Soleron said:
This is the mistake people make when reading Malstrom (I agree). It's not about what YOU want as a gamer, it's about what will make Nintendo lots of sales and money. Nintendo's recent strategy has failed in those two categories despite still pleasing some of the hardcore (who don't see the problem). If you want Nintendo to still be around to make niche hardcore games, they have to make more Wii Sports and 2D Mario as a first priority. I personally dislike Wii Sports and liked Mario Galaxy 1 but I'd rather the former was made. |
You clearly didn't read my post with the NES games and their sales, the market Malstrom was talking about created by Mario.
You're mixing two things up, Malstrom's views, which confuse sales and awesomeness, and Rol's pov.
Like most of us, Rol wants to see Nintendo do well. In that case, he wants them to sell well. But if you look earlier in the topic, I asked Rol, what is most important here, sales or awesomeness, and he told me awesomeness. So the question is, if a game is fantastic, yet it doesn't sell all that well, which desire is the most important, for Nintendo to do well, or for their games to sell.
You'll tell me, they're one and the same, when a game is good, it will sell. But the fact of the matter is, many games don't sell all too well (relatively speaking) despite being gems. Galaxy is by far a much better game than NSMBWii, but which one sold better, we both know the answer to these questions.
Bottom line, if that is your stance, that you discuss sales as sales and don't equate sales to quality, don't bash a game if it doesn't sell well, be SPECIFIC. Just say: "this or that game would have sold better", don't use other confusing rhetoric such as "this game didn't sell well because it's not a real Mario".
And I'll gracefuly close this with
"..."
