CorgiShinobi

I want to quote your entire post Rocky, but I'll just write my own for sake of length. Just know this is for you. 1. I kept the concept of "innovation" simple, but if you want an example... See, I can understand changing items in Zelda. It has happened, but quite frankly, changing the entire inventory is ridiculous. Your opinion is that it's stale, but given the discussion in the Zelda thread, that's really just a viewpoint as to how someone perceives it. There are people who hate the Wolf Link segments in Twilight Princess, but maybe liked the Triforce hunt in Windwaker, or vice versa. If anything, to do a complete overhaul of "what Zelda is" has the greatest potential to destroy the essence of the Zelda franchise. You might not even have a coherent franchise if everything built upon previously is flipped over and redone. The boomerang has been altered a few times, but Link will almost always have a boomerang. If there's a hookshot, it might act differently, but there have also been other items similar to the Hookshot. We wouldn't even have the iconic Master Sword if we always changed the sword. Sometimes that happens, which is perfectly fine, but you go too far and you'll end up with something like... Metroid: Other M... Something that looks like a Nintendo game, but doesn't act in the slightest to what has been set upon. Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it? Doesn't mean we can't add a fresh coat of paint, i.e. new items and new characters, but Link will be a hero, there will be a villian, there will be dungeons with key items, and so forth. 2. Maybe if Nintendo keeps the Wii on store shelves for 10 years, then maybe we'll get a similar number the PS2 has had for its 10 years on store shelves? It's true that it's not an inherent desire of the casual audience to buy hardware, but if you supply a benefit with a low cost, they'll bite. A roommate of mine sold his brand new Wii for $100 last week to someone I could label as "casual." Still, the casual audience does try to keep the cost low. One flaw with the Kinect is that it's the "friend's item." I know a lot of people who have had fun with the Kinect, but it's usually preceded by "At so-and-so's house..." The Kinect has sold a lot, but it's something that's enjoyed most as a shared commodity. Where am I going with this again? If you keep the price low and have a benefit (something like "fun" actually works, believe it or not), you'll see people throw their money if not to see for themselves. 3. P4 pretty much said it... How about "Xbox 360" or "PlayStation" Hell, even when talking about the Xbox 360, people will simply refer to it as an "Xbox." Nintendo using "Wii U" and "3DS" isn't a strange practice of retention; it's what Sony and Microsoft have done. EDIT: It would have helped if Nintendo showed the actual console instead of letting it sit in an obscure stock photo. Because it was just the controller, people were getting confused. As for the 3DS... given how often Nintendo upgrades their handhelds, is there even a "generation" for handhelds? I mean, you can see the advancing tech, but there's always upgrades to a specific set of handheld. GameBoy -> GameBoy Pocket GameBoy Color GameBoy Advance -> GameBoy Advance SP -> GameBoy Micro Nintendo DS -> Nintendo DS Lite -> Nintendo DSi -> Nintendo DSi XL Nintendo 3DS (EDIT 2) Nintendo's not the only one guilty of "confusion." The different SKU sets for the Xbox 360 and PS3 can be confusing to consumers as well. It's the one thing I hope the Wii U can address in that it could be a base console, but the more dedicated have options rather than "Hey, buy more of our products!" (i.e. Microsoft brand Xbox 360 HDD, Microsoft brand Xbox 360 flash drive, or how about those MemoryStick Duo cards?)

I finally got to play Arkham City last night... NERDGASM! Seriously, Asylum's opening was pretty good, but City's opening really threw a curve ball. Oh my... every time I do something "Batman," I have the strongest urge to yell out "I'M BATMAN!" It's that great of a game!

