| deathgod33 said: Nintendo is the only video game company that cares more about bringing fun and enjoyment to it's customers than making money, and ironically, they have the most money. |
This may be why it seems that they make decisions that gear towards making amazing games rather than reading the market.
To me, this is most evident on the N64. Nintendo wanted to form a "dream team" that would help lessen the massive amount of crappy games that flooded the consoles before and help create fewer, but high quality, games. It seemed like an amazing idea, but the market shifted to the PS1. They called the N64 a failure even though it had a few games that could beat anything the PS1 had to offer (just not as many games) and was still profitable for Nintendo. I could never understand this.
Then came the GCN. The only decision I remember Nintendo making that the majority of fans didn't like was Wind Waker. It seemed that fans wanted another Ocarina of Time while Miyamoto wanted to make something new and interesting. I really liked the game. Now the decision to make the GCN's primary color purple was retarted. I bought a black one on launch day. Once again, people called the GCN a failure. The GCN was profitable to Nintendo like the N64 was. Also, why did the XBOX win? More sales? Between the PS2 massive library of games and the GCN high quality Nintendo games, what did the XBOX have? Well, they did have Halo. The thing I really don't understand is why Nintendo made the acronym for the Nintendo GameCube 'GCN'.
Finally the Wii. Just like there was two generations in the 2D realm (after the NES landed on the scene), there has been 2 generations of consoles in the 3D realm with traditional controllers, I think Nintendo has pioneered the way for the next era of gameplay. It just isn't as smooth or well accepted as the transition between 2D and 3D.
