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

[Azriel Nightshade]

Nintendo makes maybe one exclusive game a year that I'm interested in buying. In order to get that game, I'd have to by that consol, then once I have that game, it very well may be a six months to a year AT LEAST before they make something else exclusive that I want to buy. Key example:

The Wii came out on, November 19, 2006. At the time "Red Steel" seemed interesting.

"MadWorld" came out on March 10, 2009.

That's a 3 year gap. Not worth it.

 

[Headsprouter]

Well not really. As others have pointed out, the Wii got lots of unique games on their console that was from 3rd parties. You know why they are ignored? They weren't an FPS. To me, the strong complaint against the Wii-U is that it's not gonna focus on FPS like the other consoles will. Which is a pity really.

Well..I'm not tired of them. I'm tired of the bland military shooters and their knockoffs. The exact thing that prevented Timesplitters 4 from finding a publisher (Free Radical even tried something more Halo/military shooter, and it killed them. Greatest tragedy of this gaming generation. HAZE was the biggest waste of time). It's too easy to make money off a replication of the COD formula, and nobody wants to take a risk. So yeah, I kind of agree with you, but I don't think you're 100% right. I don't think we're tired of FPS. We're tired of COD. We need to try a new kind of fish!

...I apologise. That wasn't even remotely funny.

 

[Zetatrain]

Pretty sure others have said it, so I'll keep it brief. There are many people out there who like Nintendo IPs and want to enjoy them. However, because Nintendo kind of has the worst third party support, the Nintendo IPs aren't enough to get them to buy Nintendo consoles. Having Nintendo go multi-platform would allow these people buy the Nintendo games they crave as well as the usual third part games like COD, Battlefield, Halo, etc.

 

[Saltyk]

I'm not gonna lie. I won't even comment on the economic impact for Nintendo or the consumer. Nor do I really have insider's information about Nintendo's plans, stock, or how much money they have hidden away in a vault beneath Mount Doom or whatever.

No, it's simple. I'm selfish. In fact, someone has already said what I'm thinking pretty much word for word.

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.

If you put Zelda on Xbox and PS then I'm buying a copy, along with millions of others. Simple as that.

This.
I don't feel a need to buy a Nintendo console. They tend to be underpowered which, along with other factors, tends to hurt their third party support. I don't know about others, but I find the idea of buying a console for a handful of games and no more, rather unconscionable. I would love to play Zelda and Mario. But being able to play Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, or whatever other third party titles are out there, too, would be nice.

Naysayers, and Nintendo fanboys can deny it, but we all know people with a Wii that they haven't touched in over a year. Even before the launch of the Wii U. It's a common story. And I think a lot of people would just be happy to have the option to play a Mario game. The last one I played regularly was Super Mario Brothers 3 way back on the Nes.

I have no illusion that they would do so anytime, soon. But it's a nice dream, I think.

 

[Mr Mystery Guest]

I bought a Wii but got rid of it because it was a babies toy. I only played Zelda on it. I would love to play a Mario game but i'm not wasting space under my tv with an under-powered console.

This right here is the mentality that is ruining gaming.

Seriously guy. A babies toy? might shock you to learn adults aren't scared of games with colour in them, or games that don't require you to kill stuff every 30 seconds.

Seriously guy. It is a shame that you can't see my collection. I've been playing games since the Commodore 16. I've played games with colour as a child with Sonic on on the Megadrive to Luigi's Mansion on the Gamecube as an adult. The Gamecube was my favourite console of that generation and i've had them all. I'm looking forward to playing Donkey Konga with my daughter and help her through the hard bits on Skyfox.

There is nothing on the Wii that couldn't of worked on the Gamecube. Nintendo have allowed too many developers to release any old rubbish and it lowered the bar to a level that only an ant could limbo under it.

Everybody out there please remember that it is silly to be precious about any console and its output. Nintendo, Sony and MS are not your friends.

 

[Mr Mystery Guest]

I bought a Wii but got rid of it because it was a babies toy. I only played Zelda on it. I would love to play a Mario game but i'm not wasting space under my tv with an under-powered console.

You totally stole that line from Back to the Future.

One-liner theft aside, why do you have a problem with something in your living room that doesn't have a hybrid core. I'm pretty sure no one cares if you have a Wii hooked up to your TV.

Die Hard. And i need the space for my Gamecube and the thirty games i have for it. Thirty great games. Nintendo's thirst to get everyone to play their machine from Hen Nights to your granny in the old age peoples home has been detrimental to their quality.

 

[Soxafloppin]

I'd like to see it..my reason is because there are so few Nintendo games that I want to play but there are about 2-3 that I'm very interested in, I would like to play them but I'm not buying a console for 2-3 games.

