Wtf!? 'The truth'? Pft, I'm a sucker for those 'deep' simulation games (you missed 'complex') like Civilization or Total War (lol at 'deep'), yet when I choose a console I go with Nintendo devices. Quite the paradox, right?

Stopped reading at.... can't remember and won't look again, I don't need some arrogant and bitter person to tell me what's wrong and right. You don't like Nintendo, fine, but you can't just subtly say that people that support them are less than you.

I voted that we need more companies like Nintendo. They consistently pump out some of the best games in the industry, to the point where I can pretty much blindly pick out a random Nintendo game and know it is going to be good. They put a ton of effort into polishing their games, and are one of the few video game companies out there not consistently seeking to screw over consumers. And they do it all at a more affordable price point than Sony or Microsoft.

I only had time to read point 1.1 for now. I will say that Noname covered that pretty well. I will come back to that in more detail later, but for now I will just say this: Why should I worry if Nintendo can make a bigger profit than Sony or Microsoft, even at lower price points? Why should I spend more money on a console when I don't have to?

Its all well and good spouting these statistics, but all three of these companies are commercials businesses, in it for profit, nothing else (despite what they may say).

And as such they owe no debt to their consumers. Because you may have purchased some products from the company in question does not make you a shareholder, or entitled to anything other than the use of the product you have bought.

And yeah, Nintendo has a huge bank of money, and many would argue they could use this to 'better the industry', but Nintendo is careful with their money. They dont throw money at hardware to make it more powerful like the other 2. They strive to spend their money effeciently and create new gaming experiences, and this is what betters the gaming industry.

Having 4k 60fps games does not do anything for the industry, except provide fanboys some graphics ammo to shoot at eachother.

Proving new gaming experiences, interactions innovations and enticing new customers to the industry is what drives it forward.

And Nintendo leads the way in these.

^^ THIS!

There have been so many studio closures over the past 2 years, and massive job losses.

And what do most of these cases have in common? They were primarily developers for MS and SONY products. These 2 companies have created an expensive, high risk development ecosystem. It costs a huge amount to release a game on the system (with marketing needed to get the customers) and so many games are released with massive losses being recorded.

Yes, the console hardware is extremely important to the industry, having some standardised platforms provides stability, but the game creators and developers are the key to a sustainable industry, and what MS and SONY provide is a very volitile situation.

APB and MAG are indeed references when it comes to online infrastructure. They might be bad at anything else, that doesn't change what they are good at.

That give us a good insight about what might have happened with the Wii and is happening with the Wii U. And that's one of the things sundin13 fails to understand. He thinks about the short-term and how a specific company has benefited from the easy-way of making money out of games and he doesn't get how the whole ecosystem (industry and market) got harmed because of that.

I know I'm not. I just did some research and took the time to gather and organize all the information. Anyway, thank you for your compliment.

This thread delivered Zod95, you are fierce debater. Logic and reason are your allies and you used so many facts! You kinda remind me of johnlucas.

I hope you keep throwing this kind of threads to VG Chartz more often, quality has been declining lately and I would love to see more of your threads to ramp up the quality here.

With love, Anfebious.

"Some of you may tell that companies are meant to make profits and thus it’s totally legitimate for Nintendo to make billions at the gamer’s expense. That is true. However, you as a gamer have the power to choose. If there are companies that have been willing to give you as much as you give them, you can opt by them and make the market to operate on this logic. That is also fair."

The other Sony divisions have also been in trouble. I assure you the 32B$ Nintendo holds are much more than what Sony could ever dream of having to spend.

I agree, it makes sense. There are bad things that make sense (once there are who benefits from them).

No, it doesn't make it seem that. Read it again please and note that I say "a very significant part of it", not everything.

You need to understand that a word within quotation marks doesn't have the same meaning as without them.

And when I say "at the gamer's expense" I don't say people were forced to incur into that expense. But it was indeed expense from the gamer.

I think you're trying to twist any sentence you pick up from the OP. Why?

No, profits are profits, there's no cost beyond that. And Nintendo made astronomical profits not to survive but to take them away out of the gaming cycle. Just look at the numbers. For how many generations do you think Nintendo could survive with 32B$? It's the same as claiming that the Vatican has only collected astronomical amounts of wealth to assure that the poor churches can survive. Don't be that naive.

First, they didn't evolve as fast as competition (that's why I said "Nintendo wasn’t able to follow the market trends and the industry turns"). Second, they were the same IPs with the same characters and in many times with the same formulas. Look at the examples the OP gives (cartoonish graphics and balloon-based games are some of them). That's not evolving.

