|
Zod95 said: "Some of you may tell that companies are meant to make profits and thus it’s totally legitimate for Nintendo to make billions at the gamer’s expense. That is true. However, you as a gamer have the power to choose. If there are companies that have been willing to give you as much as you give them, you can opt by them and make the market to operate on this logic. That is also fair." Except that you are clearly making it seem like Nintendo is a bad guy for doing this. Given the opportunity, I would imagine most companies would do this. You're saying "gamer's expense" and that clearly means that you're implying Nintendo is taking something away from gamers. The other Sony divisions have also been in trouble. I assure you the 32B$ Nintendo holds are much more than what Sony could ever dream of having to spend. Just so you know, Nintendo does NOT have $32B. Your source actually has been proven to be wrong, anyway. I don't want to dig it up, but if you research as much as you claim you do, you would easily find it. In fact, your $32B figure comes just from how much profit Nintendo has made total since they were a gaming company (if we assume your source is legit). That, in no way, shows how much money Nintendo holds. Also, Sony hasn't always been losing money. You're cherry picking qutie a bit for someone speaking "the truth." I agree, it makes sense. There are bad things that make sense (once there are who benefits from them). No, it doesn't make it seem that. Read it again please and note that I say "a very significant part of it", not everything. Companies don't need to die for their customers. Making massive profits and keeping them is a good way for a company to be able to take risks without being too scared of going under because of it. Also, it does make it seem like that. I also didn't say "everything" either, but you clearly make it look like Nintendo is unwilling to expand the market at all and just stay the way it is, which is clearly not true. You need to understand that a word within quotation marks doesn't have the same meaning as without them. And when I say "at the gamer's expense" I don't say people were forced to incur into that expense. But it was indeed expense from the gamer. I think you're trying to twist any sentence you pick up from the OP. Why? There's no twisting in what you said. EVERYONE is taking it this way. At least everyone who read what you said. Also, there's really no other meaning of what you're saying except that you think that gamers put more money into Nintendo than Nintendo has put into gamers, and therefore Nintendo "owes" gamers to spend that money. It doesn't make sense at all to say that. That's like saying "Hey, let's not make any money!" because that is literally the only way to sate this need to not do anything "at the gamer's expense." Gamers are consumers, and consumers have the free will to buy or not to buy a product. Gamers vote with their wallets, so if this kind of thing happens, it's because gamers chose to do so.
No, profits are profits, there's no cost beyond that. And Nintendo made astronomical profits not to survive but to take them away out of the gaming cycle. Just look at the numbers. For how many generations do you think Nintendo could survive with 32B$? It's the same as claiming that the Vatican has only collected astronomical amounts of wealth to assure that the poor churches can survive. Don't be that naive. You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think "profits are profits, there's no cost beyond that." You're making it seem like Nintendo only spends the minimal amount of money they can to get by and horde the money. I also didn't say the amount of profit Nintendo made is for their survival, but that MAKING a profit is. Nintendo cannot lean on other divisions to support them if they decided to go Sony or Microsoft's route. Also, Nintendo does not have $32B. You're the one being naive here, because you completely ignore the fact that ALL companies have other expenses and all companies wish to have savings. First, they didn't evolve as fast as competition (that's why I said "Nintendo wasn’t able to follow the market trends and the industry turns"). Second, they were the same IPs with the same characters and in many times with the same formulas. Look at the examples the OP gives (cartoonish graphics and balloon-based games are some of them). That's not evolving. Nintendo has been leading the gaming market for quite a while, even in the days where their hardware wasn't doing so hot. The reason is because their games often present new and good ways to approach new ways of gaming. That is quite obviously "evolving." Also, using the same IP with the same characters means nothing. What does that have to do with anything? You act as if there's something inherently wrong with doing that. It also makes it seem like Nintendo doesn't make new characters. Also, you use the word "formulas" very loosely