Why do gamers want to see Nintendo go multi-platform?

[DragonStorm247]

I think people just want to be able to play Nintendo games without have to buy another system. For example, I am really looking forward to Pokemon X/Y, but I do not own a 3DS. Were Nintendo multiplatform, there would exist a higher probabiity that I already own a platform it will be carried on, therefore saving me the money of buying a 3DS.

 

[Rob Robson]

The reason this bugs me is that some gamers actually believe that if Nintendo was forced to go multi-platform that somehow the Nintendo IP's would get "better" graphics and would make a better game.

That's not it for me at all.

The reason I stopped buying Nintendo hardware (after N64) was that they released new hardware too often in way too incremental steps that weren't really justified with the level of progress their games' graphics were making between platforms.

The Nintendo hardware cycle became abusive, without good reason, especially on the hand held side.

Since, I have learned that there is nothing my PC can't do.

 

[Maxtro]

Frankly, the last two Nintendo systems have been a waste of space and did not help the game industry.

Monster Hunter Tri, Sonic colors and especially Xenoblade had no business being on a Wii. Playing Xenoblade on Dolphin made me realize how bad my Wii was. Soon after I boxed up the Wii and put it in the closet. And now it's looking like it's going to happen again with another underpowered Nintendo system. I'm already annoyed that the new Sonic is Nintendo only.

As for Nintendo games, it's just stupid having to buy a system just to play Mario, Zelda, Metroid and spin-offs.

Nintendo makes great games. That's what they do. That's what they should focus on.

 

[faefrost]

Why? Because while Nintendo makes some of the best, most compelling, most long lasting and downright most fun games in the industry, they always are attached to Nintendo's hardware. Which invariably suffers some sort of bizarre trade offs in favor of whatever Nintendo's big gimmick is this console season. And here's the thing... None of the really really good games. The ones that people go back to again and again and again really make any true use of the Gimmicks. Most Nintendo fans use the traditional gamepad controller for the true core classic games. Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc. Donkey Kong, MarioKart etc etc. Can anyone think of any Nintendo games that you can't wait for the next version of, that are "killer apps" for the platform, that make exclusive use of the Wii Motes? OK now name one besides we sports so your mother can bowl. How about the WiiU? See anything killer over there that needs the fake iPad thingy?

And guess what? The moment you realize that the Nintendo games that you really love ALL are played with the gamepad, you realize that Nintendo's actual hardware is not bringing anything to this picture. It's the game design that we love Nintendo for. Not the system specs. And certainly not the use once ignore gimmick crap. Wii motes? Party games when drunk and mom is over only. WiiTablet? It's great for when somebody else wants the TV, sometimes. #d functions on the 3DS I think most people superglued that button in the off position the first day they got it just to be safe.

But imagine taking those same Nintendo games and tuning and tweaking them onto their competitors hardware? Mario on PS3 or 4 or XBox? You gain more operating memory and a faster processor and a greater color depth, and a more comfortable and robust controller option. You lose nothing. DS or 3DS games? Not a lot going on there that couldn't be done on an iOS platform. And they would dominate there.

Nintendo could stop making hardware tomorrow and they would immediately step into the role of AAA Publisher on footing with EA and Ubisoft etc.

 

[Negatempest]

Frankly, the last two Nintendo systems have been a waste of space and did not help the game industry.

Monster Hunter Tri, Sonic colors and especially Xenoblade had no business being on a Wii. Playing Xenoblade on Dolphin made me realize how bad my Wii was. Soon after I boxed up the Wii and put it in the closet. And now it's looking like it's going to happen again with another underpowered Nintendo system. I'm already annoyed that the new Sonic is Nintendo only.

As for Nintendo games, it's just stupid having to buy a system just to play Mario, Zelda, Metroid and spin-offs.

Nintendo makes great games. That's what they do. That's what they should focus on.

They have their own console so they can focus on how they want their games made without EA, Activision, Sony, or Microsoft breathing down their neck?