Oh snap, time to get back! *pops neck* I'm gonna combine everyone's comments into a giant gumbo pot, so dig through this if you're interested in picking a subject. If Nintendo is going to become another Sega, then that means all the trappings of the Saturn would have to be repeated by the Wii U. Yant scratched the surface of the Saturns problems, but it goes a little deeper. For example, the gigantic launch failure. A "surprise" early release, exclusive retailers, and no third party support for four months (at least Nintendo has some). People talk about Sony's PS2 being the Sega killer, but the first PlayStation wiped the floor with the Saturn. However, not because of technology, but because of (quite frankly) retarded business strategy. Then we got to the Dreamcast, a really neat console, but at this point Sega was a three-legged horse. Any advantage gained by their competitors would be disastrous. Well, I think we have this covered: the emergence of DVDs. In a way, the death of Sega was the result of a DVD player, not a gaming console. If anything else, there was also piracy due to, as previously stated, how ridiculously easy the process was to play CD copies. Now, most everything else said has been mainly opinion, if not a little oracle forecasting. I don't have much right to override those types of things, but I have my own as well. I still stick to the "your expectations" route. Again, I constantly see a trend online where older gamers seem to expect Nintendo to "grow up" with them. In essence, that Nintendo should conform to a select age group's interests and alter their franchises to such interests. Adding blood, getting more violent, exploring sex, and so forth. That's where Sony and Microsoft come in, but Nintendo doesn't need to do such frivolous things. We've grown up, and while I wouldn't call Nintendo themselves "kiddy," they're the gaming company that's there for the younger audience. Now, Sony and Microsoft do have kid oriented games, but it's not where they excel. Mario & Co. reign supreme with children. While we had the NES or SNES, the newer generations have Wii/Wii U. You might cry out, "Oh woe is they for they know not of the 8-bit!" True, but Mario is Mario. I once volunteered at an elementary school about two years ago, and there I was the "old kid" that watched over the playground. I got to hear some conversations, most I've left to be forgotten to oblivion, except for one. "Dude, have you played Super Mario Galaxy?" Immediately after the question, an onslaught of excitement filled the conversation. I've played Super Mario Galaxy, it's a great game. To these kids though, it was like a nirvana their television emitted into their young minds. So yeah, they've probably never played Super Mario Bros., Super Mario World, Super Mario RPG, Super Mario 64, and probably Super Mario Sunshine, but Mario is Mario. I began with Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, and now there are those who may start out with Super Mario Galaxy. Tradition vs. Innovation. That's what I hoped would be talked about a bit more, especially if we were to talk about Nintendo games. In a sense, Nintendo games fuse those two qualities of gaming into one. You could say Mario is still collecting coins, and other items, but where is collecting them? The Zelda "formula" rarely changes, but where are we and what's the story? Kirby still absorbs enemies, but what new powers has he developed? I've already explain the audience issue, but there's still something that needs to be clear: the "casual" audience has always existed. The NES was also a really popular Nintendo console, never forget that. To this day, you'll still have older folk calling video game consoles "Nintendos," though now we get the occasionally "Xbox." There were non-gamers who wanted to see the hub-bub about the "Nintendo Entertainment System." In fact, one of my neighbors was a child who's family did exactly that. She is in no way a gamer, but she has had her NES, Super Mario Bros., Punch-Out, and Kirby's Adventure with her for many years. With the Wii, Nintendo simply began the process of harnessing the potential consumer base. I don't consider the Wii a fad. Truthfully, a video game console can't really be a "fad." It can have excitement surrounding it's name, popularity, and overall enjoyment. That's all in the consumers' mindset, but fads are primarily a concept, something that's hip because "it's hip." A video game console can actually be fun by being played, not be an item that sits around and is "cool." (i.e. Beanie Babies, Furbies, and especially Pet Rock) The casual market can fun with their Wiis, but it's not the same as a gamer's enjoyment. For example, another neighbor of mine has a Nintendo Wii, but seriously, she has two games for it. Still, it's "fun" for her. Of course, she and her friends want to come over and play Mario Kart. Thanks Mario, you bring the girls to the yard. This leads to the real point I want to make: the Wii U. Nintendo can still retain a casual market with the console, and in reality, that's why we have a Wii U. Market retention, and etc. Still, as I've said before, there are signs that Nintendo is beginning to put more focus into the core market that has been slipping away. The ability to have an external HDD seems to speak, "If you want a few games, flash memory; for everything else, connect your large hard drive!" I can't say much else as anything else would be speculation, but about Apple... The 3DS... it feels so out of place. The Nintendo DS was such a great equalizer with the entire Nintendo market. Grandson and grandma could very well have their own Nintendo DS, but the 3DS... Apple could begin their gaming push by filling in the gap. I wanted to address this however because I don't honestly believe Apple could take Nintendo's casual market because the Wii U will be the home console whereas Apple can only (for now) compete as a handheld. Even an iPad couldn't compete with the Wii U. Sorry for the little tangent at the end, but I've never really had to think about Apple dominating Nintendo. It's a little ludicrous, especially with the lack of focus on gaming on Apple's part.

