| stof said: There's nothing wrong with having basic quality requirements for developing a game. |
They have them.
- Runs on Wii
- Uses Wii Remote
- Rated by the ESRB
- Can't be Rated AO (Which I disgree with.)
Probably some other crap as well. You go a lot further than that, you're asking for trouble. Just ignoring the negative repercussions of Nintendo deciding to judge the subjective quality of the content of games on their systems, this would be a huge drain on them, money and time wise. Someone would have to play and evaluate every game wanting a release, to pass judgment, all to possibly stop a game form being released.
Console makers have not introduced standards to stop games like E.T. (Crappy movie-tie in games) They introduced standards to prevent unlicensed, pirated, or even dangerous software from being on their systems. These standards weren’t introduced to stop bad games; they were introduced to stop flat out malicious profiteers from trying to sell busted software on their platforms. The closest thing to what you're saying I can even think of is Sony putting limits on how big many games people could release a year, simply because of how the original Playstation boom was.
The HD consoles don’t have standards involving content quality either; they simply have more technical standards. Usually involving HD resolutions as a standard, or every game has to achievements, etc. This combined with their higher development costs typically prevent some of these cheap thoughtless games, as well cheap thoughtful games, from making it to their systems.
It’s not practical, and it’s simply not fair to say what can and can’t be released simply on their personal judgment based on quality. It's not Nintendo's place to decide what you should and should not play for their system, it's for us the consumer to decide. People like James Rofle (The Angry Video Game Nerd) have actually made a name for himself by torturing himself with terrible games from yesteryear. Things like this have their place in the world.
