You have to have substance for marketing to work. The stuff of Halo was simply more of what the console market wanted than Metroid inspite of whether an individual enjoyed one more than the other.

@Ben. This is just a topic. I'm not here to cause argument, I'm here to spur discussion and intelligent thought. I don't understand why you would be hostile to that, honestly.

If Nintendo COULD (BIG IF) have both red and blue ocean, wouldn't you agree that that's the #1 dream goal?

Some are denying it by discrediting the returns the 360 gave Microsoft, which is a cop-out, because as you and squilliam said it is very biased to point the obfuscated EDD losses to the 360 per se. Notice at the end of famousringo's quote (360 platform parenthesis), there is a comma. Lol right? yeah.

So people will say Nintendo doesn't need the red ocean because it isn't profitable, but that is a lie. It was only not as profitable in general this generation because the HD twins went too far (bleeding edge). But my OP and IT posts specifically prescribes a happy, competitive medium.

I really don't understand why things that are so simple to me are so complex for some of you guys. And Ben I didn't expect that last post from you.

Hilarious.

At a time when the cost and time of developing games are high, the industry should ignore a a segment of the market because you think they should be catering only to your demographic and not the 'evil' casuals that are brining so much money to industry.

Money, I should add that goes toward development of those 'non-casual' games you think is the only software the industry should be making.

But does it? I asked for a minority effort to capture the red ocean, as you say inject the funds into 'non-casual' games, and I hear the same old drone rhetoric of "Why waste money on those when the casual games make more"?

Remind me guys, is a market only there to maximize profit, or is it existentially also there to provide a value (in this occurrence compelling content to a specific segment, those who desire deeper experiences, more inspired art design and ultra-high quality software)?

I think that's the key point that Sony and Microsoft fans appreciate, but Nintendo fanboys (in general, I'm not targetting anyone here) don't. Nintendo fans do though, imho.

Third time definitely wasn't the charm for Nintendo or Sony.  Just saying.

Mario Galaxy may not have NEEDED it, in the same way that Halo 4 didn't NEED better graphics than Halo 3, but they certainly helped. Shaking to smack enemies or propel Mario into the air was very satisfying, while things like using the pointer to pull him between stars, fling him from pods, and blow him around in a bubble, and tilt to maneuver a rolling ball / stingray added variety and challenge. It would still be a great game without them, but definitely not AS great.

Similar story with Twilight Princess, mostly in terms of the superiority of pointer aiming over analogue.

People complained about motion controls in SS because frankly some people just don't like motion controls period. The game certainly couldn't have been pulled off anywhere near as well without motion. The immersion of slicing the sword in different directions with your own movements (and cool touches like bowling bombs) was a big part of why it was so good.

I disagree, the flaw with your argument is your assuming the soccer moms who bought the Wii didn't buy PS2s previously. The PS2 wouldn't have sold 150 million units without them. Soccer moms moved over to the Wii which is why it sold the highest amount of consoles this gen. Microsoft and Sony just shared the rest of the gamers.

This. People like to believe that the PS2 was a hardcore console through and  through, but this wasn't the case.  Lots of people got it as a cheap DVD player, or to play games like Guitar Hero, Buzz, SingStar, etc. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I never said the opposite, but I understand that the term blue ocean may have led you to think that's what I meant. No, in fact I'm well aware that a good portion of PS2's were sold due to casual offerings and some were sold as dvd players, so your post is not newsto me. But good point.

And yes, MS and Sony shared the rest of the gamers, eg what ITT Icalled the red ocean.

To highlight, in OP, I mentioned that MS won Sony's red ocean and Nintendo didn't. I limited my piece to that and made no mention of Sony's blue ocean with the PS2.

I think Nintendo were quite smart this gen by avoiding a head-on three ways and carving their own market. While there is crossover of course, it's clear that the PS2 upgraders' market was stolen by the 360, with that huge pool being split fairly evenly across the PS3 and 360.

Aside from the usual massive market of Nintendo's core audience, Wii was popular with folks who wouldn't normally game at all and would only play one or two titles, such as Wii Fit or Just Dance, which is a huge market. This is the market that Kinect is gunning for with some success, as Nintendo seems to have largely abandoned the Wii while the WiiU seems to be a cross-over back to the PS3/360 core. Perhaps they sense Sony is in a weak position moving into the next gen, so Nintendo is going for blood.