Nintendo needs to make more sequels

[Joelcool7]

RolStoppable said:

The problem here isn't that I am changing my stances within days, it's your interpretation of what I am saying. My original post in this thread was really short and straight to the point, yet you still manage to write one huge response. This is what I said:

"Being a Nintendo fan can really be a pain, especially because sequels to their games are so scarce. It's perfectly normal for Sony, Microsoft and third parties to release three (or more!) entries in a series within a timeframe of five years, on the same system no less. When it comes to Nintendo it isn't even a given that they release one game every five years, even though the series in question is equally as or more popular than most of the stuff the rest of the industry keeps making sequels for."

This is what you read:

"Being a Nintendo fan can really be a pain, especially because sequels to their games are so scarce. It's perfectly normal for Sony, Microsoft and third parties to release three (or more!) entries in a series within a timeframe of five years, on the same system no less."

So you jump to the conclusion that I am asking for Mario Kart Wii 2 and Super Mario Galaxy 3. At least somewhere in your post you had the common sense to realize that this thread is actually about the series that are absent this generation: Starfox, F-Zero, Wave Race, Pikmin, 1080°, Mario Golf, Mario Tennis and there are more that could be made.

In the second paragraph of the original post I first listed the available options that would make it possible for Nintendo to fix their shortcomings and then I said which of these options are preferable. But somehow you take that as me saying that Nintendo should cut down on developing new IPs. I didn't write a convoluted original post and I really don't think that it takes much time to read and comprehend it.

What did I miss-understand about that? "isn't even a given that they release one game every five years" coupled with the thread's title suggests that you would want to see multiple titles for each franchise per generation. Then if you put that sentence into the context of the previous sentence which you said was all I heard you get my interpretation of what was said.

How am I miss-interpreting what you said? In the context you said it its really hard to take it any other way.

Now the point of this thread was about sequels to Nintendo's properties and if you take your first paragraph at face value its almost impossible not to think your referring to sequels as at least one a generation or more. If your objective was to emphasize Nintendo not creating a title each generation you did a very bad job of conveying that message!

Your second paragraph the one I also apparently miss-understood suggests your ideas for fixing the problem. Cutting any development shouldn't have been mentioned at all. That option is irrational at best unless Nintendo were struggling to survive and they had no choice but to cut development.

If you read my response completely you'll note I addressed all three of the options you gave. The fact that you saw them as options that you would actually suggest gives credence to my point in my response. You then said which of the three options was your favorite and addressed the option of third parties but gave a negative to the idea. You probably would have been better off had you just left the cutting new IP development out entirely. Suggesting it as an option is what I was getting at as I did address all three options.

Was my interpretation really that outlandish? It was based entirely on what you said. Maybe you should take a lesson from me and go into greater detail with your threads. Or rephrase the title and OP to suggest only a single interpretation. However hopefully readers will see this reply and yours and will understand better the actual objective with this thread!

Though after hearing the way you intended it to be interpreted I can see it. But it can be interpreted both ways!