my thoughts on page One.......now 22 pages later....

The first argument is laughable in my opinion. If Nintendo could make games with SNES graphics at this day and gamers would buy them, then more power to Nintendo. They don't have an obligation to make cutting edge stuff, that should be what gamers want. I WANT powerful consoles with graphically intensive games, that is why I bought a PS4 and skipped the Wii U. I voted with my wallet. That is the only vote that counts. But if a game company can make amazing gameplay experiences with constrained hardware and keep managing to sell them, then they are doing something right somewhere. Sure I'd like for them to make powerful hardware, but the audience needs to vote for that with their wallets.

Besides that particular point though, I found your arguments rather interesting. I definitely do agree that Nintendo does have enough money to solve the issues with their online infrastructure and 3rd party support, but they never do so. Their treatment of 3rd parties is one of the reasons why Sony was able to dominate at a time when Nintendo should have clearly won. I don't think these are as apparent, but tells the truth nonetheless.

The core Pokemon game series has remained turn-based since the beginning. If you want to complain about it remaining a turn-based RPG, that's a completely different argument to make (keep in mind that spinoff series have explored other genres and gameplay mechanics). But your argument that the core pokemon series is bad because it isn't using action-based RPG elements, when it is a turn-based RPG, is completely asinine.

You've used the example before that compiling real-life rosters for photo-realistic soccer games requires effort. Besides photographing players faces, a simple parametric change of skin colour, height and weight/width could be used. I find it difficult to believe that you would consider that an accomplishment, but modeling over 700 unique 3D models with unique attack animations to be a simple task. It just smells fishy.

Firstly I never said that you alluded to artistic creation not being valuable, but instead "not valuable, difficult, requiring 'eagle-eye' or thorough work" especially in comparison to photo-realism. Here are some quotes copied from the UNITY thread as I am unable to quote directly -  http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=166018&page=1

4th NOV
"Am I? Or am I valuing more things I can only find in games made with a lot of effort, time and resources? Why do people value more diamonds than steel? Maybe because steel they can find anywhere. Do you think I'm against Nintendo? Then prove me it's not Nintendo that is against me: among the hundreds of games Nintendo has produced, please tell me 10 games that have at least 1 of these totally objective and measurable things: foto-realistic environments ; fully editable levels ; simulating gameplay ; area bigger than 300km2 ; gameplay with at least 100 variants (players/characters/cars/etc. behaving differently according to their skills/specs) ; content expandable with features created by gamers (area, levels, objects, game modes, etc.) ; online matches with more than 100 players at the same time ; massive motion capture movements of actors ; story performed with character replicated from reality (bodies, movements, faces, voices, life habits, etc.).

Any 10 Nintendo games that match at least 1 of these 9 requirements? No, how many then? 5? 2? 1? 0?...because both Sony and Microsoft have more than 10 for sure. You know why? Because there are those that are not afraid to work hard and spend whatever is needed to achieve the gamers' satisfaction, and there are those that are not willing to work hard or spend a lot and that aren't afraid of not achieving gamers' satisfaction. Some are just the opposite of others."

6th NOV
"Yes you've found more than 10 games. But there's a tiny little problem: "realistic graphics" is not 1 of the 9 specifications I had listed. Maybe you would like to refer to photo-realistic environments but that's something quite different. A photo-realistic environment is an area copied from reality, like the city of London in The Getaway or St Petersburg in Project Gotham. That's photo-realism, that demands hard work, that's not Nintendo style."

8th NOV
"First of all, artistic vision is extremely important but it has one problem: it is subjective. That means anybody in bad faith can pick a shitty producer and say it makes the best games ever, claiming that they are amazing pieces of art... And it has a 2nd problem: art costs nothing. Being artistic or very competent on making games doesn't mean the dev is working hard or investing a lot of money. That means it's possible to exist some producers in this industry that are talented enough to make low-budget games that are insteresting to play and thus extract huge amounts of money from the market that never goes back to the industry again. That's why it is so important that, at least in a first step, we focus just on what is measurable and proof of hard work / heavy investment (which show the real commitment of a dev). That is already the answer for all your questions: you can define any requirement (like I have defined 9 yet) as long as it fulfills these 2 criteria (1. it's measurable - 2. it's proof of hard work / heavy investment). Therefore, ingenious level isn't measurable. Number of levels is measurable but doesn't tell whether there was hard work, since the levels can be too simple and repetitive. The same for in-game bonus."

