And of course the "mediocrity" of Voyager was a reaction to the critically well-received but non-traditional Deep Space 9...

No. What has been said by the crew and cast shows that Voyager was the result of just plain bad creative decisions (Rick Berman proclaiming that the human characters were to be toned down, which is why the acting is almost uniformly wooden).

As for DS9, a major factor can be chalked up to having the appearance of theme schizophrenia to those not watching the show (like making the Klingons the seeming bad guys out of nowhere in season 4*), thus making them not interested in tuning in at all.

* Again, that's to people not watching it. Then again, I watched the show, and even I knew it was a bug stunt when I saw that announced.

"It's the job of Nintendo's developers to make the games the market wants. If they don't like it, then they should look for another job. If they think they can do whatever they want, then they will be taught a lesson by the market. If your job is entertainment, then you can only really be satisfied when your audience is satisfied. Your job is not to entertain yourself. And it's called a job, because it is work."

For one thing, the best stage entertainers (as in music stars, comedians, and theater actors), have said that it's not about goofing around. It's about working your ass off and pleasing the crowd.

That's a dangerous position, Rol. I have nothing against you personally, but I don't think you quite realize what you're implying with that statement.

For one, it's a terrible stance with regards to creative output. Creativity, be it business oriented or otherwise, cannot - must not - be relegated to deferent stance as regards to the whims of the market. That kind of reaction-based logic only leads to me-too products - you only have the existing market/products to gauge what is desirable, after all - something which is completely at odds with Nintendo's business practices. Even if we ignore the artistic side of the matter - and the fallacious nature of that line of thinking has already been discussed in this thread - you must realize that most original products are not created in order to sate a demand from the market. They are created, by the whims of the designers, to fill a potential purpose in the lives of consumers - in effect, creating a new market. That's what happened with the Wii, and it would not have happened if Nintendo did not consider factors other than the will of their consumers.

You might argue, here, that the "market" consists of a (theoretically unlimited) body of potential consumers - essentially every free individual with purchasing power - and that Nintendo should strive to appeal to these people as well, but that's nothing more than a fantasy. Nintendo cannot serve these people simply because they have no way of knowing what kinds of products they crave. Make no mistake, the Wii was made with a particular (untapped) market in mind.

As an aside, the 'consumer based' kind of design propagated by the likes of Malstrom is an unhistorical pipe-dream - while it has recently been rediscovered, the arcade paradigm will again fade with time, just as every other cultural movement.

What's most important to note, however, is that market deference would not lead Nintendo to make more of the kind of games you want. As you will remember, there is no way of knowing what the market truly wants until it has been tested - but then you're relying on the creative judgments of the developers to bring forth an original product in the first place. If we remove that freedom from the equation, then a reliance on your proposed buisness ethic would simply result in an even more stagnant, suits-driven market, where concepts and IPs are truly milked to death, and nothing new (or old) is ever (re)introduced.

But that's not the true crux of the matter - you and I both know there is nothing wrong with developers having a modicum of creative freedom. What truly sinks your ship, as our friend Gumby already pointed out - and as Nintendo illustrated with the Wii (in spite of what Malstrom thinks) - is that they are not obliged to serve their old market, not even for the sake of maximizing their profits (which is far from guaranteed, anyway). The dichotomy you're trying to construct between a successful product (serving the market) and artistic freedom is a false one, and if a developer (or artist) cannot please their market, they are perfectly free to try their luck elsewhere (with or without a new product). As a business, you can argue that Nintendo are rationally obliged to make a profit from their ventures, but you can't say how they should do it.

See, what bothers me about this whole affair is this insistence on 'good business practice' or 'obligations' or (implicit) 'utilitarianism' as a quick-and-dirty rhetoric - a blanket justification - for your* own egotistical interests. It's conceited and hypocritical, and in the same league as that faux-pas BS about 'good art/aesthetics' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).

Let's be honest - as a consumer, I'm not interested in Nintendo serving anyone but my own interests. Neither, I'm sure, are you. Good thing too, because that's a perfectly reasonable position to have in relation to a business. Now, as a person, I care about Nintendo's designers - I admire them as craftsmen and empathize with them as human beings - and I care about good art. Unlike you, I have no bias towards Nintendo's old design paradigm. Is that the only thing that separates us? Not at all - but it is the reason I'm posting this. And now I'm done - hopefully I won't regret it, though I'm honestly always displeased with my writing in retrospect...

*Used in a non-specific sense

These ideas would not necessarily lead to true milking, Helios. The idea is that you truly create within the framework of what the market wants: e.g. it mandates expanded creativity, but only in the "right" (used in this Malstromist framework) direction. How do you make games that entail arcade style values, how do you make them differently, how do you use them to grow the tastes of your market without alienating them?

There is a lot of room for creativity in that framework. But as with all philosophies, human nature leads to its abuse, hence the milking where they simply find what works and keep using it until it doesn't work.

Yes, that's why I mentioned the practicality of the matter. In a perfect world (or rather, in a world of perfect information) you could serve and maintain your market for an extended period of time, but in reality you don't know for sure what will actually work - except that which has already succeeded. This is true regardless of which framework you are working within.

For the record, I am aware that this is not actually Rol's, Malstrom's or anyone's position - I'm only showing the result of taking the concept, as expressed by Rol, to its logical extreme.

As for Malstrom, my only real objection against him (and his 'political agenda') in this context is the notion that no game developer can function/serve a market outside the proposed framework, which is simply absurd

Yeah I'd guess Sony had at least theoretical plans and maybe even working prototypes of PSV with 256 mbs that were examined at certain point of time. If that site got their hands on one of those then 256mb rumor would be explained.

"Creativity, be it business oriented or otherwise, cannot - must not - be relegated to deferent stance as regards to the whims of the market."

That assumes the mainstream market works on a whim. That is not true. One of the things Malstrom argues is that human nature never changes (culture can change*, morals can change, tastes can change, but human nature does not), and that any work that will "hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature" (Hamlet, Act III, Scene II) has the makings of a classic. That is why myths from cultures long gone still hold up.

Because it doesn't matter what rights Nintendo has in what games they want to make. The market has the right not to buy what they don't like, and Nintendo needs their customers' money.