"I'm loving all this bishop hate going on! It's lovely to see so many hardcore nintendo fans! We have every right to disregard Anything negative said towards nintendo as rubbish,"
I'm assuming you're being sarcastic - the thing is, one can acknowledge that Nintendo has made some stupid decisions (especially in the last year) and still realize that some negative criticisms are going to be nonsense. That is to say, not all negative criticisms are equally valid - in this case, Bishop's are largely reactionary nonsense.
As others have pointed out, the DS and the Wii together have sold some 200,000,000 systems in only 6 years or so - that's more than any other video game company. That they have made some missteps this year doesn't somehow negate all the really smart business practices that have enabled them to sell that many systems. That is, one doesn't sell that many by being completely clueless about proper business tactics.
"I don't agree with Bishop but it doesn't make him a moron or anything like that for feeling the way he does."
Well, he probably isn't a moron, but he definitely is being reactionary and hyperbolic. The Wii and DS combined have sold some 200 million systems worldwide, and, in the last 5 or 6 years, Nintendo has been making a ton of money. One bad year isn't reason for them to "give up consoles", and isn't valid reason to believe that there's no way they'll ever pick themselves up again. Lots of major companies have had bad years (worse than this year has been for Nintendo), and have still survived for decades.
"The real clueless ones are those acting like 2011 has been anything but a pitiful year for Nintendo."
Nah - the real clueless ones are still those saying "even though the last five or six years have been extremely successful for you, and even though the Wii and DS are some of the best selling systems of all time, you just had a bad year so you should give up and pull out now." That's stupid by any standards, and in regards to any company.
Few, even here, would refute the idea that Nintendo has had a bad year. Realize though that calling out Bishop for his stupid comments isn't the same as denying that this had been a bad year for Nintendo. As stated above, though, the fact that some negative criticisms of the company are valid doesn't mean anything bad that can be said about it. What Bishop said reveals either an invested interest in the failure of Nintendo and/or a lack of understanding of the most basic understanding of economics and business practice.
"And the way they've pumped out handhelds and slightly modified handhelds seems like a disgusting marketing ploy to a business/marketing student. Smaller and thinner versions. Bigger and wider versions. It smells like desperation. It feels to me like Nintendo has lost its sense and dedication to fans with its panic."
Panic? Desperation?
One doesn't have to be a marketing student to see that the constant release of slightly updated systems is indeed a marketing ploy - a disgusting, wonderfully successful ploy for Nintendo.
Though it is interesting, and revealing of your own bias, that you interpret that decision as "desperate," when, to anyone with even a basic awareness of business trends in the electronic market, such upgrades would only indicate a basic awareness of the market on the part of Nintendo. That is to say, you're taking something that pretty much every company does (including Microsoft and Sony) - releasing "updated" versions of the same basic technology to hopefully hook in a few more buyers and to get the dedicated to upgrade their "outdated" (but not really) versions (look at the variations of sizes and colors and harddrive space in the various generations of the iPod - created by Apple, one of the least desperate of companies) - and condemning only Nintendo for it. You start out with a conclusion - that Nintendo is desperate - and use whatever nonsense argument comes to your mind, even if that very behavior is actually evidence of some amount of savvy on the part of the company involved.
That is to say, that it smells like "desperation" to you is only indication of your own ignorance of basic business practices.
"I'm guessing the Wii U's target market is kids who get systems which are paid for by mommy and daddy's VISA card."
Perhaps not a bad demographic to target, considering that kids who get systems paid for by mommy and daddy's VISA card are a really big part of the market - yes, there has been a major trend towards more adult gamers over the last decade, but kids (those not old enough to have a steady income) are still a huge segment of the gaming population.
"I can't see long term adult fans buying a barely upgraded piece of junk when there are already better systems available from less desperate companies. A commercial with a Nintendo employee grovelling on their knees begging consumers to purchase the system would be a charming touch."
