By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why Nintendo is super important.

Tagged games:

 

Is Nintendo important?

Yes, they are. 133 82.61%
 
No, they are not. 22 13.66%
 
Total:155
SubiyaCryolite said:
This is getting sad

It was sad before this thread was made. Nintendo is important, everyone saying otherwise are kidding themselves. 

 

The front page of VGC is pure evidence for this.



Around the Network

MOST IMPORTANT!!!!!!



Zelda - Breath of the Wild for Nintendo Switch.... Incredable!!!

Well it's certainly appreciated that you take the time to elaborate this list!

Nintendo is important, they are one of the most successful videogame companies, there is not a lot of room to downplay Nintendo's impact and importance in the industry.



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

Is that actually Boogie himself?



fps_d0minat0r said:

lol 'they will drop it as the fps craze goes away'
it still lasted longer than the motion controls craze

 

 

u musst be young if u dont remember the powerglove.  and i would count lightguns as motioncontrols too.

same goes  for 3d, its a old old dream, so many tried it. but it just never worked well enough.

motion controls and fps arnt the same anyway, on is a technologie the other is a gamegenre

 

fps are old too, thats right, but they arnt the same anymore.  and i would call the genre a shadow of former greatness.  the technologie improved, but the games didnt, the games are getting worse every year. the sales mb doesnt look so bad, but that doesnt mean anything



Around the Network
TornadoCreator said:

OK, first of all, video games are not toys. A toy by definition is for imaginative play with no goal. In fact, this smug "video games are toys" rebuttal that's started circling the internet to try to counter people who take video games "too seriously" is both irritating and incorrect.

This is how it works for all interactive play. There are 5 forms of interactive play, Toy, Puzzle, Sport, Competition, and Game. Here's how you decipher which is which.

1. Is the item/object used in a form of play with no objective or goal?
Yes = It's a Toy. No = Move on to question 2.

2. Are there any other people or agents of interaction (including AI) in this challenge?
No = It's a Puzzle. Yes = Move on to question 3.

3. Is your form of play one of physical prowess in which there is a winner and loser?
Yes = It's a Sport. No = Move on to question 4.

4. Are you allowed to interfere with the progress of the other agents, or vice versa?
No = It's a Competition. Yes = It's a Game.

So, no, a video game is not a toy. Can people please stop saying this now as though it's some kind of trump card argument to make your opponent look petty and demeaning their arguments puerile because "it's just a toy, you're arguing over a toy". Not only is that argument facile and insulting, it's also wrong.

Can you source this dichotomous key you use? I'll make a more semantic argument. 

Here is the etymology of the word "toy."  This seems to verify the use of the word "toy" as a counter to "serious" gamers. 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=toy

c.1300, "amorous playing, sport," later "piece of fun or entertainment" (c.1500), "thing of little value, trifle" (1520s), and "thing for a child to play with" (1580s). Of uncertain origin, and there may be more than one word here. Cf. Middle Dutch toy, Dutch tuig "tools, apparatus, stuff, trash," in speeltuig "play-toy, plaything;" German Zeug "stuff, matter, tools," Spielzeug "plaything, toy;" Danish tøi, Swedish tyg "stuff, gear."

And if we look at the modern definiton in the Webster and Oxford dictionaries. 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/the-oxford-english-dictionary

  • 1an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something:[as modifier]:a toy car
  •  an object, especially a gadget or machine, regarded as providing amusement for an adult:in 1914 the car was still a rich man’s toy
  •  a person treated by another as a source of pleasure or amusement rather than with due seriousness:a man needed a friend, an ally, not an idol or a toy

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toy

: something a child plays with

: something that an adult buys or uses for enjoyment or entertainment

: something that is very small



Are they important., yes. Why? They have the most fanatics for a reason.
Are they indispensable? No. Why? Many of us do just fine without them

These are different questions.



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

TornadoCreator said:

OK, first of all, video games are not toys. A toy by definition is for imaginative play with no goal. In fact, this smug "video games are toys" rebuttal that's started circling the internet to try to counter people who take video games "too seriously" is both irritating and incorrect.

This is how it works for all interactive play. There are 5 forms of interactive play, Toy, Puzzle, Sport, Competition, and Game. Here's how you decipher which is which.

1. Is the item/object used in a form of play with no objective or goal?
Yes = It's a Toy. No = Move on to question 2.

2. Are there any other people or agents of interaction (including AI) in this challenge?
No = It's a Puzzle. Yes = Move on to question 3.

3. Is your form of play one of physical prowess in which there is a winner and loser?
Yes = It's a Sport. No = Move on to question 4.

4. Are you allowed to interfere with the progress of the other agents, or vice versa?
No = It's a Competition. Yes = It's a Game.

So, no, a video game is not a toy. Can people please stop saying this now as though it's some kind of trump card argument to make your opponent look petty and demeaning their arguments puerile because "it's just a toy, you're arguing over a toy". Not only is that argument facile and insulting, it's also wrong.

 

There is nothing 'smug' about calling video games 'toys'.  They ARE toys. 

A toy by definition is:

1toy

noun ˈti

: something a child plays with

: something that an adult buys or uses for enjoyment or entertainment



WagnerPaiva said:

You gotta calm down buddy, you get irritated outta of almost nothing.

These are all toys in my book:

I'm perfectly calm; your belief that you can decern tone or irritation from writing on the internet is precious though. As for the rest of your post... congratulations, in your book they're all toys, pity you're book isn't the standard everyone else uses, you're still wrong.



> Complains about fanboyism
> Proceeds to make tons of flame-baiting fanboy arguments

Yeah, acting like people who criticize Nintendo are just 12 year old COD players doesn't help your argument very much. Your thread comes off as far more "fanboyish" than the one it was made in response to.

And NO company is important enough to have to exist in this industry--not Nintendo, not Sony, not Microsoft, or any existing publishers or developers. There will always be a demand for video games, and there will always be new companies to make them if the old ones go under. It's the same with any industry that makes products people want.



Have some time to kill? Read my shitty games blog. http://www.pixlbit.com/blogs/586/gigantor21

:D