 

[Sarge034]

Snip

Why? Because I would like to play some Nintendo games without having to buy a different console. But if they don't want my money, whatever...

But everyone is perfectly fine having to buy an Xbox 360 to get a Halo game right?

I'm sorry. I can't hear you over the sound of all the people playing Halo and Halo 2 on the PC.

But really, probably not. Notice, however, that I did say "I would like to play some Nintendo games without having to buy a different console". As in me, personally. The person who has a 360 and would like to play Nintendo games. Me, not everyone. To try to project my own views as the one correct view, or as the view of "everyone" is incredibly egotistical, even for me.

 

[Something Amyss]

Did Nintendo implement stupid DRM? No.

Errr...Consoles are closed systems with inherent DRM. They've been trying to prevent copying since the NES days, including proprietary systems and some really funky hardware. They nerfed the Gamecube specifically to prevent copying.

Let me repeat that: They deliberately created an inferior version of the system just to prevent piracy.

Have they ever really shaft the customers in any way?

Bullshit. Nintendo was the first game company guilty of price fixing, and they were the worst offender. Did you mean "recently?" They did kind of jack the price of the 3DS just because there was a favourable response--a move, by the way, if they hadn't pulled, they wouldn't need to render an apology for a price cut.

Have they been milking their franchises? Sure, but have you really paid attention to their 1st party franchises? Just look at smash bros history and see their huge library of original IP's. There are dozens upon dozens of them.

Most of which rarely get used in favour of "Mario teaches gynecology 5."

Here is the crucial thing. Have they ever made the customer feel like an undependable thief? Like they implement ways to prove you purchased a product? No.

EVER? Yes. They went after customers before Microsoft and Sony were part of the market. Recently? Don't know, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt. But please, calm down on the hyperbole. "Ever" is a real word with real meaning, and the question of "has Nintendo ever" have an answer of "yes," because it doesn't mean "in the last 5-10 years."

The hatred over the control of the wii, though understandable, is such a pointless thing to keep yourself from purchasing from them.

Okay, first, how is it understandable if it's pointless?

More to the point though, you're setting up a false dichotomy in that people who want Multiplat Nintendo games refuse to play them any other way. It's not either/or.

Sure they treated developers bad, but no where near as bad to the consumers. THE people who buy their product.

Unless you go back a couple gens, but screw that. And, I mean, treating the developers bad ends up hurting the consumer, but screw that too.

Gamers take such a narrow view of history. I wouldn't be surprised to see EA and Activision become the good guys in five years, because people have basically forgotten what they did now in favour of bitcing about what someone else is doing. People are quick to blame EA for the whole Nintendo/EA scuffle, but the fact is that Nintendo has a history of treating both devs and pubs like utter shit. Nintendo seems to get a lot of wiggle room because of nostalgia and beloved franchises, but they've been pretty horrible up until relatively recently.

Besides, so what? Would Nintendo suddenly become abusive and bad in your eyes just for being a software developer? I doubt it. Then what difference does it make to argue they're not mean and oppressive? Do you think simply being a software developer/publisher will mean they use always-on DRM and such? Why would that suddenly be a thing?

You used the word "fallacy" in your first post but ultimately rely on a lot of logical fallacies and false premises to make an affirmative case. Why not instead be honest about this and say what you mean:

"stop wanting things I don't want."

 

[Something Amyss]

But everyone is perfectly fine having to buy an Xbox 360 to get a Halo game right?

I'll go tell all the PS2/3 fans I've seen screaming for Halo on Sony consoles that they're perfectly fine with it being a Microsoft exclusive. I'm sure it'll go well.

On an unrelated note, if you haven't heard from me in a week, call the police. Foul play may be involved.

But seriously, there's backlash over pretty much every exclusive. There are exceptions: Mercifully, I haven't had to explain to anyone why Playstation All-Stars is a Playstation exclusive, but most games? God of War. Gears of War Halo. Metal Gear Solid. Fuck, even Journey, which is not a AAA blockbuster title. Unskippable...I mean, Uncharted (though a Tomb Raider clone with Graham and Paul would be AWESOME). I even saw it for Ninety-Nine Nights before we all figured out how mediocre the game was.

 

[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.

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

Should I say more?

Yeah, you should. That is evidence of a possible good game. That game in itself is a diamond in the rough. But when you consider the many other shooters are prettier than actually have good game mechanics exist more of, than games that actually try to be good games. This is an example of a studio actually trying to be good. Want me to bring Fuse reviews to counter it? Or Remember Me? as examples of studios not trying enough even though they have the tech? Or even being pushed into a direction they didn't want to be?