They do have an impact, but then look at how much of that impact was a response in relation to Nintendo. Sony and Microsoft have put themselves into a funny position. They have the adult male audience down because the games associated with their consoles are relevant to the adult male interest. Of course, now they want a piece of the new consumer pie that Nintendo brought about some odd years ago. However, Sony and Microsoft are aware of the core gamer perception to Nintendo. If they focus too much, they end up in the same boat. Don't focus enough and they're basically wasting resources. That's why, if you ask me about some of Sony and Microsoft's motion and/or "casual" games, they've tried a type of "pseudo-core" game. Something that's suppose to have the imagery of a core game, but the mechanics that non-gamers flock to. Except you can't fool core gamers with those games, and non-gamers might view the game as "not for them." They don't know better given how few their gaming resources may be. I think I might leave the conversation here for a while. I've already spent, like, two hours on this one topic and that midterm is going to be a nightmare... So a few key points to move the discussion along! -Hardware (as previously mentioned by Yant) vs. Software by The Big Three -How many unique titles in comparison to sequels (For example, while I may have 31 PS3 games and 19 Wii games, about half of the PS3 games are in a series, i.e. Dead Space, Uncharted, BioShock, etc.) -Innovation vs. Tradition

I'll continue with the parental example, just this once more. Think of the "core gamer" as a first child. A parents essentially defines themselves through how they interact with the first born. Over a few years the child grows up and everything seems like a picture perfect example of a family. Then there comes the second child. The parents find that they can't technically repeat the same process on the second child, but now the first child has become envious of the attention the second child receives. Of course, this is only an example; no one should feel like a child of Nintendo. Now, there's a saying in business (and advertising) that goes, "When you target everyone, you target no one." Nintendo wanted to expanded their audience, not abandon anyone. The problem is when you're adopting a "non-gamer" consumer into your audience, you're biting off more than you can chew. The "core gamer" already understands video games, and so they can become a frequent customer much easier. Show off a few great games, make good on a few promises and you're set. A non-gamer essentially needs to be reared up into the knowledge we've had for years. It takes more effort, and so much so that I believe Nintendo forgot to balance their attention. Quite frankly, it still doesn't take much to convince core gamers. However, the opinion a core gamer has on a video game company will be more firm than that of anyone else. So while Nintendo has seen some success with a "casual audience," the company will still need to balance their attention because those consumers still have the potential to leave. If you look at the Wii U, it's suppose to be this balance of the audience Nintendo created. From my perception, they've finally realized that they need to focus more attention to the core gamer. Still, attention still needs to be maintained for the other half of their audience. See where I was going with the above parental example? The first child has already been raised (to a degree), but the second child needs a period of upbringing before it can act like the first. EDIT: I lost part of my post, but the part that was auto-saved should still work.

Yeah that's fine, but I've been talking about people who have this (almost) parental fascination with Nintendo. As if they've become a bastard child from Nintendo's "neglect."

