendo wrote the BOOK on it. Wrote the Gaming Bible, brother. Hahahahahahahaha!
Ressurrected an entire industry from the ashes single-handedly & CONTINUES to shape that industry in countless ways decades upon decades.
i already told you about that silly 'kindergarten niche' foolishness. But while you play in your sandbox, Nintendo will be filling up their money bin.
They'll be paying giant dividends to their stockholders. Giant bonuses to their employees. Getting sales & professional recognition all the way.
Continuing to confound & confuse every corporate titan that dares to step within the videogaming ring.
Reminds me of Little Mac from Punch-Out!! come to think of it. Just racking up star punches on these clowns! TKO!!
| Zod95 said: 6 - The other guys spend more & sell their games for more then come up with a bunch of anti-customer routines (on-disc DLC) to get those customers to spend even more because their expenditures overshot what they sold their games for. 6 - Yes, they make DLC's, which I don't approve (I never bought a DLC in my life and I plan to continue this way) but they drop the price of their games, unlike Nintendo that keeps the price to suck 50 euros for every gamer. I've bought more than 20 games for my PS3 and the average cost of each one was around 15 euros. That's quite a difference. In fact, as a PS3 owner, I buy for 15 euros games that cost dozens of millions to produce while you, as a Wii owner (I think), buy for 50 euros games that cost few millions of even less to produce. See the difference? |
The others drop the price of their games because their games have no lasting value.
Nintendo sets a fair price & people to continue to buy because they know they're getting quality.
As a reward Nintendo occassionally thanks their customers with Million-Seller or Player's Choice or Nintendo Selects.
Super Mario 64 DS came out 9 years ago. Almost an entire DECADE ago. It STILL sells at full price & people STILL BUY IT AT FULL PRICE.
Same with 8 year old Mario Kart DS. Same with 7 year old New Super Mario Bros. These games are STILL on the shelves selling right on today.
In fact the quick price drop of those 3rd party titles compel customers to wait it out until that inevitable price drop which screws up the sales potentials of these games.
When the games are not bought at full price, the retailers won't order more copies of the games for their shelves.
They're busy trying to get rid of the stock they already got. To do this faster, they drop the price.
Once stock is depleted the game has maxed out its sales potential.
BECAUSE Nintendo holds on to their value, they consistently make those multi-million sales.
At WORST Nintendo goes gold with 500,000. Half a million. Usually they easily go platinum with many of their franchises.
It's nothing for a Nintendo game to get a million or 5. Their mid-rangers approach & break the 10 million mark.
And their monsters head toward the unthinkable 20 million, 30 million, 40 million mark or higher.
AMAZING for selling on just one platform alone! Others have to patch it up with 2 or more & that's for the BEST non-Nintendo franchises.
No Call of Duty has ever broken the 15 million barrier on one platform alone (Call of Duty series on Game Database).
And what's so good about it is that these games pay for their R&D so early on that it's soon pure profit for Nintendo as these evergreen sellers keep collecting that coin year after year after year......after year.
The others are so dependent on that front-loaded business model where the game is made or broken in those first few weeks.
Nintendo has the whole generation & beyond to make their money. It's a beautiful model.
Your price-dropping 3rd party titles depend on on-disc DLC & other crap like that because their games don't maintain their value.
They have to gouge you after the fact. You already bought the game so why are you paying more afterwards?
They don't get it upfront, they'll get it in the middle. That's why they push online play over local play.
That's why they don't want you buying games from used game stores like GameStop.
They don't want you to have any opportunity to get around your post-game-buy screwing.
Hence the XBox One at E3 2013.
| Zod95 said: 7 - Microsoft, EA & others want you to pay a fee to play their games online. Nintendo factors online play as part of the game's cost making it essentially free. 7 - When it comes to online, you get what you pay for. If you pay nothing (like in the Wii) you have a miserable online experience. But if you pay something, you get a premium online experience like the Xbox Live. Exceptionally, you could get a free online with a decent experience on the PS3. But Sony is a positive outlier in this matter. |
BULL. Online used to be free as a rule until Microsoft came along. And it was good when it was free. Ask the old PC gamers how good it was.
Microsoft started that bullshannon. XBox Live is a gaming bill & I got enough bills to pay already.
I dang sure ain't about to pay another bill for a non-necessity like videogaming.
Sony was ONCE true to the freeness of online play but then PS3 & PSP ran their money out so now they broke that rule with the PS4.
XBox Live isn't the rule, it's the exception. Original PlayStation Network was NOT the outlier.
And gameplayers need to be more discerning about industry practices like these so they DON'T BECOME the rule.
Luckily someone remembers what it used to be like.
One company STILL gives you free online as part of the purchase of their console.
That company's name is Nintendo & THANK GOD for the FREE Nintendo Network.
A quality service from a quality company.
| Zod95 said: 8 - Nintendo has done virtually every genre IN the business & has even created some of its own. 8 - No it hasn't. The list of genres and niches I present earlier continue to be valid and the contrast between them continue to be true. Go see them again. |
Zod95. Stop it. Just stop it.
You know better than this. Enough of the alternate universe you're living in right now.
You know what I said is true & you know there is nothing niche about Nintendo.
They sell to broad audiences. Always have & always will.
I'm not spelling it out for you 'cause you know better.
You click this link & look through this list & check each & every videogame Nintendo has produced.
Then tell me the truth that they have done exactly what I said.
The list is SO LONG they have to break it into subsections.
List of products published by Nintendo
To humor you here's one example of a title I have seen NO ONE ELSE attempt.
