Why Nintendo shouldn't suck up to third parties

[SubiyaCryolite]

hentai_11 said:

SubiyaCryolite said:

2010. Mario Galaxy 2 (9.7) runner up Mass Effect 2/World of Goo(9.6). Wow, 0.1 difference. http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?year_selected=2010

2007. Super Mario Galaxy (9.7) runner up Bioshock (9.6). 0.1 difference to a new IP, Nintendo is god.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?year_selected=2009

2006. Twilight Princess (9.5). Runner up Gears of War(9.5). 0.1 difference to a new IP.

http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/year/all?year_selected=2006

 

Even when Nintendo has the highest rated game for a particular year its no higher then a .1 difference with a solid 3rd party effort. To most people these games are practically equal in quality. Nintendo does not have the highest rated title for 2013, 2012, 2011, 2009, 2008 and 2005 (most of last gen) so unless you are stuck in the past there are plenty of alternatives, plenty of good games on other platforms. Pretending that Nintendo's games are in a league of their own is totally silly, its a myth propagated by die hard loyalists. They are one of the best not the best and as sales of the WiiU show loads of people can get along just fine without their games.

However Nintendo got the game of the year in 2006, 2007 and 2010. This makes 3 years of the last generation. No other publisher has 3 years. Point proven.

To the consumer who doesn't own shares in Nintendo or doesn't rely on ONE publisher for games throughout the year that doesn't mean jack. And again in 2006, 2007 and 2010 Nintendo's games were only 0.01 better than the nearest third party so unless 0.01 just became a really big number as opposed to something NEGLIGIBLE gamers on other platforms have nothing to cry over and no reason worship Nintendo.