here. MANY games use the "same formula" over and over again. GTA may have set a new formula out there, but it hasn't changed its "formula" any more than Nintendo has ever since it first started. Same for pretty much any shooter. And the vast majority of racers. Your argument is extremely weak. 1 - I just agree with me that it is platformers, RPG and little more. What is the percentage of Nintendo games that are neither platformers nor RPG? And what is the percentage of non-Nintendo games that are neither platformers nor RPG? See the difference? That's the point. Their genre focus is not adjusted to the market. Don't be so picky with the words I've used to pass the message. Just tell me whether you agree with the message itself or not. There are quite a few Nintendo games that aren't platformers or RPGs. And your example sucks saying "Nintendo games vs Non-Nintendo games." Do the same with Sony or Microsoft and you'll have the exact same problem. It would be same regardless of what individual gaming company you choose to compare to the rest of the market. I'm not being picky at all, you're simply wrong. 2 - I never said Zelda and Metroid are cartoonish. They are exceptions. But the majority of Nintendo games are indeed cartoonish. Is it hard to accept that? Except your passage quite clearly says it like Nintendo just relies on "cartoonish" art. Metroid and Zelda are pretty popular and Nintendo still makes them. 3 - "Gameplay level", not "gameplay levels". Just compare for instance Mario Tennis with Virtua Tennis and tell me if you don't notice that there's a gameplay that is more basic and other that is more complex. This makes your argument strength even worse. All of a sudden, how "complex" or "convoluted" the controls are is something to be praised. Having basic "gameplay" (controls) does not really have any bearing on the games complexity as a whole. 4 - You're right that a linear game is almost mandatory to tell a good narrative. I give you that. But the point is that Nintendo has only made linear games, regardless their narratives. That is a clear sign of lack of willingness to engage into bold concepts, try new things, push the gaming standards like no one has done before. That is the kind of mindset that Nintendo is definitely not interested to adopt. Except that isn't how it is. It's clear in Nintendo's history that they have been engaging "bold concepts" time and time again. Just because they aren't what you think are good means nothing. Also you're making it quite clear to me that you don't play Nintendo games. "Nintendo has only made linear games." Have you really played Nintendo games? 5 - I know plenty of accessible games that are not linear, and they are brilliant because of that. Anyone can pick them, few can master them, everyone enjoys a huge replay value. Yes, there are SOME. However, not every game can lend itself to that so easily. Just so you know, The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds is an accessible game that is not linear and is a Nintendo game. Just throwing that out there.
Evidence? No, this is quite obviously something that doesn't need evidence. Marketing is essentially the thing that gets the Nintendo image to everyone's eyes/ears/etc. Also, you ask for evidence without procuring any of your own. Good job.
Games began with balloons and have gradually evolved into voice acting. Please go see the videogaming history. Real-time anymations exist in games such as Gran Turismo, FIFA or Skate. Each collision is a collision. Each goal kick is a goal kick. Each skate trick is a skate trick. But, among the balloon-based games Nintendo has, such as Pokémon, you don't control the character to perform your unique attacks (that would be character full-control). You just order the attack and the attack "X" has always the same animation (it's not real-time). You may tell that Nintendo has never evolved Pokémon into this level (so much desired by the fans) not because it would be massive money spending but because it would not be good for the gamers. But then I just don't believe you. My conclusions are different. It doesn't matter what gaming STARTED with. Not all games are going to use voice acting. It doesn't mean they have "evolved" if they do. You really need to research this topic yourself, because there are plenty of amazing quality modern games that don't have VA. I find it funny that your ONLY example is Pokemon, a game people play for its style of play. There are quite a few Nintendo games where you do have "character full-control." Do you not think you have that in Zelda? It's not like you have to take turns or that you have restrictions on when you can move. In fact, Zelda is a perfectly good example of a game that also has real-time animation as well.
Too basic = simpler mechanics =/= bad game You made judgments (too basic = bad), not me. Nope, you said "TOO" basic. Meaning too much. Meaning bad. There's no other way to interpret that.