"But it is. Among the thousands of games ever created how many do you think that are photo-realistic? Why would that number be so small? Maybe because not everybody can do that. And, among those who can, not everyone is willing to do so. It demands a lot of equipment, time, effort and money. Also, creating fictional environments is a way of avoiding being evaluated. "If something goes wrong, change it. If there is a detail stucking the process, avoid it."...you can't do that in regards to reality. If the details are like that, you have to do them like that...otherwise your incompetence will be visible when comparing the environment with reality. Believe me, photo-realism is far more difficult and time consuming than simply creating environments at the devs will."

9th NOV
"But you know, I know and everybody knows that art costs nothing. Some artists are just more talented than others. That means, for the same work hours, they will produce better pieces of art than others. They won't make a bigger game or a more sophisticated gameplay. They may even focus on the simplicity you were talking about and thus making in some months a game that sells millions."

13th NOV
"Now you understand why Nintendo doesn't engage into realism (because it demands more and eventually costs more). Same thing for fictional environments vs real environments (I told you so, some pages back). As for the difficulty, that would be a fair complaint if we were talking about an average developer. But we are talking about the giant of the giants. So many sales are translated into what? So much revenue is spend on what? That's what we're seeing."

22nd NOV
"But one could think Nintendo profits a lot because it's very efficient. In other words, Nintendo would be able to deliver the same level of quality Sony and Microsoft do for much less money spent. That is again not true. Assessing quality through substantial requirements like those I've defined earlier proves that. Also the way Nintendo choses its niches: arcade racing, platformer, cartoonish games, fantasy RPG, fitness, party, motion mini-games, etc. And the way Nintendo closes doors such as: racing simulators, photo-realism, MMO, sandbox simulators, realistic games, massive sports games, fully editable games, etc. Even just talking about genres and niches, Nintendo avoids everything that is either massive money spending (which would dramatically lower their ROI's) or monsters of uncontrolled quality detail such as MMO and game expandable by users (which would demand much more effort in order to receive good critic scores)."

***

I just wish i hadn't gave my vote before actually reading the piece.

Some examples:

PhyreEngine

MotorStorm Engine

Killzone Engine

Halo Engine

God of War Engine

Project Gotham Engine

Insomniac Engine 3.0

Modified MAG Engine

I would determine based on the following criteria: current gen ; above the average (disregarding shovelware).

Yes, Nintendo's game engines do not match this criteria.

They could create game engines on a platform holding current gen tech.

No it wasn't. WiiU is 7th gen tech like X360 and PS3 and quite frankly it will never have games with better graphics than Gran Turismo 5 or Crysis 2.

I did read your post carefully and I know what you mean. You are talking about the last quarter, in which Sony presented some profit. In my opinion, you shouldn't do such an analysis about "long-term intentions" based on the results from some months or even years. Look at generations (complete cycles that tell you what really happened) and look at the entire history (Nintendo has accumulated many billions from gamers). That already tells you where the money is going to.

For example, in the Game Cube era, Nintendo did more profits than Sony. That tells you that Sony, despite earning huge amounts of money with the PS2, they have also invested a lot back to the industry. The more they have, the more they invest. Nintendo hasn't. Actually, the only thing that raises with Nintendo's success is their profits.

Sure that now that Sony has a lot of debt, they need profitable quarters. But if they recover all they have lost and turn back to the same level of earnings as they had with the PS1 and PS2, I assure you will see them heavily spending again.

You said PS2 was the most powerful console when it launched. It barely have beaten the Dreamcast, but that aside - you're right. But also right is, that the WiiU was the most powerful console when it launched. So you might define 'cutting edge' differently, but if you do it as you do for PS2, the same can be applied to WiiU.

