@all those disagreeing with Malstrom.

I think Nintendo's decline in sales of their consoles before the Wii partly shows that they were losing Core Customers. It was only when they attracted new customers that they started selling better than their previous consoles.

Alas, i am going to have to disagree with the right honorable Mr. Malstrom

Certainly these old games were founded upon arcade gameplay, but there was a distinct quality, the "Nintendo magic" if you will, that set them apart. I don't really feel like writing a really long, ambiguous reply that still wouldn't quite explain what i mean by "Nintendo magic," but there was that quality in most or all of Nintendo's old titles that has set them apart from the herd, and continues to do so

Nintendo has not lost the magic, in my opinion. The charm that their games carry with them has not diminished

Now, if the reason you were into Nintendo games was founded upon the values of gaming in the NES era, and that's the reason you liked Nintendo specifically, you are going to be disappointed as the punishment goes out of their titles. However, those who have been in it for the charm, i think, are not disappointed, unless they're the kind of person who only sees originality as a "you have to reinvent the wheel every time," you will equally be disappointed

I fully and personally agree with your opinion about Nintendo's games, but as Malstrom (and liquidninja) are pointing out, it appears that many people do not share our opinion. Nintendo's core game sales have been declining until recently, and only some core games have really regained the traction that their NES counterparts had.

For example, Mario Galaxy, as awesome as I thought it was, lags behind Mario 64, which lags behind Mario World, which lags behind...well, you get the point. Somewhere along the line, the series lost part of its lustre with the masses. But, Malstrom argues, when they brought the series back to its roots (New Super Mario Bros) that magic returned with it.

The only part I take issue with Malstrom is in the definition of the games' "roots." I'm still uncertain as to what qualities he refers to with that term, so I haven't bought in yet.

Nonetheless, the data does suggest that, while Nintendo has not lost its touch with you and I, more and more folks were no longer feeling it (until recently, and then only for selective titles).

Their sales were declining because of increased competition.  The SNES had the Genesis, The N64 had the PS1 and Saturn, The Gamecube had Dreamcast, PS2, and Xbox.

See, I believe their lower sales in the "hardcore" market, is due to the competition showing more boobs, and blood.

People are simple. Why bother with a game like Metroid Prime, which will make you think, when you can drive around for hours in GTA banging hookers and then running them over? There's a reason summer blockbuster movies and porn do so well, and it's not for their attention to craft.

Yes, but the NES was not without competition too, so why did it crush its competitors so thoroughly, in a manner no other console has been able to so far? More importantly, why were NES games able to attract so much attention in an era where public indifference towards gaming was so prevalent, and (allegedly) the most devout gamers of the time were dedicated to playing on PCs rather than the NES?

Your statement is literally correct, but I feel that it only tells part of the story.

Perhaps, but the snobcore are such a miniscule percentage of the gaming population that their migration away from Nintendo could not possibly account for the results we've seen. The losses in sales posted can only be brought about if the masses started to move away from Nintendo games, and the data definitely indicate that they did just that. I'm not sure I buy Malstrom's arguments as to why they did so, but I'm sure that they did.

@Shanobi

Exactly. Pans Lybarnth definately wasnt a blockbuster. It was a great movie...that made you read. People get frustrated when they are forced to think.

Anyway, that article really has no back behind it. The 'HARDCORE' is comprised of 12-20 year old American males with little mental capacity, transfixed by your standard FPS, and whine and bitch on their parents internet. All this 'hardcore' and 'casuals' crap is really nonexistant, just a topic in which this 'HARDCORE' can bitch and have a 'fanbase'.

As for the quality deteriorating, well that is really pointless. If Nintendos games, some of the very best in the industy, are not what they used to be, then that has more to say about the entire video game industy than it does for Nintendo as one company.

Malstrom talks shit.

I'm not disappointed with Nintendo, I'm disappointed with the western 3rd party developers who don't even try to make a great game for the hardcore gamers.