When I said "go the way of Sega" I just meant I wanted them to move from a system manufacturer to a pure publisher. I know there's more to Nintendo than those two series, but I don't see why publishing on other people's hardware would automatically mean their games would have to suffer. When you get right down to it, from a game development perspective what difference does it really make whether the studios are developing for a Nintendo owned platform or some other company's platform? Here's the thing, and I get the feeling when people discuss the "Sega Route," they forget why Sega even went pure development. For Nintendo to become a simple third party for, what would essentially become "The Big Two," something financially troubling and dangerous would have to occur. No reasonable business is going to sit back and go, "You know what? We should downsize and completely renovate our entire strategy so we only sell games!" It's wishing for disaster. For Nintendo to become another Sega should only be wished upon if something terrible happened prior to their decision of being a game development studio. There's that too, Nintendo wouldn't be itself "only smaller." Something would be lost, there's no way of working around it. Also, people talk about how Nintendo treats third parties; how about how Nintendo would be treated as a third party? Not to deride anyone's opinion, but I strongly hold to the practice of "Be careful what you wish for!" That's your love, but given fanboyism, it's not always that "love.

That's not really true when Nintendo themselves said they're not targeting the core audience they used to target anymore. This is gonna sound immensely rude, but you kinda have yourself to blame if you take it personally for Nintendo expanding their target audience. Look at my sentence before that one you've quoted. "That's a little extreme and will only bring trouble once said company begins to shy away from your expectations." Your expectations. A company doesn't technically do what's best for their customer, but what's best for them. That's a business and while it sounds apathetic, it's the true nature of any profit-based industry. Again, Nintendo isn't someone's mother who reaches out with a loving arm; it is a corporation that sells you electronics.

Well, it's not an entirely unfair comparison. You do have many good memories spending time with Nintendo and many of us were children so those rose colored glasses shine bright. You kind of form an emotional attachment from all the great times and it sucks when Nintendo is still around but the good times are mostly gone. Yeah, but I'm an adult now and I realize that Mario isn't the President (or Repairman) of Nintendo, along with Vice President Kirby and Assistant Executive Samus Aran. I dunno, think of how one might view Disney as a child, and then as an adult. I'm sure if someone talked to their parents, they could tell them the nitty-gritty of Disney while they, as a child, were fascinated with talking animals and magic. EDIT: After all, when Nintendo "cared" about gamers, Hiroshi Yamauchi was the one in charge and he was the one who touted he never played a video game. I'm sure I've gone on about the guy somewhere before, but in short, the guy was a hardass... a scary hardass.

I've never loved a company. That's a little extreme and will only bring trouble once said company begins to shy away from your expectations. No one was abandoned, so yeah, quite frankly I get a little annoyed when people refer to Nintendo as if it were an uncaring father or mother. I don't want Nintendo to go the way of Sega. Even if you argue that Mario and Zelda could sustain themselves on a Sony or Microsoft console some odd years into the future, you lose a lot more. Yes, there is a lot more to Nintendo than just those two series. Quite frankly, in my opinion, Kirby could only survive through Nintendo. Take away the company devices and you're going to see the failing attributes of Sonic. I mean, we're talking about throwing out the cost of buying a home console with the cost of losing so much as to become Sega. Perhaps you're only referring to the process of becoming a "Sega," but look where Sega is now. Seriously, the next Sonic game is heavily relying on nostalgia of practically every significant last game to sell you one Sonic game. Aside from all of this, what Sony and Microsoft don't have is a legacy. Microsoft is still relatively new to the industry and really owes a single franchise, Halo, for it's chance to repopulate into the seventh generation. Sony is a great contender, but they didn't enter my life until I was about 8 years-old. Now they had to compete with Nintendo in my decision for a home console. Nintendo had been around since I could form any tangible memories. Sure, I've played anything "PlayStation," but I've only owned a PS3 and PSP. Yeah, and I know I've mainly talked of "old" Nintendo, but they still have great influence in the industry. All you have to do is look at your Move controller, the "lollipop" Sony said it would never make. Still, I understand people's concerns fully when they talk about getting a console for a few games. I mean, that's what I would be doing if I were going to (finally) get an Xbox 360. See, that's why I do appreciate the Wii in that it's unique in comparison to the other two. For anyone who went PS3-360, one of the two must have been sitting back while you focused more on the other, but only when there were no exclusives. To close, eh... I guess Nintendo's not the "King," but in my opinion, there hasn't really been a King for nearly a decade. Each company does what the other doesn't. There's always a fault you can point out, just as there are qualities.

