The truth about Nintendo

[Zod95]

Luck said:

Regarding 1.2

You imply that one art direction (Realistic) is better than another (Cartoonish) and use that assumption to bash Nintendo. Afterwards, you imply that one gameplay style (Simulation) is better than another (Arcade) and, again, use that assumption to further bash Nintendo. Later on, you imply that a particular hardware focus (Raw power) is better than another (User interaction) and, again, use that assumption to bash Nintendo.

I could go on and on but it's pretty clear that you are using a bunch of very subjective assumptions representing your personal preferences (Realistic graphics, simulation gameplay, etc.) and then based on those try to establish the ''Truth'' about Nintendo. It's a very naive (or dishonest) way to analyse reality. Bravo for the effort but, from what I've read, it's a very poor essay.

As naive and dishonest as the Guinness book. Look at what is said at the end of that section:

"Note that I’m not taking into account tastes when referring all those games earlier (like the Guinness book is not about the best people in the world). I’m just focusing on objective remarkable achievements of some games that could have only been done with effort/time/money. If the game X is beautiful or if the game Y is fun, that is already subjective (about tastes)"