Seriously, Nintendo is not THAT Important

[Pristine20]

osed125 said:

Pristine20 said:

osed125 said:

Boring is subjective yes, but smaller isn't. If my scenario becomes true, that would mean less games a year, and a flood of trash indie games in the like of Candy Crush, Farmville and stuff like that. 

Also less diversity is not subjective, imagine only having drama and comedies on movies and TV, well imagine the same but with games genres, meaning only Sports and FPS games for example (I'm talking about AAA stuff here.)

I'll give you diversity on "AAA" titleseven though I'm not 100% sold that that would be the case absolutely. I mean FF still far outsells any JRPG but for some reason, they still make Tales games (Is tales not AAA)? I guess they're not bleeding cash enough? AAA isn't everything you know...and what's AAA is kind of difficult to determine sometimes. Is the AAA moniker given to big budget games or games over 90% on metacritic? That definition is crucial for me to understand your prediction.

As far as I know, AAA games are the ones that cost a sh*t ton of money to make. Stuff like critic scores, game sales don't matter here. Maybe the correct term is "blockbuster games", but I honestly don't know.

Japanese companies are still one of the few who still make middle end software, like Nintendo, Namco and Atlus for example. Sad that a lot of them seem to be moving towards mobile. 

Okay if that's what "AAA" means, I definitely agree with you. Just remember that "AAA" games have never really been diverse in any generation in that case. They've always been the "safe" games. Yeah Iagree  that the Japanese in general are too focused on "mobile/handheld" but I guess that's a significant portion of their market