Again, evidence? You really need to justify your claims if you want to be taken seriously. Hilarious. You don't give evidence and you want me to justify. Let's look at what you said first so we can tear it apart. These games not only presented more complex and deeper gameplays (automatic assumption of "deeper gameplay" for a game that uses more photo-realistic and more "complex" controls. It goes further than that) but also attempted to be realistic in content (real players, real teams, real championships, real stadiums, etc.). With a tiny portion of such content, Nintendo Sports games could mostly appeal to kids (Execpt there's a logical jump here. It makes no sense why a game that isn't like other sports game could only "mostly" appeal to kids. You've most likely not played any Nintendo sports games) but not to the majority, which moved to PlayStation. (There's no evidence of this. It makes it seem like everyone jumped ship to PlayStation because of sports games. There's 0 evidence of this) It depends on what you consider to be evolution. If it is about your personal tastes, then everybody else will just ignore your view. If it is about objective remarkable achievements that require effort / money / time, then people have a common ground to debate. And, in that sense, photo-realism is part of evolution. But there are many other fields that fit into this objective criteria. Nintendo presents none of them. They chose to keep their 32B$ in their pockets. And that's not illegal, they are free to do that. But then I'm free to criticize them too. Except what you're saying is not "objective" at all. Making photorealstic graphics is not an automatic "more effort/money/time." In fact, many Nintendo games take longer than photorealistic games. There's also no objective measure of effort. Also, no it isn't. Photo-realism is not a "part of evolution." Photo-realism is a style. Photo-realism style has existed for a long time now, before you even know it. Also you saying Nitnendo presents "none of them." None of what? Either way, I know you're wrong. Yes, you are free to criticize them. Doesn't mean you're right. In fact, you're wrong. It's as simple as that. Sure they can give that argument. They can claim they just tried to make accessible games, it has nothing to do with keeping billions in their pockets. If accessibility meant massive money spending they would be there using their 32B$ to please gamers. You obviously didn't research as much as people are giving you credit for. Whether or not they are accessible does NOT make a game more expensive. My point was that the reason the games are what they are has NOTHING to do with money. Please get that idea into your head, because it seems like to me you're just trying to bash Nintendo. You keep throwing that $32B around, it's not even right. If you were smart enough, you could go into this http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2014/140129e.pdf and find it yourself that you're wrong. Of course it is. To buy cameras, to hire professionals to travel and shoot real places, to hire designers to recreate those environments, to spend the time to make sure that the result in the game is similar to the real thing. And realistic HD graphics demand eagle-eye and a thorough work. Cartoonish SD graphics don't require any of that. Even if they don't REQUIRE THOSE things, that really doesn't mean much of anything. It's like you have no idea what it takes to do "cartoonish" art styles. There are some, in fact, that DO hire professionals to shoot real places. Maybe you should research more. The PS4 controller is as functional as the others, nobody sees it as a gimmick. The Wii U pad took a different way (it does not replace the classic controller), it is a gimmick and everybody perceives that. This is a bad argument. The Wii U gamepad is as functional as their other controllers as well. It has all the buttons and the added motion controls the Wii controls have. The reason someone wouldn't want to use the Wii U gamepad are for personal reasons, not functional. And you're making those absolute statements again. The PS4 controller is just as much a gimmick as the Wii U gamepad. Reason why? Look at the definition: NOUN http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gimmick When things happen again, and again, and again...then it's not speculation anymore. I don't think you know what a speculation is if you think that. You're really biased if this is the only way you see the data. Again, read the OP: "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)" I think you're the one who needs to read. Read up on your research and also learn that your measures are NOT objective. I have already responded to this. You also didn't even actually respond to what I said because you pretty much said that Nintendo games just recycle their stuff while these other games don't. Yes, the problem is that it's already out of easy-business, I know. But others do that, and they are not non-profit organizations, they are companies. Yes, Sony and Microsoft, unlike Nintendo, develop top-notch game engines. Nintendo develop game engines too. Your argument is still incorrect. Those "top-notch" game engines are only relatively so. Why would Sony need to create an engine that outdoes anything their hardware can handle? I think you don't know how businesses work at all. You're just assuming everything Nintendo does, they do it the easy way out. Don't deny it, you're anti-Nintendo. That's the only way how one can be so deluded to think that Nintendo just has it easy, keeps all the money for itself like some kind of evil greedy man out to screw over his/her customers and bleed them dry. How do you define "great music"? It's again your personal tastes? Please understand this (read it 3 times before any reply to me): "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)" You are the one who mentioned music. Great music is defined by the population. Nintendo music is among some of the most popular music out there. That's not all, there's also obvious talent that goes into making these music. And stop copying and pasting that incorrect statement. You're really trying to deny that Nintendo has anything worth a damn. It's much worse than those who are praising everything Nintendo does because at least they aren't denying facts as hard as you are.
That is a shame that newcomers do more for evolution than veterans. Because this totally answers my question. Oh wait, it doesn't.
I hope now with my previous answers you get a different view about that. Nope. I still think exactly the same. |
Again, I will reply to more of the original post later.