Also the games you listed complaints usually come in the form, "Would look better on other consoles". Which it "could", but does not mean they would be of better quality. This is the misconception I mean. Those are great games, just didn't look great. Nor does killing Floor, minecraft, World of Warcraft, etc. See where I'm going with this? Great "graphics" does not a great game make. Again, the Wii did have great 3rd party games. They just were not the shooters that the past generation wanted. But now we don't really want shooters anymore so, we'll see.

 

[Ishigami]

Because I can go without Nintendo IPs.
If they were available on other platforms I could pick one up from time to time.
However as it stands now they are not important enough to me to justify buying their consoles. Making matters worse there is little else on their systems that I would want and only could get there.
That is all there is to it for me.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Because I'd love to see what other, more powerful systems could do with their games. Imagine what developers could do with Zelda if they got to work with a gaming PC.

Other than be buggy? Remember that Miyamoto is a prideful man about quality. PC gaming is far from quality gaming. Fun gaming, deep gaming, but not quality gaming. There will be bugs for a fact and Miyamoto is a guy who does not want bugs in his game like the way other developers allow bugs to exist. But that is the nature of the beast of PC gaming and Miyamoto wants quality, thus exclusive to consoles.

What.....? I don't even... I thought it was common sense that a game made for a PC would be better than the same game made for a console. Look at the Witcher 2 for example. It's great on consoles but it's absolutely stunning on a decent gaming PC.

Gee I'm not even primarily a PC gamer and I know that their games are better in quality. The only reason I play consoles are for their exclusives. If there were no exclusives, there would be hardly any reasons to own a console over a PC.

Also, while I love playing games on my PS3 and Xbox, hardly any of them are without some bugs.

Hell, even if Zelda were more buggy on the PC than the Wii, it could still be made into a much better game. I guess I don't really know what you mean by quality. In my mind, a game that is better than another game in every way but has some bugs is of much higher quality than the game with no bugs. I'm sorry but to say PC gaming is not quality gaming is one of the most laughable statements I've heard all week.

Quality my friend. Does it turn on well without freezing often? Will this character glitch out for no reason? To make a long story short, think of Fallout 3. Great game, but buggy as all hell. Miyamoto is a kind of guy that would have a heart attack and lose all pride if a game of his came out like that. That is what I mean that he wants to control quality. The visuals of a game is not quality. But more of aesthetics. I think that's the right word.

Edit: Remember someone out there is going to have the same game as you on PC, but it's gonna take some work to make it work. Miyamoto pride would find that unacceptable.

You really can't even say that a Wii game released on a PC would be more buggy though. There are so few direct comparisons. I can't really think of any good Wii games that are also on PC. Mostly because they are all first party. It's not even possible to claim that releasing Zelda on the PC in the exact same state (only optimized for the PC) would be more buggy. I highly doubt it since there's an Emulator that can play Wii games on the PC. And sure Fallout 3 is buggy but there's no way it would even run on a Wii. Point is, just the fact that emulators exist proves that a PC can do anything a Wii can do (apart from motion control only games) and would more than likely do it better if given the chance.

Anyway, I still don't really even know what your argument is. You're saying that Nintendo shouldn't go multiplatform because poor old Miyamoto would have a tantrum over a few bugs. Again if I'm choosing between a bug free game or a game that has way more depth and is just bigger and better in general but also has some bugs, I'm choosing the buggy game any day. The title asks why gamers want to see Nintendo go multiplatform, not what Miyamoto would think.

Bottom line, there is no reason to believe that any Nintendo game would not be better on a different system given that the other systems are more powerful. It's why the best of the other system's exclusives pretty much blow all of Nintendo's games out of the water.

I feel like I'm just repeating myself but it's just logic plain and simple. Two systems release the same game. The game has been optimized for each system. The more powerful system will have the better version of the game if the two developing teams are of equal skill. This isn't even opinion, it's just common sense. I apologize if I'm sounding like a jerk.

 

[Joccaren]

Question in title and OP are different.

Question in title is because people want to be able to play Nintendo games without having to spend $300 or so on a console to do so. Same as why people oppose Microsoft and Sony exclusives.

Question in thread is because opinions. No, really, that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Maxtro]

They have their own console so they can focus on how they want their games made without EA, Activision, Sony, or Microsoft breathing down their neck?

What does that have to do with anything?

