By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
impertinence on 08 October 2013
Edit Thread
happydolphin said:
impertinence said:

Videogames exsisted before the N64, and so did Nintendo. Anyway, I am talking about videogames and what company is the king of videogames. To restrict that to a certain subset of home consoles is arbitrary. It includes, arcade games, hand helds, software anything associated with video games basically and obviosuly needs to take into account the full history of video games as well as the cultural impact the games and companies have had and continue to have. There really is no contest, and what is painfully obvious is that Bethesda in this context is a mere midget compared to Nintendo and thus sounds pretty ridicolous when telling Nintendo what they should be doing.

@bold. Captain obvious to the rescue.

I know that... I'm saying that as of the N64, Nintendo struggled, and they yet have a lot to prove.

Nintendo is certainly not the King of videogames. Many games have sold tremendously (Angry Birds comes to mind), and there is more to being the "King of video games" than sales.

When Bethesda was talking, and what Seece was referring to, was the home console business. The topic of this thread is the Wii U and by association the home console market, and as such, in that context, Bethesda is no onboard _and_ Nintendo is not the undisputed winner.

@underlined. 1st of all it's "Ridiculous". 2nd of all, Bethesda is a 3rd party publisher, and as such request certain things from manufacturers in order to offer their partnership. So your comparison is totally invalid in this context. What is valid though is what I said, that what Bethesda is saying is BS because they never supported Nintendo regardless.

Ok then, if Nintendo is certainly not the king of videogames, then who is? No one?

Anyway, the point I made is that Bethesda are free to say: "we wanted this and that, if we were to support whatever platform". What makes them sound foolish and as if they overestimate their own impact is when they say "Nintendo should have done this or that". Sure, in the limited context of getting Bethesda to devlop for their platform they obviously should give them a say in what they want to see. But again, that is ridiculous all the time support from Bethesda is virtually completely irrelevant for what a company like Nintendo does.

It's the eqivalent of Hamid Sourian telling Aleksander Karelin that if he had just followed his diet he would not have lost to Rulon Gardner, if the Carley Ray Jepsen analogy was not clear enough.