As before, you're letting your anti-Nintendo bias get in the way of your reasoning abilities here. First, as already mentioned, you're overplaying the "desperation" of Nintendo just a tad bit. Yes, they are coming off of a pretty bad year - but they're also still making a ton of money from Wii and DS, both of which have been extremely profitable for them, and it's quite likely that 3DS sales will gain momentum as its library improves. Second, even if it were true that Nintendo was "desperate" (and I don't think there's much to justify that claim), the general consumer who doesn't spend much time reading video gaming sites (that is, the vast majority of the video game playing population, including parents who buy systems for their children) aren't going to be aware of that "desperation." That is to say, it's not like the Wii-U is going to be coated with a layer of flop sweat that serves as a warning to all customers of the desperation of its creators. Rather, parents will see that the "new Wii" is out, and they will see a Mario game or a Super Smash Bros. game, and they will buy it for the kids. And, contrary to the line that you so desperately want to sell, and regardless of your own feelings of the system's "inferiority," plenty of adult gamers will also see those same titles and decide to purchase the system for themselves.
Considering how little we still know about the system, your condemnation seems just a bit overeager, as if you desperately want what you are saying to be true. I know some people are really anxious to condemn Nintendo at every chance - but coming off one of the most popular consoles in history, there aren't really a lot of precedents to justify your pessimism.
I probably won't get a Wii-U, mainly because I've found myself becoming less and less interesting in new games over the past few years (though I'm still interested enough to follow this site, as well as some XBox and Sony sites) - but you're fooling yourself if you don't think that it will interest a pretty good portion of the gaming market (remembering, once again, that the Wii has been an extraordinary success for Nintendo and that the name alone is likely to get them high sales for at least another generation, regardless of the new console's quality.)
While you're right that great gameplay is timeless, you had to go and completely undermine your argument with this line:
"You watch a 1980 movie and you'll probably feel like your eyes are bleeding."
I love games, but I love films (of all eras and countries) even more, and you just got me into my lecture mode:
So your eyes bleed while watching, say, "The Empire Strikes Back" or "Raging Bull" or "Kagemusha" or "The Shining?" Heck, what you said about the timelessness of games is at least as true about the other art forms like film (and literature and music) - while special effects may improve, the important things like storytelling and filmmaking (cinematography, acting, writing, directing) stay pretty constant (even if certain styles go in and out of fashion.) Besides some different clothing fashions and decor, a lot of films made in 1980 look and feel a lot like films made today (especially if they're not oriented around special effects.) (For the record: in the past week I've watched two films from the 1940s, one from the 1950s, and three from the 1960s, and not a one of them made my eyes bleed. In fact, all but one of them was as incredibly entertaining as just about anything made today.)
Sorry about the tangent: I realize this is a video game site. I just think that the idea that "old" is equivalent to "inferior" or "inapplicable to our modern times," no matter what it's being said about, is very misguided (of course, the notion that just because something is old it must also be good is also misguided, but I don't see that as often.) My favorite films range from being made in 1916 to 2010, while my two favorite systems are the Super NES and the PlayStation 2 (simply because more of my favorite games were on those two consoles than any others.) What matters is those central aspects: In video gaming, it's the game play, and there are good and bad examples of that in every era.
Mandoble - Let's face it - even by today's standards at least half these games are still pretty fantastic, assuming one can get past the low quality graphics. This fairly young (I started gaming during the middle of the SNES era) gamer finds that the game play has held up remarkably well over the past 20-25 years (but I'm also the type of person who realizes that "old-fashioned" isn't always bad and that 90-year old silent films, 150-year old novels, and medieval-era music can be just as complex and high quality and entertaining as anything made today.)
In other words, several of these games have what counts - they're super fun to play, even if you weren't around for the NES era.