If Nintendo was solely a game developer and publisher none of what you just said would matter.

Also the games you listed complaints usually come in the form, "Would look better on other consoles". Which it "could", but does not mean they would be of better quality. This is the misconception I mean. Those are great games, just didn't look great. Nor does killing Floor, minecraft, World of Warcraft, etc. See where I'm going with this? Great "graphics" does not a great game make. Again, the Wii did have great 3rd party games. They just were not the shooters that the past generation wanted. But now we don't really want shooters anymore so, we'll see.

So why are you assuming that better graphics equals less quality?

Listen, Xenoblade is a great game whether it's played on the Wii or the PC. But it looks like ass on the Wii. If the Wii didn't exist, then games wouldn't have to look like ass.

 

[Negatempest]

Why? Because while Nintendo makes some of the best, most compelling, most long lasting and downright most fun games in the industry, they always are attached to Nintendo's hardware. Which invariably suffers some sort of bizarre trade offs in favor of whatever Nintendo's big gimmick is this console season. And here's the thing... None of the really really good games. The ones that people go back to again and again and again really make any true use of the Gimmicks. Most Nintendo fans use the traditional gamepad controller for the true core classic games. Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc. Donkey Kong, MarioKart etc etc. Can anyone think of any Nintendo games that you can't wait for the next version of, that are "killer apps" for the platform, that make exclusive use of the Wii Motes? OK now name one besides we sports so your mother can bowl. How about the WiiU? See anything killer over there that needs the fake iPad thingy?

And guess what? The moment you realize that the Nintendo games that you really love ALL are played with the gamepad, you realize that Nintendo's actual hardware is not bringing anything to this picture. It's the game design that we love Nintendo for. Not the system specs. And certainly not the use once ignore gimmick crap. Wii motes? Party games when drunk and mom is over only. WiiTablet? It's great for when somebody else wants the TV, sometimes. #d functions on the 3DS I think most people superglued that button in the off position the first day they got it just to be safe.

But imagine taking those same Nintendo games and tuning and tweaking them onto their competitors hardware? Mario on PS3 or 4 or XBox? You gain more operating memory and a faster processor and a greater color depth, and a more comfortable and robust controller option. You lose nothing. DS or 3DS games? Not a lot going on there that couldn't be done on an iOS platform. And they would dominate there.

Nintendo could stop making hardware tomorrow and they would immediately step into the role of AAA Publisher on footing with EA and Ubisoft etc.

Ohh. This guy came in swinging. And I'm ready for it.

Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate and Zombie U are fantastic games that really bring out the option of the second screen. And what is that? A menu screen. "Just a menu screen?" Pfft, well duh of course just a menu screen, but a customizable one in Monster Hunter and a screen cleaner for Zombie U. Meaning less clutter on the main screen and maybe just keep the information you want on the main screen. So you know, you can see every thing, instead of somethings. Just cause these games are not CoD or CoD, does not mean these games are not great in their own way that really does deserve attention

Now I pose the question to you as I did another guy. Under what evidence with past games has Sony or Microsoft improved the gameplay to retro games. Shiny graphics will easily hide poor game mechanics for awhile. Have games been less buggy on those consoles. pfft, of course they haven't. They get as bad as some PC games at times. Though they are great games like Fallout 3. Remember, you are assuming that Microsoft or Sony won't pressure Nintendo to make mario games quicker or force exclusive DLC, you know....the ones we like.

Now portables. Better on IO's... Really? The ones with virtual buttons on them? The ones that you can't really feel any feedback. You want Nintendo games on that? That is the best I can come up with IO's are just terrible controllers. To me they just feel uncomfortable as a gaming device in my hand.

Really, your strong hatred to Nintendo is the controller? That's it? You don't wanna complain about their hardware failures? Buggy games that require day one patches? Games that eat up memory? How unreliable there hardware has been the past few years.... Oh wait those are the problems on the past generation gaming consoles like Xbox 360 and PS3. But was ignored cause the games were good... But you just can't let go of that Wii controller? Silly you.

 

[Negatempest]

Because I'd love to see what other, more powerful systems could do with their games. Imagine what developers could do with Zelda if they got to work with a gaming PC.

