| S.T.A.G.E. said:
Some questions:
|
Gladly.
1) Whats wrong with third parties not thinking the WIi U isn't next gen but accepting that its Nintendos next gen?
Third parties can think what they want (concerning Wii U being next gen). Whether they are correct or not depends on everyone's definition and perspective (and knowledge).
2) Why should third parties make sacrfices only for Nintendo (always)? Shouldn't the logic be if one doesn't have the specs then they're out of the race?
Currently 3rd parties are opening the doors to other lower-end hardware (tablets). Why when it comes to Nintendo must 3rd parties play the blackmail game?
Ultimately this is about making money, so if games can sell on the system despite being downscaled, then having the specs needed to play a certain level of features shouldn't matter.
3) Why doesn't Nintendo bend their backs just a little to work in harmony with third parties?
Why should they? They have a business direction and their business direction doesn't align with that of 3rd parties. If 3rd parties want to make money on Nintendo's platforms, all they have to do is release games they believe will sell. It's not complex.
4) Have you ever asked yourself why since the 90's Nintendo was never a threat to PC gaming or even arcade gaming for that matter? Why were they always made fun of by those two groups?
They were a threat to arcade gaming, matter of fact the sector was good as dead a few years ago due to competition from consoles (Nintendo, Sega, Sony), but got back alive thanks to value adds such as dance games, ski games, skateboards games, etc.
Dedicated PC gamers (I've always been a PC gamer, just not a strictly PC gamer) never respected Nintendo because they had the mouse and keyboard, could play point and click adventures, and also had the ability to play 3D games long before Nintendo. However PC games were rarely on the level of quality of Nintendo (and its 3rd parties') games, so they were mostly behaving foolishly.
5) Where is Nintendo's major first party?
You need to rephrase this question.
6) Why hasnt Nintendo never cared about pushing tech?
The have cared about pushing tech. The N64 and Gamecube testify to that, so does the SNES.
However, when the returns from pushing tech led to a losing battle (as of the Cube), Nintendo decided to throw that strategy to the garbage and follow their more successful strategy, the DS/NES/Wii/Gameboy strategy. They also believe that in time, with diminishing returns, they will arrive at the graphical levels the others are pushing without having to bleed money in the process. It will only take 10 years more, but in the meantime they are still making great games.
7) Why can't power help games evolve?
It can help games evolve. Power leads to the ability to make games that weren't previously possible. Examples are MAG, Pikmin, Assassin's Creed, Beyond.
Power can also give games an aesthetic appeal and make a game feel more immersive.
8) Why must art direction and the way games are meant to be seen be held back for Nintendo?
Because they prefer not to bleed money and wait for the moment the tech is ready to be sold at a profit in a 2 to 3 hundred dollar console.
9) Why does Nintendo have the stigma of being considered to be a toy where as their counterparts are not?
Because they make an exaggerated amount of games that appeal to babies through bright colors and bland plots.
This is my gripe against the new Nintendo. That's why some Nintendo fans can't stand me, and hate my guts. (Rol, Moreno)
