His insistence that Zelda is losing some degree of cultural relevance becomes even more problematic with his insistence that sales are the only valaid measure of quality - or anything else when talkin about the sales of a product.

Well, after reading most of his last articles, I pretty much think that Masltrom is, simply put - a retro fanboy with decent bussiness knowledge.

"Nintendo shouldn't make SMG2, why? because it won't become a phenomenon lolz!" - Yeah, why make a game that can give them hunredrs of millions of dollars in pure profit?

And when he compare himself to Michael Jackson... lol WTF? Why would anyone compare someone like him to a pop legend, he isn't even a singer... why not compare singers like Chris Cornell, Russel Allen or heck, FREDDIE MERCURY, all singers who made other, less popular forms of music, to Jackson? Because this will ruin his entire point and prove that he's just ranting? Probably.

I'm glad more people are starting to realize that he's not the glorious creature he makes himself out to be and sees through the bravado and what's inside (furthermore; what isn't inside).

He's admits his bravado is more to incite than anything else.

Trolling isn't cool even if one admits to doing it.

I agree, just stating it's that, not ego.

But he does also state that it's because the Nintendo hating press (that's from our own Naznatips, not Malstrom) would ignore him otherwise, so he's forcing them to pay attention.

BTW, what's his email again? I have a few questions I'd like to ask him.

Not a clue. I wanted to fire off an e-mail to him myself but it's not listed anywhere on his blog.

It is hard as hell to find on his site. I think it is buried in one of his blog posts or something like that. I dug it up when I emailed him a few months ago.

seanmalstrom@yahoo.com

"Not a clue. I wanted to fire off an e-mail to him myself but it's not listed anywhere on his blog."

Found it in an earlier page: seanmalstrom@yahoo.com

EDIT: Beat me to it.

UncleScrooge said: Smashchu2 said: UncleScrooge said: And he actually thinks marketing isn't "brainwashing" people? How cute is that! That's like saying marketing doesn't influence people's behaviour, which it clearly does. Look at these very forums and tell me marketing can't brainwash people. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, OK. I don't think you even know what brainwashing is. Kults brainwash. Marketers persuade. Everything in marketing is about getting people to buy the product and keeping them as customers. To call it brainwashing would be the same as myself convincing you that honey is delicious. Also, it it was true brainwashing, it's not very good. Marketing does not make a good product. Marketing works so long as the products is usable and meets the consumer's needs. Marketing tries to show you the need they fulfill. Look at an Allstate comercial. They always tell you how they have good plans to protect you. Their tag line is "Are you in good hands?" They are saying "Do you feel safe with your insurance. Well, buy ours and you will be." Marketing is just trying to convince you, not brainwashing you. Now that sounded a slight bit insulting, don't you think? And why do you keep lecturing me about the most basic things in each of your replies? To use your analgoy, it would be the same if I told you that "honey is sweet. Yes, sweet. Very tasty. Yam-Yam" while we are discussing how too much sugar affects your heatlh. I'm not going to write a 30 minutes post again to explain what I was talking about. Edit: While we're at it: I was referring to Margaret Singer, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, the influence of opinion polls on public opinion, Mediacracy and so on. It's not about what your definition of brainwashing is. It's about what your definition of marketing is. And Malstrom was deliberately ignoring the broader sense of marketing and instead focused solely on the things that supported his argument.

The problem is that you are using the word brainwashing way too loosly and mix it up with pursuading. Pursuaiding is trying to convince you to do a certain actions or to beleive a certain way. If you and I are bored and I want to play card, so I may convince you that card are something we can do inside, there is a wide veriety of games we can play, they are very quick, and we can start and stop quickly. This is what marketing would do and is no different then what Coca-cola or P&G might do to convince you to use a product. Brainwashing is extreme. It would be forcing you to perscribe to my ideology, regardless of what it is or even if it makes sense. I don't see Coca-cola ads dunking my head in water for hours so that will dress my self in Coca-cola clothes and try to raid the Pepsi factory.

Brainwashing is not influencing people behaviors, it's forcing them. If I were to beleive your definition of brainwashing, than trying to get you to play a card game is brainwashing. We can also chop up all comercials, propigandia and even day to day conversations as brainwashing. If you ask me what is good at a resturant, I'm brainwashing you. (Also, the exampole you game about honey made no sense. Please tell me what you were getting at?)

Malstrom was not stretching the definition of Market. What he said IS the definition of marketing. Sit in a marketing class and that pretty much what your be talking about. There is more then that of course, but that is marketing in a few words. The four P of marketing are Place, Price, product and Promotion. Do you see brainwashing in there. I sure don't.