Topic: Was anyone else disappointed by E3 this year?

[Ian Sane]

I think whenever this topic comes up there's a lot of confusion with the term "hardcore gamer".  I don't know how everyone uses it but I use it to mean the old audience from back when all game machines were made for gamers, while "non-gamer" consists of the new audience that Nintendo is now targeting.  I use "hardcore gamer" because when you use "gamer" or "real gamer" it tends to upset non-game supporters.  Lots of "well I'm a gamer and I like this" and "are you saying such-and-such isn't a real game" and stuff like that.

"Their audience makeup is changing because they're not capable of luring the XBox crowd away with little more than an innovative controller and Nintendo first parties. To improve Wii sales over their abysmal last-gen performance, they have to look beyond their core Nintendo hardcore audience. They can either go for the 'other gamers' or the 'nongamers'. Guess which one they chose."

I don't like this idea that Nintendo HAD to go for non-gamers because they can't compete with Sony and MS for the old market.  That's come up since the Wii remote was first introduced and I think it's crap.  Nintendo never gave a real effort.  They f*cked up a lot and that's why they never got that market back.  Now if they did nearly everything right and still ended up last then I think it's fair to say that going with a different group was the only option.  But they pretty much showed up to a fight without properly training for it, lost, and then gave up.  Well of course you're going to fail when you don't learn from your mistakes and don't put in a real effort.  The Gamecube didn't fail because the universe is against Nintendo.  It's because Nintendo screwed up so much.

Now I'm not saying that going after non-gamers from a financial point of view wasn't a good idea anyway and gamer drift is a problem in Japan (though I don't think Nintendo has made an attempt to fix it, they've just traded one group for another).  But had they gone with a "normal" console and didn't screw up a bunch I don't think they would be in big trouble.  They're not incapable of competing.  Hell with Sony f*cking up so much Nintendo just had to not suck as much as them and they would have won the Japan market by default which would keep them competing with MS, regardless of whatever dumb self-defeating stuff they might do.

Now from a business perspective Nintendo's plan worked so that was a good plan I guess.  But don't tell me that it was the only way because it wasn't.  Now THIS Nintendo, yeah, they would have got creamed because they really haven't fixed their problems in regards to the old market.  Hell if you hear them Nintendo seems to think the Cube didn't sell well enough because of gamer drift, and not because of anything wrong Nintendo themselves did.  But if they learned from their mistakes and made a real effort I think they would have done fine.

The whole thing is kind of ironic because for years I would suggest things Nintendo should do to get back on top and tons of people accused me of wanting Nintendo to be too much like Sony and target the casuals.  I didn't want that but the idea then of actually increasing the market share was sometimes seen as compromising what Nintendo was.  Now they're on their way to being back on top by being even MORE casual then Sony ever was and by very obviously changing and any criticism of that on this board is now a minority opinion.  Those who didn't want Nintendo to sell out before now support them for doing so.

[Requiem]

Your whole argument stems from resentment from Nintendo not giving you want you want.

Deal with it.

[Pittbboi]

Wow...you didn't even read his post...like at all, huh? Great comeback...

[Nick DiMola]

I have to disagree with you again Ian, I don't really believe Nintendo was the reason the Cube didn't do well. Nintendo lost the Cube generation before it even started. Sony had the big name coming into the game, Microsoft also had a dominating household name through general computing and little old Nintendo had it's name marred by a negative stereotype (teh k!ddie) started by Sony fanboys during the N64 era. Nintendo had one opportunity to grab back market share, targeting a new market. This would cause a buzz in the media and get the casual gaming audience (Read: Not non-gamers) back onto Nintendo's system in a roundabout way. This is effectively what Nintendo has done as we can see today, through this course of action they have shed their k!ddy image(though some people still try and carry it) and they are on top of the game once again. I highly doubt Nintendo could've done anything to stop the train wreck that was the Gamecube even if they made all the so-called right moves.  

[Requiem]

No, I did.

The only reason he's even bringing up Nintendo's business plan, is because he doesn't like it or in his words "Nintendo never gave a real effort." He doesn't like how Nintendo automatically just switched it's focus because they "showed up to a fight without properly training for it, lost, and then gave up."

It's all stemming back to how Ian feels abandoned by Nintendo as a gamer who's been with them for years. He wants his old beloved Nintendo back (as do we all), but he needs to stop grasping at false illusions or pretenses of what Nintendo was and start appreciating Nintendo now, or jump ship, or never play games again.

In other words, dealing with it.

So try to be a bigger @sshole Pittboi.

[BigJim]

Quote
Dude that list hits up every single genre: from point and click, to live-action RTS. There has to be something more you are interested in.

P.S. Why did you buy a PS3? It has a worse line-up! I don't here you bitching about that!

Sounds like we have a hypocrite on our hands.

LAWL. I have a problem where I spend $500 on stuff I don't want.

Should I return it and buy my 1st of 4 360's? Because I totally want that headache. Thanks in advance.

Quote
Nintendo had it's name marred by a negative stereotype (teh k!ddie) started by Sony fanboys during the N64 era.

Actually, started by Sega from NES through SNES.  And somewhat rightfully so. But I didn't care because I WAS teh kidd!e back then.