Other than be buggy? Remember that Miyamoto is a prideful man about quality. PC gaming is far from quality gaming. Fun gaming, deep gaming, but not quality gaming. There will be bugs for a fact and Miyamoto is a guy who does not want bugs in his game like the way other developers allow bugs to exist. But that is the nature of the beast of PC gaming and Miyamoto wants quality, thus exclusive to consoles.

What.....? I don't even... I thought it was common sense that a game made for a PC would be better than the same game made for a console. Look at the Witcher 2 for example. It's great on consoles but it's absolutely stunning on a decent gaming PC.

Gee I'm not even primarily a PC gamer and I know that their games are better in quality. The only reason I play consoles are for their exclusives. If there were no exclusives, there would be hardly any reasons to own a console over a PC.

Also, while I love playing games on my PS3 and Xbox, hardly any of them are without some bugs.

Hell, even if Zelda were more buggy on the PC than the Wii, it could still be made into a much better game. I guess I don't really know what you mean by quality. In my mind, a game that is better than another game in every way but has some bugs is of much higher quality than the game with no bugs. I'm sorry but to say PC gaming is not quality gaming is one of the most laughable statements I've heard all week.

Quality my friend. Does it turn on well without freezing often? Will this character glitch out for no reason? To make a long story short, think of Fallout 3. Great game, but buggy as all hell. Miyamoto is a kind of guy that would have a heart attack and lose all pride if a game of his came out like that. That is what I mean that he wants to control quality. The visuals of a game is not quality. But more of aesthetics. I think that's the right word.

Edit: Remember someone out there is going to have the same game as you on PC, but it's gonna take some work to make it work. Miyamoto pride would find that unacceptable.

You really can't even say that a Wii game released on a PC would be more buggy though. There are so few direct comparisons. I can't really think of any good Wii games that are also on PC. Mostly because they are all first party. It's not even possible to claim that releasing Zelda on the PC in the exact same state (only optimized for the PC) would be more buggy. I highly doubt it since there's an Emulator that can play Wii games on the PC. And sure Fallout 3 is buggy but there's no way it would even run on a Wii. Point is, just the fact that emulators exist proves that a PC can do anything a Wii can do (apart from motion control only games) and would more than likely do it better if given the chance.

Anyway, I still don't really even know what your argument is. You're saying that Nintendo shouldn't go multiplatform because poor old Miyamoto would have a tantrum over a few bugs. Again if I'm choosing between a bug free game or a game that has way more depth and is just bigger and better in general but also has some bugs, I'm choosing the buggy game any day. The title asks why gamers want to see Nintendo go multiplatform, not what Miyamoto would think.

Bottom line, there is no reason to believe that any Nintendo game would not be better on a different system given that the other systems are more powerful. It's why the best of the other system's exclusives pretty much blow all of Nintendo's games out of the water.

I feel like I'm just repeating myself but it's just logic plain and simple. Two systems release the same game. The game has been optimized for each system. The more powerful system will have the better version of the game if the two developing teams are of equal skill. This isn't even opinion, it's just common sense. I apologize if I'm sounding like a jerk.

I will make my point as direct as possible to keep this from getting even larger. Nintendo likes to make sure their games are not a buggy mess once sent out, they take pride in that. PC gaming for a fact is a buggy mess in video games. Someone, somewhere is going to have to tweak setting and download patches to make the game work on their PC. That is how PC gaming is. You cannot ignore that.

 

[Negatempest]

They have their own console so they can focus on how they want their games made without EA, Activision, Sony, or Microsoft breathing down their neck?

What does that have to do with anything?

If Nintendo was solely a game developer and publisher none of what you just said would matter.

Also the games you listed complaints usually come in the form, "Would look better on other consoles". Which it "could", but does not mean they would be of better quality. This is the misconception I mean. Those are great games, just didn't look great. Nor does killing Floor, minecraft, World of Warcraft, etc. See where I'm going with this? Great "graphics" does not a great game make. Again, the Wii did have great 3rd party games. They just were not the shooters that the past generation wanted. But now we don't really want shooters anymore so, we'll see.

So why are you assuming that better graphics equals less quality?