 

[Something Amyss]

We would have likely never had an Xbox 360 at all if not for Halo pushing the original Xbox's success. There is a damn good reason why every shooting game to come out after the original Halo was called 'a potential Halo Killer'. Because that's exactly what they were trying to do.

I think it's incredibly naive to think the industry wouldn't have bothered with Halo killers if it hadn't been for exclusivity. And since Microsoft is still making the money off it, it could have readily justified their gaming divison even further.

Besides, the original Xbox was not a "success." Microsoft stayed in it because they wanted a stake in the market. This is not an uncommon or unsound strategy. Halo may have made it easier to get an install base on the 360, but it did not mandate or justify it.

 

[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.

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)?

As of recently? Yes I would. To make a long story short, I recently had problems with using my games on steam, my mouse, and internet connection. And going back to Nintendo games on their console reminded me why I enjoyed their games in the first place. Simple, sweet and too the point. To play it without issues.

 

[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.

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?

Actually half your games there make use of "realistic looking graphics". So no, I was assuming the game genre. But I was right on how you want your games too look. Personally "realistic" graphics is just not doing it for me anymore. Also if you calm down a little and re-read my reply. You would notice I was not insulting you at all, but saying your choice in games is respectable. So is enjoying Nintendo games for what they are as well.

 

[Negatempest]

Well not really. As others have pointed out, the Wii got lots of unique games on their console that was from 3rd parties. You know why they are ignored? They weren't an FPS. To me, the strong complaint against the Wii-U is that it's not gonna focus on FPS like the other consoles will. Which is a pity really.

Well..I'm not tired of them. I'm tired of the bland military shooters and their knockoffs. The exact thing that prevented Timesplitters 4 from finding a publisher (Free Radical even tried something more Halo/military shooter, and it killed them. Greatest tragedy of this gaming generation. HAZE was the biggest waste of time). It's too easy to make money off a replication of the COD formula, and nobody wants to take a risk. So yeah, I kind of agree with you, but I don't think you're 100% right. I don't think we're tired of FPS. We're tired of COD. We need to try a new kind of fish!

...I apologise. That wasn't even remotely funny.

Ooooh. I agree. But you are not very likely to find a non-military shooter that easily. Remember the games shown at each respective console exposure, other than Nintendo, focused on a military shooter. Cause they make money. -_-

 

[Negatempest]

Did Nintendo implement stupid DRM? No.

Errr...Consoles are closed systems with inherent DRM. They've been trying to prevent copying since the NES days, including proprietary systems and some really funky hardware. They nerfed the Gamecube specifically to prevent copying.

Let me repeat that: They deliberately created an inferior version of the system just to prevent piracy.

Have they ever really shaft the customers in any way?

Bullshit. Nintendo was the first game company guilty of price fixing, and they were the worst offender. Did you mean "recently?" They did kind of jack the price of the 3DS just because there was a favourable response--a move, by the way, if they hadn't pulled, they wouldn't need to render an apology for a price cut.

Have they been milking their franchises? Sure, but have you really paid attention to their 1st party franchises? Just look at smash bros history and see their huge library of original IP's. There are dozens upon dozens of them.

Most of which rarely get used in favour of "Mario teaches gynecology 5."

Here is the crucial thing. Have they ever made the customer feel like an undependable thief? Like they implement ways to prove you purchased a product? No.

EVER? Yes. They went after customers before Microsoft and Sony were part of the market. Recently? Don't know, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt. But please, calm down on the hyperbole. "Ever" is a real word with real meaning, and the question of "has Nintendo ever" have an answer of "yes," because it doesn't mean "in the last 5-10 years."

The hatred over the control of the wii, though understandable, is such a pointless thing to keep yourself from purchasing from them.

Okay, first, how is it understandable if it's pointless?

More to the point though, you're setting up a false dichotomy in that people who want Multiplat Nintendo games refuse to play them any other way. It's not either/or.

Sure they treated developers bad, but no where near as bad to the consumers. THE people who buy their product.

Unless you go back a couple gens, but screw that. And, I mean, treating the developers bad ends up hurting the consumer, but screw that too.

Gamers take such a narrow view of history. I wouldn't be surprised to see EA and Activision become the good guys in five years, because people have basically forgotten what they did now in favour of bitcing about what someone else is doing. People are quick to blame EA for the whole Nintendo/EA scuffle, but the fact is that Nintendo has a history of treating both devs and pubs like utter shit. Nintendo seems to get a lot of wiggle room because of nostalgia and beloved franchises, but they've been pretty horrible up until relatively recently.

Besides, so what? Would Nintendo suddenly become abusive and bad in your eyes just for being a software developer? I doubt it. Then what difference does it make to argue they're not mean and oppressive? Do you think simply being a software developer/publisher will mean they use always-on DRM and such? Why would that suddenly be a thing?