Comments 105
Re: Nintendo Can Recover From Loss, says EA Vice President
"I'm loving all this bishop hate going on! It's lovely to see so many hardcore nintendo fans! We have every right to disregard Anything negative said towards nintendo as rubbish,"
I'm assuming you're being sarcastic - the thing is, one can acknowledge that Nintendo has made some stupid decisions (especially in the last year) and still realize that some negative criticisms are going to be nonsense. That is to say, not all negative criticisms are equally valid - in this case, Bishop's are largely reactionary nonsense.
As others have pointed out, the DS and the Wii together have sold some 200,000,000 systems in only 6 years or so - that's more than any other video game company. That they have made some missteps this year doesn't somehow negate all the really smart business practices that have enabled them to sell that many systems. That is, one doesn't sell that many by being completely clueless about proper business tactics.
"I don't agree with Bishop but it doesn't make him a moron or anything like that for feeling the way he does."
Well, he probably isn't a moron, but he definitely is being reactionary and hyperbolic. The Wii and DS combined have sold some 200 million systems worldwide, and, in the last 5 or 6 years, Nintendo has been making a ton of money. One bad year isn't reason for them to "give up consoles", and isn't valid reason to believe that there's no way they'll ever pick themselves up again. Lots of major companies have had bad years (worse than this year has been for Nintendo), and have still survived for decades.
"The real clueless ones are those acting like 2011 has been anything but a pitiful year for Nintendo."
Nah - the real clueless ones are still those saying "even though the last five or six years have been extremely successful for you, and even though the Wii and DS are some of the best selling systems of all time, you just had a bad year so you should give up and pull out now." That's stupid by any standards, and in regards to any company.
Few, even here, would refute the idea that Nintendo has had a bad year. Realize though that calling out Bishop for his stupid comments isn't the same as denying that this had been a bad year for Nintendo. As stated above, though, the fact that some negative criticisms of the company are valid doesn't mean anything bad that can be said about it. What Bishop said reveals either an invested interest in the failure of Nintendo and/or a lack of understanding of the most basic understanding of economics and business practice.
Re: Talking Point: Nintendo's Plans to Fight Back
Sorry about the length there.
tl;dr version - Rumors of Nintendo's desperation and panic have been greatly exaggerated, even if they are coming off a pretty bad year.
Re: Talking Point: Nintendo's Plans to Fight Back
"And the way they've pumped out handhelds and slightly modified handhelds seems like a disgusting marketing ploy to a business/marketing student. Smaller and thinner versions. Bigger and wider versions. It smells like desperation. It feels to me like Nintendo has lost its sense and dedication to fans with its panic."
Panic? Desperation?
One doesn't have to be a marketing student to see that the constant release of slightly updated systems is indeed a marketing ploy - a disgusting, wonderfully successful ploy for Nintendo.
Though it is interesting, and revealing of your own bias, that you interpret that decision as "desperate," when, to anyone with even a basic awareness of business trends in the electronic market, such upgrades would only indicate a basic awareness of the market on the part of Nintendo. That is to say, you're taking something that pretty much every company does (including Microsoft and Sony) - releasing "updated" versions of the same basic technology to hopefully hook in a few more buyers and to get the dedicated to upgrade their "outdated" (but not really) versions (look at the variations of sizes and colors and harddrive space in the various generations of the iPod - created by Apple, one of the least desperate of companies) - and condemning only Nintendo for it. You start out with a conclusion - that Nintendo is desperate - and use whatever nonsense argument comes to your mind, even if that very behavior is actually evidence of some amount of savvy on the part of the company involved.
That is to say, that it smells like "desperation" to you is only indication of your own ignorance of basic business practices.
"I'm guessing the Wii U's target market is kids who get systems which are paid for by mommy and daddy's VISA card."
Perhaps not a bad demographic to target, considering that kids who get systems paid for by mommy and daddy's VISA card are a really big part of the market - yes, there has been a major trend towards more adult gamers over the last decade, but kids (those not old enough to have a steady income) are still a huge segment of the gaming population.
"I can't see long term adult fans buying a barely upgraded piece of junk when there are already better systems available from less desperate companies. A commercial with a Nintendo employee grovelling on their knees begging consumers to purchase the system would be a charming touch."