This is obvious for what you do - you apply different measurements for different companies/consoles. Same about the money. Nintendo made long time profit, and you concluded the gamer get more investments for his dollar with Sony or MS. Now Sony makes profit on PS4 and Nintendo loses on WiiU, but you will not accept your own line of argument for current facts.

2 : I have no idea how you are missing the fact that motion controls are innovative and provided a great deal of creative freedom to devs. "Nintendo didn't try anything special at all, they just closed on themselves" is some of the biggest bull**** I have heard in a while. The Wii was more innovative than the PS2, PS3 and PS4 combined! The Wii was a fairly big risk, tapping into a part of the market that was vastly unproven and many people expected it to fail. Additionally, as I have said before, Nintendo would have lost a large part of the market if they had made their console more expensive and they would have lost a large part of their profit if they had not made money off of console sales. How would Nintendo struggling be good for the industry? Especially when Sony staff has stated that the current decline of Nintendo is hurting the industry because it is not bringing in as many new gamers. 

3. "Gamers who prefer lower priced consoles can buy a PS3/X360"  Not at the start of the gen! PS3 was ridiculously priced and the 360 charged for an online connection which was an expense I wasn't willing to pay (I still hold that belief). If I wanted to go online, I would have had to pay an addition few hundred dollars throughout the generation. The Wii was the only cost effective "current gen" option at the beginning of last gen.

3b. "Wii has encouraged shovelware not only because it was less powerful. The way Nintendo has presented the console and the first games, with simpler mechanics, casual experiences, kindergarten environments, etc...that has positioned the console on a very fertile field for shovelware to flourish."

Wii launched with Twilight princess and within a year had games such as Metroid Prime 3, Super mario Galaxy, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, Battalion Wars 2 etc.. Yes, they used the Wii line to help bring in "casuals" but they continued to release amazing AAA software like always.

Additionally, as I have already stated, any console that is cheap, easy to develop for and popular will attract shovelware, that is just how the market works. Nintendo made a fairly brillinat move with the Wii which had an unfortunate side effect.

Let me ask you this. You are Nintendo and you just released the Nintendo Wii. What do you do now? Do you tell 3rd parties that you refuse to release their games if they aren't up to a certain level of quality? 

I think its undeniable that Nintendo made a great move that made them a lot of money and brough a lot of newcomers into gaming. How would they have been able to do this without the negative side effects?

3c. "Shovelware is bad because not only their sales are "stolen" from the other games "  That is about as true as "piracy is a lost sale" (aka not true) and you have no way of proving this fact.

3d. "in the long-term, people will not be convinced by the low quality delivered to them and will end up giving up from videogame consoles." once again, there is no way to prove that. A lot of the people who picked up the Wii were likely one off buyers, however there were a lot of people who either had their Wii as their first console and branched out from there or who really became "gamers" after purchasing a Wii (like me). 

Oh, and like I said above, Sony disagrees with you (this link shows that Sony believes Nintendo currently and in the past play an important role in bringing in new gamers): http://nintendoeverything.com/sony-uk-boss-nintendo-decline-could-be-detrimental-to-the-market/

4. Its funny that you cite a source but put no effort into actually validating it. 

http://wiiudaily.com/2014/01/indie-developer-on-wii-u-development/

Same, I think. RT @ErgoKnight: how easy/hard was the wii u to develop for compared to 360/ps3?

— 神谷英樹🍀 Hideki Kamiya🍀 (@HidekiKamiya_X) January 13, 2014

My brother also works on R&D and recently his team has moved into new facilities. And guess what: his productivity hasn't lowered one bit. He doesn't work in construction so he didn't have to spend his time building the new facilities. He worked on the old facilities until he got moved to the new ones. I guess this is common sense. Moving into new buildings is no excuse to lower productivity.

Wii U, a 7th gen tech system, requires more development resources than Wii? You need to elaborate on that. I bet some people here in the forum have difficulties to accept that. Anyway, now imagine what PS4/XOne demand. Now think about the fact that Nintendo has been 1 generation behind for 8 years now. Now it's easy to understand how they have accumulated such huge profits.