GTA

1) DISC SIZE. You do remember the GC discs don't you? I do. I had a GC with 25 games. You however ignore this very fundamental part of the reason for the omission of GTAIII on GC. Not to mention money-hatting by MS to get the game on XB. Not to mention that it launched on PS2 at which point in GC's life? 

MOST IMPORTANTLY, NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE could have predicted the unprecedented success of GTAIII... ON PS2.

There are VALID REASONS for what happened.

I didn't even mention the very relevant point of Nintendo and their history of "mature" game publising. GC was a purple console with a major emphasis on family/kids (and yes I know about Metroid, Eternal Darkness and RE - I owned them all). GTAIII might not even have been allowed by Nintendo - but it is indeed speculation.

Point is (once again) that you are being ignorant of historical developments and facts.

2) " Dark Souls-type gameplay explicitly over other third party offerings"

How is Monster Hunter, the GTA of the east, in ANY way comparable to the originally niche Souls series that have spawned a cult following due to word of mouth and reputation? They are ENTIRELY different. Your point falls to pieces.

3) Indeed, it is not point at all.

4) You say it well enough.

5) Why do you want to drag the lowest common denominator into this? There have ALWAYS been turds in the gaming industry. What the hell does that have to do with this discussion!? Nothing.

When Nintendo is on their game, they can support a console single handed. They don't need thirds. The other Console makers aren't game companies therefore, they are entirely reliant on third parties. This is no more evident than last gen.

Third Parties actually fucked over Sega too (though Sega's boneheaded decisions contributed greatly to their downfall) But Sega was similar to Nintendo in that they were dedicated hardware/software makers. This isn't what thirds want. They want leverage. M$ lack of a first party, and Sony's lack of a substantial first party is ideal for them.

SO FRIGGIN WHAT!?

Are poor 3rd party games the focus of this discussion? No.

Are modern practices that Nintendo completely ignore part of this discussion? Maybe. But what about the poorest examples of these modern dev practices? NO! 

There are contraversies surround so many games. How about listing the patches, updates and DLC that were very good and added immensely to the game? No, you're not going to do that are you?

There are shit-poor products everywhere - games are no exception. You referring to examples of these as (somehow being) a counterpoint to what I said is highly frustrating.

And that, children, is why the Wii U is trash.

Nintendo is perfect and nothing is their fault. In fact, everything that ever goes wrong for Nintendo is the fault of someone else. They are also so perfect that they could make a game that easily surpasses an Elder Scrolls title in content and scope AND do it with zero bugs. This is because they are clearly the best in the entire industry and nobody even comes close to them.



Now I just wait until they release games like this to prove themselves to truly be the best of the best. I expect the new Zelda world to be at least as large as The Witcher 3 and offer plenty of side quests and loot so I can customize my character. Oh yeah, plus no bugs or patches.

Should be easy for them.

Once again I assert that I disagree entirely with your logical methodology. 

"First you try to refute my assertion that an equal Nintendo system wouldn't get all (some) multiplatform games "

Indeed. That is what I am saying.

" then you immediately turn around to talk about a game that proves my assertion right"

The development of a software ecosystem is NOT INSTANTANEOUS. Fanbases migrate over years and generations and new human beings take up gaming. Nintendo's practices over MANY YEARS has bearing on my statement - NOT the fact that their latest console is (in some ways) on par with the previous generation of consoles  that this game appears on.

There is no market RIGHT NOW for Dark Souls on Wii U due to what Nintendo did with the Wii and the Wii U. 

If their target market was different and their goal for their consoles were different then that fact could have been different.

I do not appreciate your lack of common sense in this regard. The worst part of it that I cannot ascertain whether you make your statements with conviction or simply to be the village clown.

The ethos of this post sums up my problem with this thread and many of its replies entirely.

If anyone finds that I don't reply to them anymore then it is simply because I cannot foresee an outcome for the discussion due to the above illusion (and subsequent nonsensical arguments). I will however respond to sensible, structured replys even if they be inimical.

this, people here would have you believe otherwise. Even though we are on a sales site. I mean COD sales alone prove it by how much more each HD version did compared to the WIi ones.

It is obvious to anyone with common sense that Nintendo IS NOT the best developer in the world. Their online is subpar (They even choose AGAINST in game chat for a team-based competitive shooter!!) and I doubt they could even create a game on the same level as Elder Scrolls, Witcher, Minecraft or even Destiny.

Until they prove that they can then there is no way to begin claiming them to be the best. The notion is just silly.