it's not news that Nintendo has the best studios, they accomplish more with lower budget and time, better cost efficiency and make a lot of mula.
| griffinA said: Wow, I mean, I know this happens whenever Malstrom gets posted but it's particularly hard to swallow now. |
thats because this article is as pedestrian and obvious as any hes ever posted. Without cherrypicking on the points he got wrong yuo'd have a 15 post thread.
disolitude said:
thats because this article is as pedestrian and obvious as any hes ever posted. Without cherrypicking on the points he got wrong yuo'd have a 15 post thread. |
Then maybe you could argue how it could improve itself? Or how the whole article is incorrect by writing a similar one yourself? Or demostrate how it is so 'pedestrian', as you put it?
"Pier was a chef, a gifted and respected chef who made millions selling his dishes to the residents of New York City and Boston, he even had a famous jingle playing in those cities that everyone knew by heart. He also had a restaurant in Los Angeles, but not expecting LA to have such a massive population he only used his name on that restaurant and left it to his least capable and cheapest chefs. While his New York restaurant sold kobe beef for $100 and his Boston restaurant sold lobster for $50, his LA restaurant sold cheap hotdogs for $30. Initially these hot dogs sold fairly well because residents of los angeles were starving for good food and hoped that the famous name would denote a high quality, but most were disappointed with what they ate. Seeing the success of his cheap hot dogs in LA, Pier thought "why bother giving Los Angeles quality meats when I can oversell them on cheap hotdogs forever, and since I don't care about the product anyways, why bother advertising them? So Pier continued to only sell cheap hotdogs in LA and was surprised to see that they no longer sold. Pier's conclusion? Residents of Los Angeles don't like food."
"The so-called "hardcore" gamer is a marketing brainwashed, innovation shunting, self-righteous idiot who pays videogame makers far too much money than what is delivered."
griffinA said:
Then maybe you could argue how it could improve itself? Or how the whole article is incorrect by writing a similar one yourself? Or demostrate how it is so 'pedestrian', as you put it? |
I don't get paid to write stuff nor do I have the time to write my opinions. This perticular piece he wrote is about as obvious as it gets.
Point 1. Nintendo is always doomed in the media becuase their consoles don't sell 3rd party software - statement is true. Media doesn't like it when you don't share the love.
Point 2. Nintendo wii is blamed if a 3rd paty game doesnt sell well, not the company that made the crappy game. Lots of good Wii 3rd party games sold less than Deca Sports and Carnival games so I am not sure I agree. But yes, wii gets the blame becuase it hasn't proven it will sell adult themed, games that are not nintendo made.
Point 3. Xbox and ps3 get the credit when 3rd party game succeeds. Complete BS. GTA4 is a bad example because MS and Sony advertised that game to death. So they did get partial credit for its success.
Point 4. Xbox and PS3 dont get blamed if a 3rd party sells badly, intead publishers get blamed for making a bad game. This is sometimes true too (Mirrors edge, Valk Chronicles)
Not a single point he makes is concrete and all can be argued both ways.
Garcian Smith said:
Just because a game is long doesn't mean it's not "casual." The Sims is the epitome of a "casual game," and you can play a single game of that longer than many "hardcore" games. What made Zelda appeal to the expanded audience - and a trait that it shares with The Sims - is that it's accessible, and that it's easy to fit into casual play schedules. The latter is largely due to the save system, while the former owes itself to the NES' simple control scheme and the fact that combat only requires a couple of buttons that each do the same thing. The "high score = hardcore" phenomenon is by no means universal, true. The "hardcore" nature of arcade games stems largely from the competitive culture surrounding them at the time - though their largely inaccessible nature, by way of their high-score-oriented achievement mentality and long required play sessions, also plays a large part. Tapper had no such connotations. The notion that save games came into existence due to power outages, rather than as a disruptive market strategy designed to reel in new gamers, is also ridiculous, and doesn't give nearly enough credit to Nintendo's inventive marketing. I don't know what would lead you to believe that, as the latter assertion seems far more logical and far more in line with Nintendo's business strategies at the time. Re, the anecdotal evidence concerning your family: The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." People were complaining about NES games' difficulty - relative to arcade games? Care to point me to some such accounts, or are you just pulling all of this out of your ass? "Going from point A to point B" was a simplistic description, but if you want to play semantics, what I meant to say was that the new NES games were progression-based, as opposed to achievement-based. That is to say, they still had achievements, but the achievements involved reaching a certain point of progression, as opposed to the more arbitrary achievement of beating your high score or what-have-you. I don't know where you got that I'm European - I've lived in the mid-Atlantic US my entire life. I don't think that our experiences would be that different. |
Let me ask you this, then, on the topic of the use/reason for save games on the NES - How many Game Development Conference sessions have you sat in on, roundtable Q & A sessions, or even bought the audio recorded sessions from GDC in recent years? When you hear the logics of what saved games were about from the engineering side, you really can't doubt them. There is this side you suggest, about it allowing people to consume the game slowly over time. Yet, there is a whole technical side to the main usage. It was taken right from the floppy disk concept - back up data.