..... You mean the Hero's Shade? Like, a few people believe it might be a previous Link, but it's mainly because they take certain phrases like "bloodline" and "my child" literally. With "my child," it's a form of endearment, much like an older gentleman saying "my boy." If anything, the Hero's Shade in just the mentor/sensei character that teaches the new Link powerful sword techniques. EDIT: As for Zeldas and Links, well, it's confusing... Past Zeldas have been blood related, and as previously mentioned, "Zelda" is a tradition. Think back to Tetra in Wind Waker. Spoiler Alert, but she is that generation's Zelda. A few other Zeldas, like say Twilight Princess' Zelda don't necessarily have any context other than, "Hey, you're in Hyrule Castle!" Link, well, Link is actually just a default name if you really want to think about this. The way I've seen it is that whenever evil would arise, a hero would be ready and able to conquer the new foe. Someone who is worthy to wield the Master Sword, or in some cases, be able to fuse with the Triforce of Courage. Also, in some cases it seems like any one Link would have difficulty in beginning a relationship and having any descendants. Perhaps it's possible, but one really shouldn't think that hard on how Zelda and Link arise would each occasion.

I've had my copy of Arkham City sitting on my desk the entire day. However, I've got one hell of a midterm coming up this week. So much so that I haven't bothered to read the Arkham City comic. I'm only on here for a little break.

Anyone receiving the Arkham City comic along with their game? I pre-ordered from Amazon, so I got the $10 credit and comic. GameTrailers says it's a prequel to the events of the game.

I have to agree with Johnny in that if you must look to someone on the development side of things, it would be Eiji Aonouma. Miyamoto has a quote or two for Ocarina of Time, but that's about as far as he has gone to expound on anything "timeline" related. Before Twilight Princess finally debuted, there were a number of interviews with Aonouma about the game's relation to Ocarina of Time. They obviously weren't very detailed, but a connection was made.

The only movie I don't already see listed that I would add is... Moulin Rouge

The Full Sync requirements are retarded. It's like they're there solely to have people replay the levels so the time could be extended. I've begun to stop caring, especially when I had a "Don't get spotted" requirement. Assassin's Creed is fun, but a stealth game it is not.

Completed Gurren Lagann collection and got to indulge in Adventure Time. Truly, I am what's hip and what is happening. B)

Honestly, and I'm not being bias here, but I get the feeling that Rovio is intimated to try anything new. Hear me out now. If you think about it, no matter what else they create, it'll probably never live up to the status Angry Birds obtained. Not to say they'll probably make a crap game, but that even another great game will live in the shadow of Angry Birds. Seriously, Angry Birds defined the mobile app game market to the point you'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't heard of the game in some form. Trying to get as much worth out of it is kinda pathetic, but also unavoidable when you've become such a phenomenal hit. It's like an uroboros: the success will eventually hinder the prospect of another success. So yeah, they might end up as a one-hit wonder, but maybe not the type that could only make one good thing (song/game/etc), but that their next iteration can't rise up against previous fame.

There are Zelda games, while they can seem quite different, make references to other titles. For example, Wind Waker did talk about the Hero of Time, a.k.a. OoT Link. The Link in Wind Waker was then called the "Hero of Wind" in comparison. Yet, then when you put more thought into it, you realize the games focus so much more of the gameplay than any obscure timeline. For example, again, Wind Waker would follow the Adult Link split timeline, yet Ganondorf never transforms into Ganon, and supposedly Zelda, the 8th Sage, has a child. With Twilight Princess, it follows the Child Link split timeline, yet Ganondorf does transform into Ganon. I guess you could say his powers became magnified in the Twilight Realm.