You used the word "fallacy" in your first post but ultimately rely on a lot of logical fallacies and false premises to make an affirmative case. Why not instead be honest about this and say what you mean:

"stop wanting things I don't want."

Let me get this straight. You are comparing past crimes of Nintendo, that doesn't effect today, and your still angry for that? Okay people can hold a grudge for sure and I understand.

-DRM Console- So your comparing a game being exclusive to a console, where you can share games with your friends and resale, to the same BS that microsoft is doing?

-3DS yes it was messed up and they apologized. What did we get from the other companies when they mess up? Deal with it, cause you'll buy it. That was Sony in PS3 release and Microsoft with Xboxone.

-They rarely use for sure, but fact is they still exist and have a stronger chance of existing in a good light than say, Spyro, Crash, Sonic, Jak and Dexter, etc. My point with those games is that, even though they were great and still are, not likely of making another great comeback. Hopefully sonic does.

-Understandable to see in the other persons eye that the controller looks uncomfortable to use in long gaming sessions and lacks many buttons? Pointless, imo, in the form of if the game plays well with the controller than it can be over looked.

-Really comparing EA and Activision to Nintendo? The most messed up things Nintendo did was Friend Codes, questionable controllers, bad internet connection for multiplayer and under-powered console. The other companies including Producers.

-Unreliable Hardware. Online Pass. Season Pass. Buggy Games. Over-priced DLS. Day 1 DLC. DLC in the disk. Destroyed franchises. Shut down studios for X reason. Telling consumers they are gullible in many forms. (You and I know the ones). Micro-Transactions. Day 1 patches. and I know I'm missing some more.

 

[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?

Actually half your games there make use of "realistic looking graphics". So no, I was assuming the game genre. But I was right on how you want your games too look. Personally "realistic" graphics is just not doing it for me anymore. Also if you calm down a little and re-read my reply. You would notice I was not insulting you at all, but saying your choice in games is respectable. So is enjoying Nintendo games for what they are as well.

I never mentioned anything about graphics. I still play old PS2 games because I care about gameplay and story. I still play Final Fantasy 7 and 8 because they're better than 13 and 13-2. I still play Thief 2 because graphics mean nothing to me at all. I play pokemon blue because solid gameplay is the most important measure of a game to me. Borderlands, the only shooter I play, looks cartoony as balls and I believe Windwaker to be one of the most beautiful looking games ever released. The Walking Dead is another game I own and enjoy that doesn't have anything to do with "realistic looking graphics".

I never asked for Zelda to use realistic graphics. You've seen every word I've typed on this matter, tell me where I said anything about Zelda not looking good enough or where I said Nintendo's hardware was inferior? I said they don't offer Zelda on the consoles I own so I can't play it. End of story. Why don't I own it? Not because it is or isn't inferior, but because it only has 2 games I want.

I want Zelda on PS3 and I want it looking as charming and innocent as it does on Nintendo's hardware, or as gritty as Twilight Princess was. Whatever, just give it to me. I don't care about graphics.

Care to try again then?

 

[Dragonbums]

But everyone is perfectly fine having to buy an Xbox 360 to get a Halo game right?

I'll go tell all the PS2/3 fans I've seen screaming for Halo on Sony consoles that they're perfectly fine with it being a Microsoft exclusive. I'm sure it'll go well.

On an unrelated note, if you haven't heard from me in a week, call the police. Foul play may be involved.

But seriously, there's backlash over pretty much every exclusive. There are exceptions: Mercifully, I haven't had to explain to anyone why Playstation All-Stars is a Playstation exclusive, but most games? God of War. Gears of War Halo. Metal Gear Solid. Fuck, even Journey, which is not a AAA blockbuster title. Unskippable...I mean, Uncharted (though a Tomb Raider clone with Graham and Paul would be AWESOME). I even saw it for Ninety-Nine Nights before we all figured out how mediocre the game was.

Mario, Zelda, and Metroid aren't exclusives in the same way Halo is.
They are pure first party titles created by a company that not only makes their own games, but makes hardware as well. How many (If there are any) games are made directly from Micorsoft. How many made directly from Sony? In fact, do those two companies even have first party titles? Second party sure, but do they even MAKE games for their own console? If they did, we all know that they would make it exclusive to their own console, and I don't think anyone would be complaining.
Yet, everyone apparently likes Nintendo products so much, that they in a sense demand that they go third party so they don't have to buy their console to play their games.

These are the people Nintendo shouldn't listen to. Chances are, most of these people wouldn't buy the product anyway simply because. Just like how they tried to implement more hardcore games on the WiiU, and hard core developers still gave them a big fuck you, and fans of those games gave it a big fuck you.