I wouldn't say that taking the necessary measures to prevent games like Anubius would really be Draconian. In fact, it would be more in line with what the other console manufacturing companies are doing.

Yeeeeeah....

But Nintendo's winning. They have to be doing something right.

I think preventing the development or release of any game is a dangerous path to follow ...

I think it would be better for Nintendo to partner with IGN/Gamespot and create a display in retail stores that are the "Hidden Gems" (or whatever) for the Nintendo Wii and DS ... On top of this they could throw a little money behind it as a way of marketing the platform as a whole.

in UK i saw loads of marketing for samba (TV ads, whole shelves dedicated to the game, special demo stands) but none for de blob

Other manufacturers? Tell me what exactly are they doing to maintain quality? Dev. costs kept high?  Long lead times on game releases? Are they actively telling companies not to make games for the xbox and ps3?

That would have to be the most ridiculous statement i heard in a while. I bet you half the reason ps2 is still in production is bcoz of crappy 3rd party games keeping it alive in the market

my consistant 95% or better on superhard mode says you're full of sh$t about samba.

samba is great - just got de blob last night and i'm digging it so far.  warioland will have to wait until after fable2.

@ Megaman and Happy Squirrel

There's nothing wrong with having basic quality requirements for developing a game. For instance, I yanked the following games off of IGN's Wii review section of games with a score between 1 and 1.9. A collection of glitchy, short N64 graphic featuring games of the same level as E.T. Console manufacturers developed standards for licensing to stop games like E.T. At first I figured Nintendo dropped any requirements simply on the "any third party development is good news" angle, but the Wii's successful enough now that this need not be the case. If I developed a tic tac toe game that didn't have any X's in it, Nintendo definitely wouldn't allow that game to be sold on their console. Most of these games are barely, BARELY any better than that. IT's just my theory that so many of these games are hurting the sales of other unkown but good games, but regardless, these games aren't exactly helping.

SPOGS Racing Jenga: World Tour

Alvin and the Chipmunks

Ninjabread Man Action Myth Makers: Trixie in Toyland Mini Desktop Racing Balls of Fury Backyard Baseball '09 Kidz Sports: International Soccer London Taxi: Rush Hour Kidz Sports: Basketball Kidz Sports: Ice Hockey Monster Trux Arenas -- Special Edition Offroad Extreme -- Special Edition

I hope deblob sell well next week.

I don't fully disagree, I just don't think that all third parties really would trust Nintendo (or Sony or Microsoft) to determine what is a "Quality" game in a fair way; and decisions they make might have a negative impact on the sales of some popular (although "Bad") games like Game-Party.

In general, I just think that it is a better approach to inform people that there are really great games out there that they may have overlooked ... Putting Zack and Wiki, Boom Blox and No More Heroes on a "Hidden Gems" display might not turn them into multi-million selling hits, but they will probably sell 10,000+ units a week (worldwide) until they're taken off of that display.

They have them.

• Runs on Wii
• Uses Wii Remote
• Rated by the ESRB
• Can't be Rated AO (Which I disgree with.)

Probably some other crap as well. You go a lot further than that, you're asking for trouble. Just ignoring the negative repercussions of Nintendo deciding to judge the subjective quality of the content of games on their systems, this would be a huge drain on them, money and time wise. Someone would have to play and evaluate every game wanting a release, to pass judgment, all to possibly stop a game form being released.

Console makers have not introduced standards to stop games like E.T. (Crappy movie-tie in games) They introduced standards to prevent unlicensed, pirated, or even dangerous software from being on their systems. These standards weren’t introduced to stop bad games; they were introduced to stop flat out malicious profiteers from trying to sell busted software on their platforms. The closest thing to what you're saying I can even think of is Sony putting limits on how big many games people could release a year, simply because of how the original Playstation boom was.

The HD consoles don’t have standards involving content quality either; they simply have more technical standards. Usually involving HD resolutions as a standard, or every game has to achievements, etc. This combined with their higher development costs typically prevent some of these cheap thoughtless games, as well cheap thoughtful games, from making it to their systems.

It’s not practical, and it’s simply not fair to say what can and can’t be released simply on their personal judgment based on quality. It's not Nintendo's place to decide what you should and should not play for their system, it's for us the consumer to decide. People like James Rofle (The Angry Video Game Nerd) have actually made a name for himself by torturing himself with terrible games from yesteryear. Things like this have their place in the world.