@OP

Well, now that you've explained to me why Nintendo is the Big Bad Wolf, well now I guess I know.



On a serious note, I'd have to say that the point you're trying to make that Nintendo "always tries to make the most with the least" is highly contentious, at least so far as in talking about hardware. Yes, they have made the "weaker", cheaper hardware the last two gens, but in all blunt honesty, that hasn't reflected in the games they make at all. I've said it before, but Wii had more games I actually wanted to play on it (both first and third party), than the PS3 by a longshot (which I also own).

I would say Nintendo existing is already providing "balance" to the industry, because on the one hand you have the model that Sony and MS emulate (or should say, emulating each other), and then you have the way Nintendo does things. So people have a choice of approach. Does Nintendo need to provide better online? Sure. But the online experience for 3DS and Wii U is certainly a huge step-up from the last gen, and it's honestly pretty good. Just needs more online games.

The industry would be rather drab and boring without the different kinds of experiences that Nintendo offers, to be honest. They provide an "old school" variety that I find appealing, and in general, I tend to gravitate towards their games because they still embody a lot of what I loved about gaming growing up. The games industry has changed a lot over the last 15 or so years, and I can't say it's been for the better. A focus on making "playable movies" as opposed to video games being okay just being what they are: video games. A focus on graphics that has gotten progressively more and more ridiculous. A trend towards a "AAA Blockbuster" game development model in which a combination of super-shiny graphics, "cinematic presentation", big-name Hollywood voice actors (at times), fully orchastrated music scores, etc., have bloated game budgets through the roof, so much so that many game companies within the last 15 years have dropped like flies.

The whole thing is non-sustainable, and often pretty damn miserable to tell the truth. To someone who started gaming in the early arcade days and 2600 era, and then fell in love with gaming because of the NES, and grew into my teens with the SNES and Genesis, I've got to say, that Nintendo needs to exist, not just as a games maker but as a hardware maker, because their games and systems, as I said, offer an alternative. A different style, a different approach, a different feel even. Without that, console gamers choices would honestly be "Column A and Column B". That is not a disparagement of people who like the other consoles. It is merely a statement of fact, that without the "differentness" that Nintendo provides, the console industry would be a whole lot of the same.

Inferior to the other versions is stating the obvious!! It's not on last gen consoles!!!

And now you say Farmville is what kicked off the facebook game craze? 

Sources please. You can't just say something is true and it becomes that. And saying it impacted the market?? it's a free game!!! Most of the people I know that were playing it, were casuals that don't really care for sophisticated gaming experiences. And it didn't stop anyone from playing on other devices or consoles. 

No one is going to look back in 20 years and say... you know that farmville.... what a progress that was for the industry!!! Such innovative cloning skills. 

Edit: Also, the budget used to create a game doesn't necessarily = quality. If Nintendo found a way to make great games to play while saving money at the same time, more power to them. I don't care about the budget they use, I only care about how fun a game is to play. Isn't that why we play games in the first place? To have fun, to experience something different and unique?  Sometimes it doesn't have to be completely different, just expand on the current universe or game mechanics, you'd be surprised how much fun you can have playing games instead looking to criticize them for graphics and budgets.

I have never said Pokémon is bad. I just said that it could be much deeper than what it is. And, despite the huge profits Nintendo made with the IP, they've never tried to accomplish such an achievement. I find it sad for Pokémon fans.

You find it difficult because you fail to understand that such football games comprise thousands of players while Pokémon only comprises hundreds of characters. You also fail to understand that the 3DS detail is nothing compared to the PS3/X360 detail. You also fail to understand that turn-based gameplay and pre-made animations are much easier to create than real-time gameplay and stochastic animations.

What is the difference between "not being valuable" and "not valuable"? You contradict yourself.

Ok, now I got it.

I disagree. Nintendo didn't make such restrictions for the sake of the industry, only for their own benefit. And many developers got bankrupted because of that, while Nintendo kept low competition to collect easy-money.

I dare you to prove that WiiU is more powerful than PS3.

But even assuming the WiiU is more powerful (which is not), what is your point? You want to convince me that WiiU is cutting-edge when it's 1 entire generation behind consoles that were launched only 1 year later?

Regarding the profits, I think I've already told you why it's not wise to consider what happens in some months or years to take conclusions about a company's attitude. Sony had to sell their entire headquarters in the USA. They will need so many little profits like the ones they had last quarter that if things continue on this pace they should be having their buildings back by 2050. If such thing happens (which would be not bad at all for Sony regarding what happened to them in the recent years), will you say they're greedy just by recovering their assets?

Hmmm, mysteryman aka John Lucas? Since when did quoting me do that? Weird.

I see your entire argumentative repertoire now: make outlandish statements, when countered simply ask for a multitude of direct quotes that state such counters (or a list of requirements), then move the goal posts for each quote (/requirement). Well done.

