| Zod95 said: You just don't contradict anything that is said in the OP. As for your 3rd paragraph, I also don't judge games based on hardware specs. Hardware specs only mean 1 thing: freedom. Freedom to do whatever devs want. If a console with unlimited hardware capabilities were invented, that would mean total freedom, not that devs would have to engage into unlimited costs. |
Actually, I believe I did. All those references you made about Nintendo's policies from the NES are not relevant anymore (aside the ones that are still standard practice), and comparing them to the PS2 era like you did in point 2.3 is being disingeneous. You're not making any clear distinction between the situation of the market at those different times, nor how Nintendo's practices have changed over the years. Putting everything on the same bag and trying to tie these elements together in order to prove some kind of attitude over the years is just misleading. As I said before, those decisions were made under different circumstances by different people.
All the examples I mentioned also go against the portray of Nintendo that you presented, like in point 2.2 for example, where you claim that "Actually, Sony and Microsoft enhanced it, providing good software development tools and eventually financing some projects if they were to be exclusives", to separate them from Nintendo. Following a different strategy/philosophy hardware-wise is not the same as ignoring developers needs, and many 3rd parties have actually benefited from said differences. You're presenting a false dichotomy here of everything or nothing, as if the only way to support them is to do everything they (the big publishers) allegedly ask, all while ignoring how Sony and Microsoft have also taken unilateral choices (CELL, Kinect, etc). If there's a group of developers or publishers that refuse to work with said technology, it's their choice, nothing more than that. And while Nintendo may or may not have holes regarding their support to 3rd parties in terms of development tools, it is undeniable that they have collaborated with 3rd parties in many other ways, which denotes intention. An intention that contradicts your narrative.
As for your point about hardware specs bringing freedom, I would argue that we're at a time now where developers are far more limited by budget and time constraints than the hardware itself. If you check the lineup of PS3, 360 or even Wii, how many games do you see that take full advantage of the hardware ? How many developers have the time and resources to take advantage of said specs ? And last but not least, how much of said power is used to expand gameplay, and not just graphics ?
What's the downside ? Well, for starters, said hardware costs more to both the consumer and the company, and it tends to be less reliable. Then, it incentivizes "AAA" developers to get into an arms race that prioritizes the use of said technology at all costs, no matter how creativity and profitability are impacted, in order to meet the expectations of a relatively small number of gamers in the market. You might not see this as an issue, but I do. I believe the technical side of gaming is there to serve the creative side, not as an end in itself. And that the priority should always be on the gameplay side, as it's the defining element that separates videogames from other art forms.
And finally, what's the point of consoles to exist if freedom is the ultimate goal ? PCs will always have the advantage here because of being an open platform that regularly updates itself, so why not support it instead ? Historically, the reason why consoles existed in the first place was to prioritize a pick-up and play philosophy over customization, power and complexity. To reach more consumers through affordable hardware and ease of use. And to have a controlled enviroment where every game complies with a set of standards, in order to assure uniformity and "quality control" (more than one meaning here...) among every unit. The fact is, the current direction Sony and Microsoft are going (and the one you're apparently supporting) goes directly against said values, which ends up putting the reason of said platforms to exist into question...
