RatheMcGrath said:
I like to think of it as "debate". It feels more productive that way (sort of).
A few things, and I'll keep this relatively short (compared to my previous post, at least).
As to your rebuttal of my three points.
- You seemed to basically concede all three of my points (except the second one, which you seem to have misunderstood, because you say, "far from (what I said they should've done to some extent), they (did what I said they did)". I didn't really understand that part of your post.
- You either don't agree with me that these three characteristics of the current climate were also characteristics of the pre-crash market, or you think that history never repeats itself. My overriding point was, "Nintendo does these three things. These three things are what most analysts agree lead to the last video game crash. That scares me."
- As to my third point, are you seriously suggesting that the PS3 and 360 have an even comparable amount of shovelware to the Wii? You care to back that up? Before you start, <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101850-Pachter-Publishers-Jumping-Ship-Is-Hurting-the-Wii>I'll just leave this here.
No, use of an standard-sized optical disc is not a requirement for being classified as innovative, but they alienated virtually every serious third party developer and publisher with their obstinate refusal to work with game makers on this minor point. They were used to having the bully pulpit, having just vanquished their only serious competitor with the fold of the Dreamcast. Their predatory business practices screwed them by letting Sony in the market because people would work with anyone but Nintendo, so all the awesome games (that weren't Nintendo franchises) ended up on the PSOne. They went from having over 80% of the market to having less than 30% in 2 console cycles. This decision on the N64, repeated on the GCN, is partially responsible for the antagonistic relationship between Nintendo and third party developers today.
As to your rundown of their consoles.
- The NES, while I love it as much as you do, was largely a product of a virtually competition-free market.
- The SNES did not set the bar for graphics and sound. The Sega Genesis (or Master System, depending on where you live) did. It came out over 2 years before the SNES, and had pretty much the same specs. Some would argue its sound was actually
better. I was a SNES guy. Mario >>> Sonic, but I know to give credit where it's due.
- People give a lot of credit to the N64 for its controller, but modern controllers look much more like the Dreamcast's. I hated the N64's controller, and I was really glad when it turned into the video game version of an evolutionary dead end.
- Loading screens or no, there is no way that the Game Cube can be classified as a success. Nintendo went from a 400 lb gorilla to second banana. From swimming in money, Scrooge McDuck style, to needing to hit it out of the park in order to continue being able to justify making hardware. Plus, the Zelda and Mario games for the GCN sucked, and that hurt my feelings.
Your Disney comment is a classic case of a "straw man" argument. You make a statement, present it as an example of my viewpoint, then refute it, saying, "This statement he didn't make is crap. Therefore, he is wrong." My failure to use your Disney example wasn't because it's untrue (although it is). It's because it doesn't accurately illustrate the point I was trying to make.
Lastly, I think Bioware and Rockstar probably are much more likely to have come up idolizing someone like Sierra, not Nintendo. Software, on PCs, not console hardware...