Every game could be made deeper. One could argue that changing the core franchise so drastically could actually be detrimental and would also destroy the interconnectivity between previous titles that the series is famous for. As mentioned, spinoffs have explored a large variety of different genres and gameplay mechanics. Pokemon fans get their fill of many combinations of those.

You missed my point completely. Thousands of different soccer players can simply employ the same model with several parameters changed (height, weight, complexion etc.) and a new face. This is much simpler than 700 completely different models, all requiring unique animations. The parametric soccer models all use the same animation set. You can downplay the performance of the 3DS all you want, the 3D Pokemon models look and move great (epsecially in 3D :) ).

I never said there was a difference between "not being valuable" and "not valuable", but instead between "not being valuable" and "not valuable, difficult, requiring 'eagle-eye' or thorough work". I can't tell if you are actively trying to omit the rest of the sentence to make it easier to refute or not. I assume so, as it's been twice in a row now and it fits your form of argumentation.

You also skipped over all of the quotes you requested.

I doubt that any proof someone shows you would believe.  The Wii U being more powerful than the PS3 doesn't make it "cutting-edge."  The Wii U IS more powerful than the PS3 though.  Even the sony fans on here know this.  The real debate is by how much.  

Correct, Zod still believes the PS2 was more powerful than the Gamecube. If someone is willing to debate hard numbers (while ironically using soft numbers as facts in their own arguments), it's completely pointless debating.

I have no idea of how you are missing the fact that the "non-standard tech" is only about the core capabilities and therefore doesn't comprise the motion tech.

At the start of the 7th gen, they could have bought a PS2. My point is that Nintendo is never the most affordable alternative.

You can call AAA to whatever you want but please don't use it as argument or fact.

The E3 previous to the console launch was about the Wii Sports and Wii Play, those were the flagship games of the system.

Just released? Too late. I could try to do damage control but my focus would be to avoid the same mistake on the following generation.

I would never refuse to release any game, as some people here would (when they talk about "quality control"). I would try to create AAA games for the motion. Wii Sports and Wii Play are collections of mini-games. I would do something big.

Wii with motion + 7th gen core capabilities. Simple.

Piracy is not a lost sale, but it surely comprises lost sales.

How would I prove that shovelware is bad in the long-term? Easy. Look at the early death of the Wii and the WiiU's massive flop.

No one is a one-off-buyer. If the product has quality, people will come for more. This applies to any product or even service.

Sony is in business. I'm not. I'm free to say whatever I want. They aren't.

You're looking at the wrong indicator. Look at man-hours work. A small team taking 5 years to develop a game is as good as a big team taking only 1.

99% is a big number. I'm not sure whether the shovelware is that big.

4 examples for each point:

- open-world: GTA, Getaway, Assassin's Creed, Saints Row

- simulating physics: rFactor, Life For Speed, Crysis, Richard Burn's Rally

- non-linear story telling: Heavy Rain, GTA, LA Noire, Fahrenheit

- stochastic-animations-based-gameplay: FIFA, PES, Skate, Virtua Tennis

- complex AI: Killzone, Batman Arkham, SWAT, Midnight Club

The games I enjoy the most are the ones that aim for RPG but where you make your own story/career, you don't need to necessarily accomplish anything and you intuitively progress in the game as you want, a kind of "simulating RPG". At the moment, I mostly play: the online of Killzone 2, Rome Total War and the career mode of Pro Evolution Soccer. In the future, I'm looking forward for The Crew and Tom Clancy's The Division.

And that's ok for a first Pokémon game. But then they make the 2nd, and the 3rd and the 4th game, and so on, and it's all about the same thing, I find it sad that they are not evolving while collecting so many millions from their customers. Imagine that RockStar had done the same thing with GTA so that the series were always 2D until nowadays. Does that seem wise to you? Sure we still have 2D games, sure that GTA lost something from 2D to 3D, sure that the 2D could be to some extent more fun and accessible, but still how would you look at that?

Thank you for your suggestion but I don't like the games that are known as RPG. I like what I have defined earlier as being "simulating RPG".

Those cartridges were all the same or they were from different formats as the ones of N64 backwards?

My definition is on Wikipedia. And I've never said gimmick was a bad thing, although people perceived that from my words.

Sony's strategy with the PS4 was making a console with what gamers/devs wanted and nothing more than that, and sell it for an affordable price. Simple and effective. Microsoft's strategy with the XOne was differentiation by means of a fully supported Kinect (like Nintendo with the WiiU game pad). Complex and ineffective.

No, 100M$ would be the marginal difference of their investments. Assuming said company had 2B$ revenue and 1.9B$ cost in Q1 and 1.5B$ revenue and 1.6B$ cost in Q2, it had actually 100M$ loss in Q2 but the investments on that quarter were 1.6B$, not only 0.1B$.

And of course that the 0.1B$ profit of the Q1 were subject to taxes and eventually income to shareholders, so they couldn't all be equalized to the 0.1B$ loss of the Q2.