1 - I just agree with me that it is platformers, RPG and little more. What is the percentage of Nintendo games that are neither platformers nor RPG? And what is the percentage of non-Nintendo games that are neither platformers nor RPG? See the difference? That's the point. Their genre focus is not adjusted to the market. Don't be so picky with the words I've used to pass the message. Just tell me whether you agree with the message itself or not.

2 - I never said Zelda and Metroid are cartoonish. They are exceptions. But the majority of Nintendo games are indeed cartoonish. Is it hard to accept that?

3 - "Gameplay level", not "gameplay levels". Just compare for instance Mario Tennis with Virtua Tennis and tell me if you don't notice that there's a gameplay that is more basic and other that is more complex.

4 - You're right that a linear game is almost mandatory to tell a good narrative. I give you that. But the point is that Nintendo has only made linear games, regardless their narratives. That is a clear sign of lack of willingness to engage into bold concepts, try new things, push the gaming standards like no one has done before. That is the kind of mindset that Nintendo is definitely not interested to adopt.

5 - I know plenty of accessible games that are not linear, and they are brilliant because of that. Anyone can pick them, few can master them, everyone enjoys a huge replay value.

Evidence?

Games began with balloons and have gradually evolved into voice acting. Please go see the videogaming history.

Real-time anymations exist in games such as Gran Turismo, FIFA or Skate. Each collision is a collision. Each goal kick is a goal kick. Each skate trick is a skate trick. But, among the balloon-based games Nintendo has, such as Pokémon, you don't control the character to perform your unique attacks (that would be character full-control). You just order the attack and the attack "X" has always the same animation (it's not real-time).

You may tell that Nintendo has never evolved Pokémon into this level (so much desired by the fans) not because it would be massive money spending but because it would not be good for the gamers. But then I just don't believe you. My conclusions are different.

Too basic = simpler mechanics =/= bad game

You made judgments (too basic = bad), not me.

Again, evidence? You really need to justify your claims if you want to be taken seriously.

It depends on what you consider to be evolution. If it is about your personal tastes, then everybody else will just ignore your view. If it is about objective remarkable achievements that require effort / money / time, then people have a common ground to debate. And, in that sense, photo-realism is part of evolution. But there are many other fields that fit into this objective criteria. Nintendo presents none of them. They chose to keep their 32B$ in their pockets. And that's not illegal, they are free to do that. But then I'm free to criticize them too.

Sure they can give that argument. They can claim they just tried to make accessible games, it has nothing to do with keeping billions in their pockets. If accessibility meant massive money spending they would be there using their 32B$ to please gamers.

Of course it is. To buy cameras, to hire professionals to travel and shoot real places, to hire designers to recreate those environments, to spend the time to make sure that the result in the game is similar to the real thing. And realistic HD graphics demand eagle-eye and a thorough work. Cartoonish SD graphics don't require any of that.

The PS4 controller is as functional as the others, nobody sees it as a gimmick. The Wii U pad took a different way (it does not replace the classic controller), it is a gimmick and everybody perceives that.

When things happen again, and again, and again...then it's not speculation anymore.

Again, read the OP:

"Note that I’m not taking into account tastes when referring all those games earlier (like the Guinness book is not about the best people in the world). I’m just focusing on objective remarkable achievements of some games that could have only been done with effort/time/money. If the game X is beautiful or if the game Y is fun, that is already subjective (about tastes)"

Yes, the problem is that it's already out of easy-business, I know. But others do that, and they are not non-profit organizations, they are companies.

Yes, Sony and Microsoft, unlike Nintendo, develop top-notch game engines.

How do you define "great music"? It's again your personal tastes? Please understand this (read it 3 times before any reply to me):

"Note that I’m not taking into account tastes when referring all those games earlier (like the Guinness book is not about the best people in the world). I’m just focusing on objective remarkable achievements of some games that could have only been done with effort/time/money. If the game X is beautiful or if the game Y is fun, that is already subjective (about tastes)"

That is a shame that newcomers do more for evolution than veterans.

I hope now with my previous answers you get a different view about that.

In an interview from a 2001 issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly, prior to the launch of the Xbox, a Microsoft rep said how hard it was to get certain franchises on their console due to Sony "moneyhatting" but they were able to get most of what they wanted. It's the green issue with Xbox on the cover.

So, when the article says only Nintendo has done that, it is wrong.