you sir, have never seen the ending credits for a Nintendo game. go ahead, attack Nintendo, but make sure you attack the other first party console devs who have more in house 1st and 2nd party game devs than Nintendo...oncev they come into existence that is...

I totally agree with you on this and the OP doesn't say anything against it either.

You've made a very good point and I can't say you're wrong. Yet, I disagree with you.

In my opinion, a shovelware environment (like the one generated around the Wii) is a bad thing because it concentrates incompetence at making titles and contempt for the gamer. This is everything we don't want to be successful because the moment AAA devs realize they can do more money with shovelware than with AAA titles, we're f***ed. On the other hand, PS2 was a platform for everthing (good and bad games from all genres) and nobody thinks about shovelware when thinking about the console, although it was there. This passes a very different message to developers (shovelware is the easy way but not a long-term viable option) and gamers (there is shovelware, but there is much more than that, you can find plenty of good games).

Microsoft and Sony don't make any developer to spend millions. Look at the PS4 for example, it's full of indie titles. However, they do offer the possibility for devs to create AAA titles. And that's not a bad thing at all.

So, the point of this article is to enlighten gamers to....????? I'm not sure.... You want to inform them of Nintendo's shortcomings or what you perceive to be harmful to the gaming community? So that they can then choose if they want to support Nintendo at all?

If so, fair enough. But to each his own. I read it and it changes nothing for me, they don't owe me anything and I don't owe them my loyalty. I buy Nintendo games because I like them, same reason I buy any other games. 

This will be the first thread in VGchartz I will bookmark for future reading. I already have some counter point to your ideas but it would be too quick to post them if I haven't taken the time to read the whole OP yet.

2 was the closest you got to relaying things that were seemingly quite true, although don't necessarily take place in the Nintendo of today. They've clearly become more interested in Indies and third parties, especially since they don't have much.

I applaud your effort, because that's quite a long and detailed read, but there is quite clearly glaring bias in some of this. Setting Sony or Microsoft ahead of Nintendo for certain acts that they have done is one of them. Big companies like these all have their own financial and "humane" (even that's a bit of a stretch) problems.

Regarding 1.2

You imply that one art direction (Realistic) is better than another (Cartoonish) and use that assumption to bash Nintendo. Afterwards, you imply that one gameplay style (Simulation) is better than another (Arcade) and, again, use that assumption to further bash Nintendo. Later on, you imply that a particular hardware focus (Raw power) is better than another (User interaction) and, again, use that assumption to bash Nintendo.

I could go on and on but it's pretty clear that you are using a bunch of very subjective assumptions representing your personal preferences (Realistic graphics, simulation gameplay, etc.) and then based on those try to establish the ''Truth'' about Nintendo. It's a very naive (or dishonest) way to analyse reality. Bravo for the effort but, from what I've read, it's a very poor essay.

Read the OP:

"Note that I’m not taking into account tastes when referring all those games earlier (like the Guinness book is not about the best people in the world). I’m just focusing on objective remarkable achievements of some games that could have only been done with effort/time/money. If the game X is beautiful or if the game Y is fun, that is already subjective (about tastes)"

Nintendo wouldn't have to copy Sony or Microsoft. Look at the incredible amount of cutting-edge games that Sony invented that weren't based on any Microsoft game. Nintendo would follow their own way too. That's one thing I very curious, what kind of AAA game would Nintendo pull out if they were willing to spend their billions...

Again, read the OP:

"They create games that are original, fun and engaging to the eye."

Yet, the OP also tell what they do wrong. Isn't that legitimate, to point out also the negative side?

It seems as though you don't have much room to say this. Your first post was about wanting somebody else to come in here and jostle up his points, now you're just calling people out over nothing.

i ve never ever seen in my life, ever, such a wall of text so full of words, so empty of ideas and arguments

TLDR?
Nintendo is bad because i dont like them, buaaaa!!! crying like a baby lol

believe it or not theres people out there, and a lot of them that enjoy more WiiSports than Killzone for example.
me included. id pay 50$ for Wii sports resort, but i wouldnt even buy Killzone 3.

This is too long.

~Mod Edit~

This post has been moderated.

-Smeags