Honestly I just read Malstrom's blip here as the annoying "Nintendo should make games I like because I know better," mantra. Better written and the games he wants differ greatly from people who usually say this, but that's how I feel.

The biggest tip off for me feeling this is way is"Miyamoto’s perspective is to remove all and any constraints in the Core titles. I do think this is the wrong way to go about it. He should just return to the Mario and Zelda roots."

Like you said, what are these roots he mentions? He says the NES Mario and Zelda are built on arcade gameplay. Mario I have no argument against, but Zelda? Even now, it's a very long complicated game with puzzles, numerous items, with numerous functions. If you were to play a game like that in an arcade you'd likely get tired, and maybe even bored. It's combat, all though well made, greatly pails in comparison with combat of classic arcade titles of the time.

This fracture he mentions also seems deliberately deceptive. There is indeed a fracture amongst us "core" gamers with the whole 2D and 3D thing. But I'm going to guess for most regular people the fractures exists in most 3D games were more complicated then their 2D counterparts. From Super Mario World to Super Mario 64 you went from a control pad and a few buttons to mostly run, jump, and use power-ups to a control stick, a c-pad, shoulder buttons, and a few buttons to run, jump, long jump, backflip, side somersault, swim underwater, attack, align and reposition the camera, and so on.

It's probably one reason why shooters are doing so well now, the fundamental gameplay hasn't changed much since the early DOOM days, if anything it was made easier since the earliest shooters usually had a ton of keys, locks, and switches to contend with in addition to killing everything you run into. Light gun games also didn't suffer from being 3D as well since they're gameplay remained exactly the same.

New Super Mario Bros. didn't just sell because it was throwback to the original Mario, it's because it was the first new Mario in a long time to go back to the simple run and jump set-up. All though Galaxy had an added mode where someone else could play a simple role, the main gameplay was still rooted in the more complex 3D's Marios.

I definitely think Miyamoto has the right idea in breaking down control barriers. Look at Mario Kart on the Wii. That Wheel was included so that people could immediately understand how you play the game, like an old arcade racing cabinet with a steering wheel jutting out of it. According to this site's sales, Mario Kart Wii is just a hair from passing  Mario Kart DS in sales, despite being on the market for a shorter period of time and the DS having around double the Wii's install base.

Look at the Zelda series sales according to VGChartz. Ocarina is the current king in sales, then the original NES Zelda, despite the install base differences between NES and the N64. Twilight Princess has sold more then Phantom Hourglass, again despite the massive difference in install bases. Link to the Past sold only slightly more then Windwaker. The Zelda series already had relatively complicated gameplay even in the NES days, the complications added in the 3D era were comparable to the advantages it provided in already complex game.

Phantom Hourglass certainly went back to the top-down 2D perspective of the old Zelda’s, but it’s only slightly easier to play then say Twilight Princess. Also Phantom Hourglass may be easier to control, but it’s a generally more difficult and frustrating game because of the complicated timed puzzles in the Ocean King’s lair that have to be constantly repeated. Twilight Princess is probably a more accessible game for most people.

The more accessible something is, the more people can access it, and likely buy it. That’s why there’s not a lot of demand for a return to text only based games, adding graphics made them more accessible by seeing what you may interact with, instead of constantly typing look around and guess onward. Then they added the ability to skip the text entry and just point and click on the graphics with your mouse, and we got point and click adventures. Which we do get some occasional demand for a return of, and have seen some return of on the DS.

By nature, a lot of 2D games are more accessible then a lot of 3D games, but it’s certainly not the rule. Honestly I think Malstrom should stick to the business end of things. The fact he’s basing his theory on the “Core” gamers claiming Nintendo’s games are declining in quality is silly. This is the same “core” group he’s constantly lambasted and painted as a vocal minority, now they’re suddenly on to something? When I read he wants a return to Mario and Zelda’s roots, I just think he wants a return to the Zelda’s and Mario’s he simply likes best, and wrote an elaborate excuse to why he should get his way.