Sadly, you revert to childish terms like "pulling this out of your ass", which discredits you and prevents any enjoyment of discussing this with you much further. Notice that I didn't find the need to question nor suggest that you are fabricating details when you loosely said that people shunned the NES as casual. You've not backed that up with documentable accounts. Pot, meet kettle. As for my backup, I've witnessed it, I've seen the older gamers tire of the arcade, but not ready to allocate the time required of many NES games.
Your definition of casual and hardcore seems quite off. The Sims and Zelda are on the samel "casual" level? I guess by that standard, World of Warcraft is a casual game? After all, its just clicking a few buttons - a trained monkey can do that. Halo must also be casual, aim and shoot, not so hard.
The Sims is like playing with Barbie dolls using a computer. I really can't understand how you are contradicting yourself, as you say arcade gamers are/were "core", when all they did is the same basic motion over and over again over a long period of time. So you say dedicating time to a NES game is casual, but dedicating time to an arcade game is "core", even though there's more depth behind the NES games we are discussing. You seem to be chasing your own tail.
I usually stay away from this kind of threads because the articles and/or arguments are not only laughable but they also make me so embarrassed to be a gamer.
Curiously, when a third party game on a Microsoft or Sony platform, like a Grand Theft Auto, tops the sales lists, it is because of the genius and incredible talent of Microsoft and Sony, not the third party itself. When a third party game does poorly on Microsoft or Sony platform, it is because of that third party.
don't think I've ever seen anyone praise anyone but the third parties for that.
| Xen said: More Malstromian "I only see Nintendo and no one else" bullshit. Hell yeah MS and Sony rely on third parties to sell their consoles... Halo and Gran Turismo? never heard of them. |
Malstrom: Point
Xen: Counterpoint
Well done sir! Rhetoric is your forte.
@dissolute and dahuman
You guys do realize that I'm saying shiny graphics isn't why people bought Halo 3 right?
They bought it because it was Halo + better graphics = total pwnage sure, but some bought it as I pointed out because it was Online + Halo = total pwnage++
If anything I'm disagreeing with the whole "wii sells because of waggle" thing and I'm saying it's waggle + games = wii sells.
How about BWii to battalion wars... that isn't fair for BWii because it needs the IR pointer and gestures, how about MKWii?
It has the same standard for advancement as Halo 3, it did what worked and added an intricate online function as well as online split screen. =)
Going by your position on Halo 3 I'm happy we agree that Wii games aren't just GC games x1.5 or whatever other arbitrary number convenience conjures.
I'm Unamerica and you can too.
The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread:
He is right, in both of his articles, though he points it out in a way such as is a bit more caustic than is prudent (pot-shots at Sony and Microsoft, etc.)
Nintendo has always been doomed, though for different (and sometimes legitimate) reasons
-The NES was doomed because gaming's future was with the computer
-The Super NES was doomed because they didn't embrace the aging audience like the Genesis did.
-The N64 was doomed because of cartridges (true enough), and also because they didn't embrace the aging audience
-The GameCube was doomed because it had no 3rd party support (kinda), kiddy games, no DVD, and no online
-The Wii is doomed because its an underpowered fad focusing on a fickle audience
The two articles sort of tie together (and tie with a recurring theme of his) that the game industry is removing itself from popular opinion. The industry itself knows what is best for it, and not the consumers. Thus a strong feeling of consensus emerges within the industry, norms that everyone know of come to govern thinking. Nintendo goes against these ideas, and become a pariah. The industry becomes more elitist and arrogant as time passes.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