I'm playing it right now as a matter of fact. Nobody has done a game like this before.
| Zod95 said: 9 - So Nintendo should spend massive money in order to receive good critic scores. Hmmm... 10 - Who are you selling to, Zod95? The critics or the customers? 9 & 10 - Don't twist my sentence. There's a "or" that separates those 2 different subjects, so they're not cause & effect. And if you cared to read my post to Final-Fan you would realize that critic scores are quality scores and that quality is a personal matter. So for me they have very little value, since what is quality for me is different than what is quality for a specific game reviewer. |
Nobody's twisting your words. What you said is clear to everyone.
You just didn't like how I dismantled your argument.
I quoted you in context & responded in kind.
Here's your quote again to refresh your memory. Key parts underlined.
Zod95: "...Nintendo avoids everything that is either massive money spending (which would dramatically lower their ROI's) or monsters of uncontrolled quality detail such as MMO and game expandable by users (which would demand much more effort in order to receive good critic scores)."
You sell to customers not critics. That's what businesses do.
The best critics can do is create a selling feature that could entice customers to buy.
That's why they put all those scores & review blurbs on the cover.
Ultimately it all serves the sale to the customer. That Is Paramount.
Critics' words are opinions. And I know you heard what they say about opinions.
To put it in as euphemistically as I can, Opinions are like "southern exits". Everybody has one.
I have one question for you, Zod95. Do you think for yourself or do you let the critics do the thinking for you?
I always dismiss critics opinions when deciding what to buy. I have an instinct for knowing what's a good buy & what's not for games.
I never read Metacritic or the GameFAQs reviews or none of that. They're irrelevant to me.
What I look at is the premise of the game. What's the object of the game? What's the plot?
How would this game play? I look at the mechanics of the play. I look at the art style. I look at the characterization. I look at box art even!
From the beginning I had a strong sense of what made a good game & I have hardly ever picked wrong.
When I was 17, I went to an Electronics Boutique (EBGames today) shop & was looking through the games for the SNES & saw this:
Based off the box art ALONE I purchased this game with my EXTREMELY LIMITED money.
Turns out to be One Of The Best Games I Have Ever Played.
I had no idea at the time that it was a pen-and-paper RPG. I had no background with the Shadowrun mythos.
Just jumped in based on the promise of the box art. No consulting with critics.
I still own this game today & I still treasure it today.
There's another game I used to love as a kid even though critics tend to pan it. One of my favorites.
Friday the 13th for the NES.
Before Resident Evil scared the bejeezus out of you in the 5th gen's more realistic visuals...
...Friday the 13th paralyzed you with dread within the 8-bit limitations of the 3rd gen.
This game had you SCARED, SCARED of Jason. He could come out at ANYTIME, ANYWHERE & attack you.
You were limited & sometimes it didn't matter what you did, he would win. He's THAT strong.
Armed with rocks when you start out & controlling a bunch of teen counselors of various athletic abilities, you have to save the kids at the lake.
You get in that little rowboat to the kids' camp & then without warning Jason takes a chunk off your energy as he swims by.
You go in the house to save the kids & you gotta fend off Jason with ducking & dodging while getting a few hits in with your meager little weapons.
You succeed in this & you're safe for a little while but then moments later here comes Jason attacking one of the other teen counselors & if you don't get there in a hurry, that counselor's DEAD. Giving you LESS players to control & navigate the vast campgrounds.
Then you gotta fight off crows & wolves & zombies & all kinds of stuff which doesn't make things any easier.
if you're lucky, you can find a knife or maybe even a machete. Hustle & you can find an axe, a torch, or even the pitchfork!
Might have to fight off Jason's mother in that cabin from those scary woods to do it though.
SydLexia.com - Friday the 13th: The NES Game
I don't care what the critics say. This game captured the dread of the movies PERFECTLY.
I think this is one of the best movie-based games of all time. Published by the hit-and-miss (mostly miss) LJN.
Just come to find out that this game was developed by Atlus. NO WONDER it was so good!
Critics get it wrong all the time.
A critic named Renata Adler once called a certain movie "the most expensive, pious and repellent movie in the history of its peculiar genre".
That movie was called The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
This is critic Charles Champlin's take on that same movie: "temptation is hereby proved irresistible to call The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, now playing citywide, The Bad, The Dull, and the Interminable, only because it is."
Here's a random critic review of a movie.
"The crazier Jack Nicholson gets the more idiotic he looks."
That movie was called The Shining.
Phrases like "plainly a gimmick movie" "blot on an honorable career" "obviously low-budget job"...
...were given by critics to a movie called Psycho.
Which movie got saddled with this description? "A juvenile, ugly movie that represents the worst tendencies of directors channeling Tarantino."
The Boondock Saints.
Critics called the book Alice in Wonderland incomprehensible & preposterous.
That Alice in Wonderland incomprehensible preposterousness lives on a century later in such works like the Super Mario Bros. series.
Critics usually end up becoming pretentious out-of-touch snobs who forget why people enjoy things.
TVTropes.com - Critical Dissonance
TVTropes.com - Vindicated by History
The only opinion that matters is MY OWN. I'M the one spending the little money I have to enjoy a product.
The paying customer is the ONLY critic that matters. And Nintendo does a very good job satisfying those customers.
They create stuff that has impact TODAY AND they create stuff that has impact TOMORROW.
People look back on what they made & see NEW things that are still relevant to the people of later times.
That's quite an accomplishment & something to be proud of.
Once again Zod95. Do you think for yourself or do you let the critics, the press, the media do your thinking for you?
John Lucas
Words from the Official VGChartz Idiot
WE ARE THE NATION...OF DOMINATION!