As before, you're letting your anti-Nintendo bias get in the way of your reasoning abilities here. First, as already mentioned, you're overplaying the "desperation" of Nintendo just a tad bit. Yes, they are coming off of a pretty bad year - but they're also still making a ton of money from Wii and DS, both of which have been extremely profitable for them, and it's quite likely that 3DS sales will gain momentum as its library improves. Second, even if it were true that Nintendo was "desperate" (and I don't think there's much to justify that claim), the general consumer who doesn't spend much time reading video gaming sites (that is, the vast majority of the video game playing population, including parents who buy systems for their children) aren't going to be aware of that "desperation." That is to say, it's not like the Wii-U is going to be coated with a layer of flop sweat that serves as a warning to all customers of the desperation of its creators. Rather, parents will see that the "new Wii" is out, and they will see a Mario game or a Super Smash Bros. game, and they will buy it for the kids. And, contrary to the line that you so desperately want to sell, and regardless of your own feelings of the system's "inferiority," plenty of adult gamers will also see those same titles and decide to purchase the system for themselves.
Considering how little we still know about the system, your condemnation seems just a bit overeager, as if you desperately want what you are saying to be true. I know some people are really anxious to condemn Nintendo at every chance - but coming off one of the most popular consoles in history, there aren't really a lot of precedents to justify your pessimism.
I probably won't get a Wii-U, mainly because I've found myself becoming less and less interesting in new games over the past few years (though I'm still interested enough to follow this site, as well as some XBox and Sony sites) - but you're fooling yourself if you don't think that it will interest a pretty good portion of the gaming market (remembering, once again, that the Wii has been an extraordinary success for Nintendo and that the name alone is likely to get them high sales for at least another generation, regardless of the new console's quality.)
Re: Feature: Nintendo - Gaming in Black and White
@AbuJaffer
While you're right that great gameplay is timeless, you had to go and completely undermine your argument with this line:
"You watch a 1980 movie and you'll probably feel like your eyes are bleeding."
I love games, but I love films (of all eras and countries) even more, and you just got me into my lecture mode:
So your eyes bleed while watching, say, "The Empire Strikes Back" or "Raging Bull" or "Kagemusha" or "The Shining?" Heck, what you said about the timelessness of games is at least as true about the other art forms like film (and literature and music) - while special effects may improve, the important things like storytelling and filmmaking (cinematography, acting, writing, directing) stay pretty constant (even if certain styles go in and out of fashion.) Besides some different clothing fashions and decor, a lot of films made in 1980 look and feel a lot like films made today (especially if they're not oriented around special effects.) (For the record: in the past week I've watched two films from the 1940s, one from the 1950s, and three from the 1960s, and not a one of them made my eyes bleed. In fact, all but one of them was as incredibly entertaining as just about anything made today.)
Sorry about the tangent: I realize this is a video game site. I just think that the idea that "old" is equivalent to "inferior" or "inapplicable to our modern times," no matter what it's being said about, is very misguided (of course, the notion that just because something is old it must also be good is also misguided, but I don't see that as often.) My favorite films range from being made in 1916 to 2010, while my two favorite systems are the Super NES and the PlayStation 2 (simply because more of my favorite games were on those two consoles than any others.) What matters is those central aspects: In video gaming, it's the game play, and there are good and bad examples of that in every era.
Re: Round Table: The Ambassador NES Games
Mandoble - Let's face it - even by today's standards at least half these games are still pretty fantastic, assuming one can get past the low quality graphics. This fairly young (I started gaming during the middle of the SNES era) gamer finds that the game play has held up remarkably well over the past 20-25 years (but I'm also the type of person who realizes that "old-fashioned" isn't always bad and that 90-year old silent films, 150-year old novels, and medieval-era music can be just as complex and high quality and entertaining as anything made today.)
In other words, several of these games have what counts - they're super fun to play, even if you weren't around for the NES era.