Listen, Xenoblade is a great game whether it's played on the Wii or the PC. But it looks like ass on the Wii. If the Wii didn't exist, then games wouldn't have to look like ass.

Here's the beauty. You are assuming that Microsoft and Sony are going to sit on the sideline patiently while Nintendo makes their games.

I am assuming that Microsoft and Sony will focus more on making a game pretty over how well the game plays. Because that is how last generation was. How to make games prettier and prettier and games mechanics second.

 

[Negatempest]

Question in title and OP are different.

Question in title is because people want to be able to play Nintendo games without having to spend $300 or so on a console to do so. Same as why people oppose Microsoft and Sony exclusives.

Question in thread is because opinions. No, really, that pretty much sums it up.

Actually both title and OP are opinion questions.

 

[Negatempest]

This is very simple. I'm not buying an entire console to play 1 game. Or even 2. I've missed out on every Zelda game since Windwaker because I was not buying a Wii just for Twilight Princess and Skyward sword. Just not doing it. I play dozens of games on my PS3 and I played dozens on my Xbox. Not buying a whole console for 2. I say again, not buying an entire console for 2 games. Not happening.

Then buy it to play Mario Galaxy, Galaxy 2, Metroid Prime 3, Kirby's Epic Yarn, Xenoblade, The Last Story, Pandora Tower, Sonic Colours, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword.

Oh, would you look at that? That's a dozen quality titles right there.

"Quality titles" and "Titles I want to play" are not the same thing. Oh, would you look at that? I just destroyed your entire argument with a simple equation. Quality titles ≠ titles I want to play.

I don't like Mario, I don't like Metroid, I don't like Kirby, I don't like Sonic, I don't like Donkey Kong, I don't like Fire Emblem, and I don't know enough about Xenoblade and The Last Story for those 2 plus 2 Zelda games to justify the cost.

So um... maybe get off your high horse and realize that going multiplatform in no way detracts from your enjoyment of a title on Nintendo's hardware. I don't suffer one bit because a game is on the xbox if I have the same game on PS3. Also bite me.

I can understand your view. Your list has lots of shooters in their right? I'm just assuming and there is nothing wrong with that. It's what you want. But Nintendo going Multi-platform in no way will get you to buy anything else but a game or two from them. Thus your point wasn't really invalid as I would say you just don't wanna play the games that Nintendo offers. So Nintendo staying console exclusive does not really effect you.

 

[Maxtro]

They have their own console so they can focus on how they want their games made without EA, Activision, Sony, or Microsoft breathing down their neck?

What does that have to do with anything?

If Nintendo was solely a game developer and publisher none of what you just said would matter.

Also the games you listed complaints usually come in the form, "Would look better on other consoles". Which it "could", but does not mean they would be of better quality. This is the misconception I mean. Those are great games, just didn't look great. Nor does killing Floor, minecraft, World of Warcraft, etc. See where I'm going with this? Great "graphics" does not a great game make. Again, the Wii did have great 3rd party games. They just were not the shooters that the past generation wanted. But now we don't really want shooters anymore so, we'll see.

So why are you assuming that better graphics equals less quality?

Listen, Xenoblade is a great game whether it's played on the Wii or the PC. But it looks like ass on the Wii. If the Wii didn't exist, then games wouldn't have to look like ass.

Here's the beauty. You are assuming that Microsoft and Sony are going to sit on the sideline patiently while Nintendo makes their games.

I am assuming that Microsoft and Sony will focus more on making a game pretty over how well the game plays. Because that is how last generation was. How to make games prettier and prettier and games mechanics second.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/the-last-of-us

Should I say more?

 

[Snotnarok]

Yes bring up Sonic 06 and forget Colors, (Half of) Unleashed, Generations when bringing up generation leaps. Sonic 06 was a disaster due to being rushed, too ambitious, having major issues with the higher ups and being booted out the door unfinished.

No people want to see their games multiplatform not because the WiiU is underpowered but because they make decent games and if their focus was solely on that it may give the games a larger budget and more interesting things to happen. So you know we're not stuck with 2 toads for 4 bloody games.
And not everyone wants to spend 200 dollars on a 3DS to play some good ol' Mario, but currently that's the only legal way to do it.

