Tuganuno said:
Nintendo doesn't deserve it, in my opinion, because: #1, it's too damn expensive. Ok this is kind of a fact, not an opinion. Nintendo has made ALOT of money on this generation with software, and hardware sales, and yet they the console's price is ridiculous. I know it's naive to think that Sony/MS don't want the same as Nintendo - money, money, money and more money - but an Arcade costs less than a Wii! An XBOX360, costs less than a console that in terms of hardware, is between this generation and the last one.
Ok, that's YOUR opinion. 70 million gamers obviously DON'T think it's too expensive. The arcade is cheaper then the Wii because it is in less demand than Wii. That is how capitalism works.. But no, it's ok for Sony to launch PS3 for $600 right?
#2, if we compare the PS3/360/Wii software by metacritics score, we have... 86 games on the 360 with a score superior to 85, on the PS3 76, and 32 on the Wii. I know I shouldn't use metacritic like this - we can't simply define which console has the best software by the amount of games with a score higher to an x value, that would bestupid. But I'm not trying to do that, I'm just pointing out the lack of good games on the Wii.
Oh god now that metacritic crap again. Like I said, quality is relative. And what most mainstream game reviewers view as quality meshes more with the HD consoles, which is why they have higher ranked games. Carnival games and Just Dance, even Wii Sports, were panned by most reviewers, yet are extremely successful. So obviously there are lots of people out there that find THOSE games to be quality, even if you and I may not. Reviews are opinion, not a true measure of quality. Sales are really a greater measure of quality because it shows the game is appealing to the most customers.
Conclusion: Software and Hardware have deep flaws.
About that sentence on the PS1 and PS2... yeh you can say that. But you have nothing to support your theory. PS1 revolutionized the gaming industry - Third Party support - and the PS2 was a console that was good for casual and hardcore gaming. It has 150 games with a score superior to 85, and over 320 to 80.
PS1 revolutionized gaming? How so? With CDs? How revolutionary. Sega CDs and Sega Saturn had CDs too. PS1 had lots of great games, don't get me wrong, but come on it didn't "revolutionize" jack. And so it got the most 3rd party support. Big deal. 3rd parties are not the end all be all of gaming.
And casual isn't a myth lol It's just an expression often used to define a certain type of gaming and/or gamers. Most of Nintendo's games look... well, here's the reason why I often say casual - if I say childish, people will just rage against me because they will assume that I'm saying that the Wii is for kids. Let's be reasonable please, you can't possibly compare the complexity of a MGS plot with a Mario's "Your princess is in another castle" - not saying one is better than the other just because of the plot, in fact, I'm not even comparing them because I simply can't. But if you ask me which one I'd prefer to play, between Mario Galaxy or MGS, now that's a completely different question.
Again, you're dealing with a relative idea. I happen to think Mario games are more "hardcore" than MGS and its hours of movie scenes.
Listen, or better yet read, don't take this too seriously. You can't expect to have everyone by your side, congratulating Nintendo for its success, 'cause some people simply think that MS or Sony should be on the first place, for the reasons I've listed above.
Don't worry, I won't lose sleep over it.
|
