@The Ghost of RubangB

I don't know if i see too much wrong with the game industry...let alone calling it "pathetic weak dying joke".

While those stories of "20% of games make a profit" do sound like the industry is dying... I like the fact that we most likely will get less crap games. If Golden Axe remake was good, it would have pulled in a profit.

In any case, thats a different topic.

While Nintendo does everything you said in your reply... I am not a Nintendo stock holder, nor am I an advocate for equal market exploration. To me, all that matters is that I have a console that goes online with friends, gives me access to latest games that look good, play good and sound good and gives me a variety of those games that I can spend my 60 bucks on few times a month. So while I understand Nintendo’s strategy, and don’t blame them for doing what they do...they have to understand why the general consensus for hardcore gamers is that Nintendo has fallen off the charts.

While its not in Nintendos best interest to keep me happy...by buying exclusives...and paying rockstar 20 million for a GTA4 port, its also not in their best interest to pretend like they are still the champions of hardcore.

So, he's saying miyamoto could, basically want shit gameplay just as long as it's interesting? Well, nintendogs had to come from somewhere.
But he makes games, and therefore knows what's fun and isn't, doesn't take a genius to see that. His job is to make enjoyable games, so why would he not focus on that? And on another note: he's not the only one making nintendo's games, so I think it would be safe to say "share the blame"




Now the FACT that nintendo has abandoned the hardcore, well, that's another story, you can just look at games selection.

The more markets Nintendo creates, the better ALL markets will do in the long run.

Not all gamers devote their entire lives to one game or one genre or one market. There are market-crossers who go from casual to hardcore (or vice-versa).

Having read the whole article I must say I agree and disagree with Malstrom.

Yes, games cannot be based around character alone the gameplay is the most important thing (to make that game fun). But Malstrom is basically suggesting Mario should have stayed 2d. Now New Super Mario Bros does have fantastic sales but I wonder if that would be the case if: A) All Mario to this date had been 2d side scrollers and B) If it wasn't a Mario game. I'd think 'no' in both cases. Especially the latter.

Gameplay MUST evolve. People do NOT want to play the same game over and over. Technology often provides new possibilities that should be explored. IF anything I think Miyamoto hasn't gone far enough to push the envelope. However doing an occasional 'retro' style game like NSMB or Megaman 9 is also greatly appreciated.

Finally he fails to acknowledge the importance of branding. People buy Mario games and Sonic games too because everyone knows those characters and trusts their games to be fun. Would Nintendo sports titles sell as well as they do without pimping Mario? No. It disgusts me too how much Mario and Sonic get pimped out but it works. Hollywood is no different, get well known talent to prop up sales of the movie that might otherwise be overlooked.

Food does the same. How much cross branding do you see nowadays?

The Icons are terribly important and ultimately far more important than an individual game's gameplay mechanics. However gameplay is more important to the ultimate success of that particular game.