But I'm for them sticking to their platform because as it stands Sony and Nintendo are the only ones with UNIQUE games you won't find on other platforms which s more like the consoles of old. Sparkster on the Genesis was very different from the SNES title, both fun but different and awesome

 

[80sboy]

Zack and Wiki, Goldeneye 007, The Conduit 1 and 2, Tatsunoko vs Capcom, Okami, Sonic Colors, Umbrella Chronicles, Muramasa: Demon Blade, Dead Space: Extraction, Mad World, Red Steel 2, No More Heroes 2, Monster Hunter Tri, Pandora's Tower, Trauma Center, Chocobo's Dungeon, House of the Dead Overkill, The Last Story. EA had all of their sports titles (Madden, Fifa, PGA). Activision brought MOST of their Call of Duty stuff to the Wii AND the DS.

Third party support was there - people just wanted to see Nintendo fail so badly

The Wii U will be the Wii story all over again - it releases, people ***** and moan because "of the gimmicky controller and the bad graphics", Nintendo reveals Smash Bros and a new Zelda, sells a billion units, EA and Activision and all the other publishers follow the money... this same shit every console generation.

I'm not saying that the Wii U didn't have its 3rd party games. What I am saying is now that the WiiU has at least caught up to PS3/Xbox360 tech, why aren't more 3rd party titles coming out for it that come out for the other two?

Bioshock:Infinte is a multi-platform game, the publishers of it would want to make more money selling it on the Wii U, so why isn't it on there?

Now, you had a nice list there of games Wii owners could play around with, but those made the Wii still niche. Wii really just had niche appeal, and when it comes to consoles you want it to be the definitive version with ALL games available. The Wii got lucky this last generation because a lot of people were intrigued with its gimmick. Now Nintendo needs to become a definitive console with ALL the games, if it wants to survive. I don't think anyone likes the idea of having to buy more than one console just to game. I don't want to have more than 2 consoles next gen. So I want a definitive console wit ALL the best games. Not just some...ALL! Gotta catch 'em ALL!

It's either that or go the Ipad route, and that market is already taken.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Because I'd love to see what other, more powerful systems could do with their games. Imagine what developers could do with Zelda if they got to work with a gaming PC.

Other than be buggy? Remember that Miyamoto is a prideful man about quality. PC gaming is far from quality gaming. Fun gaming, deep gaming, but not quality gaming. There will be bugs for a fact and Miyamoto is a guy who does not want bugs in his game like the way other developers allow bugs to exist. But that is the nature of the beast of PC gaming and Miyamoto wants quality, thus exclusive to consoles.

What.....? I don't even... I thought it was common sense that a game made for a PC would be better than the same game made for a console. Look at the Witcher 2 for example. It's great on consoles but it's absolutely stunning on a decent gaming PC.

Gee I'm not even primarily a PC gamer and I know that their games are better in quality. The only reason I play consoles are for their exclusives. If there were no exclusives, there would be hardly any reasons to own a console over a PC.

Also, while I love playing games on my PS3 and Xbox, hardly any of them are without some bugs.

Hell, even if Zelda were more buggy on the PC than the Wii, it could still be made into a much better game. I guess I don't really know what you mean by quality. In my mind, a game that is better than another game in every way but has some bugs is of much higher quality than the game with no bugs. I'm sorry but to say PC gaming is not quality gaming is one of the most laughable statements I've heard all week.

Quality my friend. Does it turn on well without freezing often? Will this character glitch out for no reason? To make a long story short, think of Fallout 3. Great game, but buggy as all hell. Miyamoto is a kind of guy that would have a heart attack and lose all pride if a game of his came out like that. That is what I mean that he wants to control quality. The visuals of a game is not quality. But more of aesthetics. I think that's the right word.

Edit: Remember someone out there is going to have the same game as you on PC, but it's gonna take some work to make it work. Miyamoto pride would find that unacceptable.

