Soleron said:
I have no problem with those games being made. Nintendo just needs to not make them the focus of a year's lineup and expect them to sell. Fire Emblem is a great series and leading its genre but no one would expect it to sell a 3DS on its own at Christmas. Yet this is exactly what Nintendo hoped for with Galaxy 2, and then with Skyward Sword. Nintendo's executives main problem is that they do not understand the game market. It would be fine if they said, we know X would sell better but we are doing Y, outright. But if you read the interviews it's more of a Reggie "what's wrong with you" when a Galaxy doesn't sell like a 2D Mario. They just don't know why. The measure of quality you are describing is cool - for you. You can come to your own conclusions about which games are better and why, based on some combination of what you listed. Sales isn't the only thing, sure, but if we are talking about what Nintendo is doing wrong and how they could do it better, time, talent and metacritic score are not issues for them at the moment. NCL is a top tier studio. It is being misused. Longevity I left out because it is also a revenue issue, if games retain their value they can be selling at $30+ years after release and be earning. The existence of low priced used copies is actually a failure on the developer's part to make a profitable game. |
I agree mostly. The part I'm not making myself really clear about, is that Malstrom begs for 2D Mario since it created a market of games his demographics likes (awesomeness), not games the broader market likes (sales/appeal). His reason for it is ambiguous since he usually critiques Nintendo by using sales as his argument, but here it's about good games so I'm totally confused. If it's good games he wants, then Galaxy is a way to go, and much more so than NSMB. But if it's sales, then good games, his argument should be NSMB and only NSMB, none of this "Mario creates a market for good games" hypocrisy.