The truth about Nintendo

[Zod95]

mysteryman aka JohnLucas said:

@bolded: The foundation of your objective argument is your subjective opinon and your list of objective criteria is subjectively chosen.

@underlined: If we assume the statement to be true, then logically, there exists quality games that don't meet the criteria. In other words, the criteria may filter for quality games, but the games filtered out aren't certain to be poor (see denying the antecedent).

The requirements are objectively chosen (and anyone can freely add more as long as they meet the criteria) but the foundation of the criteria is indeed subjective. Yet, I'm open to other views. And, although other views may be legitimate, mine is too. In other words, they could be different routes to get to different quality games. My route definitely leaves quality games filtered out, you're right. And other routes could catch them. However, I'm not seeing those other routes. Be my guest to show me any.

Nevertheless, it's just odd that Nintendo performs so badly on my criteria. But then, if we start to connect the dots, we realize it's not that odd. The way Nintendo got clinged to old concepts, the way they lagged behind on the generations, the way they shifted their focus to a less demanding audience (kids), the astronomical profits they made and the obscene ROI they got...there are too many facts pointing out to the same conclusion: Nintendo is not committed to quality.