You really can't even say that a Wii game released on a PC would be more buggy though. There are so few direct comparisons. I can't really think of any good Wii games that are also on PC. Mostly because they are all first party. It's not even possible to claim that releasing Zelda on the PC in the exact same state (only optimized for the PC) would be more buggy. I highly doubt it since there's an Emulator that can play Wii games on the PC. And sure Fallout 3 is buggy but there's no way it would even run on a Wii. Point is, just the fact that emulators exist proves that a PC can do anything a Wii can do (apart from motion control only games) and would more than likely do it better if given the chance.

Anyway, I still don't really even know what your argument is. You're saying that Nintendo shouldn't go multiplatform because poor old Miyamoto would have a tantrum over a few bugs. Again if I'm choosing between a bug free game or a game that has way more depth and is just bigger and better in general but also has some bugs, I'm choosing the buggy game any day. The title asks why gamers want to see Nintendo go multiplatform, not what Miyamoto would think.

Bottom line, there is no reason to believe that any Nintendo game would not be better on a different system given that the other systems are more powerful. It's why the best of the other system's exclusives pretty much blow all of Nintendo's games out of the water.

I feel like I'm just repeating myself but it's just logic plain and simple. Two systems release the same game. The game has been optimized for each system. The more powerful system will have the better version of the game if the two developing teams are of equal skill. This isn't even opinion, it's just common sense. I apologize if I'm sounding like a jerk.

I will make my point as direct as possible to keep this from getting even larger. Nintendo likes to make sure their games are not a buggy mess once sent out, they take pride in that. PC gaming for a fact is a buggy mess in video games. Someone, somewhere is going to have to tweak setting and download patches to make the game work on their PC. That is how PC gaming is. You cannot ignore that.

Okay, fair enough. Although mess is a strong word unless we're talking about a Bethesda game (in which case, ya, it requires several patches). So you'd rather have a simpler game that is more polished than a more expansive game that hasn't had all of the bugs worked out yet (even though a lot would be worked out in the future)?

 

[2HF]

This is very simple. I'm not buying an entire console to play 1 game. Or even 2. I've missed out on every Zelda game since Windwaker because I was not buying a Wii just for Twilight Princess and Skyward sword. Just not doing it. I play dozens of games on my PS3 and I played dozens on my Xbox. Not buying a whole console for 2. I say again, not buying an entire console for 2 games. Not happening.

Then buy it to play Mario Galaxy, Galaxy 2, Metroid Prime 3, Kirby's Epic Yarn, Xenoblade, The Last Story, Pandora Tower, Sonic Colours, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword.

Oh, would you look at that? That's a dozen quality titles right there.

"Quality titles" and "Titles I want to play" are not the same thing. Oh, would you look at that? I just destroyed your entire argument with a simple equation. Quality titles ≠ titles I want to play.

I don't like Mario, I don't like Metroid, I don't like Kirby, I don't like Sonic, I don't like Donkey Kong, I don't like Fire Emblem, and I don't know enough about Xenoblade and The Last Story for those 2 plus 2 Zelda games to justify the cost.

So um... maybe get off your high horse and realize that going multiplatform in no way detracts from your enjoyment of a title on Nintendo's hardware. I don't suffer one bit because a game is on the xbox if I have the same game on PS3. Also bite me.

I can understand your view. Your list has lots of shooters in their right? I'm just assuming and there is nothing wrong with that. It's what you want. But Nintendo going Multi-platform in no way will get you to buy anything else but a game or two from them. Thus your point wasn't really invalid as I would say you just don't wanna play the games that Nintendo offers. So Nintendo staying console exclusive does not really effect you.

My list has exactly one shooter. That's fairly clever to try and "insult" me by suggesting I play lots of shooters but I only own Borderlands 2 as far as shooters go. I prefer games where you actively avoid killing folks. Dishonored, Portal, Quantum Conundrum, Hitman (you only want to kill one person), Deus Ex, Splinter Cell (back before it was Die Hard) some sports titles, and some others.

This whole thing is falling down around your ears. Wanna give it up yet?

Going multiplatform means that I can buy as few or as many Nintendo games as I want without impacting you in any way. There are those who would in fact buy many more than the 2 I want.

So in conclusion, zero downside for you, plenty of upside for me and everyone else. Where is the problem? You're not the petty type are you? The "it doesn't matter if win, as long as everyone else loses" type?