[Pittbboi]

Quote
Sony had the big name coming into the game, Microsoft also had a dominating household name through general computing and little old Nintendo had it's name marred by a negative stereotype (teh k!ddie) started by Sony fanboys during the N64 era.

I have to disagree with that. Granted, Sony and Microsoft jabbing at Nintendo with "teh kidddie" didn't help, but they wouldn't have had anything to shoot at Nintendo if Nintendo didn't give them the ammunition. Nintendo is the one who decided to market a purple lunchbox that made tinker-toy noises when it booted up its mini-discs as their console, and featured Mario and Pikachu as their main mascots. Nintendo, at the beginning of the 'Cube's life, WANTED the Cube to be seen as appealing and approachable as a toy, and as noble as that thinking was it most assuredly backfired. If anything, Nintendo still had a fair chance of getting their market share back at the beginning of last gen. They only had one "failed" console (That was still a success) behind them, and most people still remembered the SNES and considered Nintendo to be gaming, with the Playstation name only recently having creeped up on them. Nintendo, had they made a few more good decisions could have definitely had a chance against Sony. It was MS, arguably, that started off in the worst position. They hadn't a chance in hell of winning over the key Japanese market (and still kinda don't), and the rest of the world was weary that MS was, as usualy, just entering another industry in an attempt to absorb and erode it like the money-hungry monopoly it is..


And Requiem: Whatever. To me it looked like Ian was simply responding to the idea that Nintendo COULDN'T have competed with Sony and MS with his belief (that a lot of people share) that they didn't put their best foot forward in their attempt. And, last time I checked, his was as valid an opinion as anyone else's here, so why he should be the one to "deal with it" doesn't seem fair.    

[Nick DiMola]

Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim

Quote
Nintendo had it's name marred by a negative stereotype (teh k!ddie) started by Sony fanboys during the N64 era.

Actually, started by Sega from NES through SNES.  And somewhat rightfully so. But I didn't care because I WAS teh kidd!e back then.

Fair enough, my point still stands though.

Pittbboi, I agree with you about the Purple Lunchbox stuff, but it's the games that Nintendo made that people attacked them on more so. Having Mario and Pikachu as mascots doesn't make them kidd!e, Sony, Sega and whoever else just spun it that way.

[Requiem]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi

Quote
Sony had the big name coming into the game, Microsoft also had a dominating household name through general computing and little old Nintendo had it's name marred by a negative stereotype (teh k!ddie) started by Sony fanboys during the N64 era.

And Requiem: Whatever. To me it looked like Ian was simply responding to the idea that Nintendo COULDN'T have competed with Sony and MS with his belief (that a lot of people share) that they didn't put their best foot forward in their attempt. And, last time I checked, his was as valid an opinion as anyone else's here, so why he should be the one to "deal with it" doesn't seem fair.

Because he's really the only one that hasn't. I don't know who long you been here, but complaining is Ian's fortay. Back when Nintendo wasn't doing so well, his opinion was validated and pretty much crucial to this boards well-being. However now, when Nintendo is doing great, he still continues to complain about past events.

It's all because he refuses to deal with what Nintendo has become.  

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
The whole thing is kind of ironic because for years I would suggest things Nintendo should do to get back on top and tons of people accused me of wanting Nintendo to be too much like Sony and target the casuals.  I didn't want that but the idea then of actually increasing the market share was sometimes seen as compromising what Nintendo was.  Now they're on their way to being back on top by being even MORE casual then Sony ever was and by very obviously changing and any criticism of that on this board is now a minority opinion.  Those who didn't want Nintendo to sell out before now support them for doing so.

I can't disagree with you more on this Ian. I've been argueing for Nintendo to abandon the high-tech wars and differentiate themselves since halfway through the Cube generation, whish is exactly what we're seeing now. As a Nintendo fan from practically birth (drawing Zelda maps for Mom when I was a wee kid... was I 3?) this is EXACTLY what I want Nintendo to be. I don't know how much cred you need to have to be the type of gamer you describe Ian, but I'm someone with an NES and SNES in my history who LOVES the fact that Nintendo is living up to its potential in innovation, in creating new experiences, and in not getting caught up in comparing e-peen lengths with Sony and MS.

Do I want hardcore games? YOU BET! I've been pining away for a GOOD Secret of Mana sequel for ages. I'm an RPG fan... who hasn't played an RPG he's liked in years. I want RTS' and Simulations and secretly pine away for Peter Molyneux's Fable (maybe I'll buy it on PC...). I want adventure games and arcade space flight sims... and I have NOTHING bad to say about the PS3 lineup (except the games that got delayed out of it). And there's a small, nostalgic part of me that asks "Why can't all golf games be more like Links?" That part also wants to design it's own Free Lancer universe.

... but that's only part of me. Above and beyond that I want to be entertained with new experiences. I DON'T believe in static gaming, or static interfaces. I miss the level of interaction that computer joysticks gave me back in the day when I could afford them. I DON'T believe that merely because things become prettier, they're all of a sudden new and exciting. Freelancer is the same thing Privateer... with a snazzy new mouse-flying system, but essentialy THE SAME. I accept the wonders of graphical excellence, but my relationship to the game itself remains paramount, not superficialities.

The Wii speaks straight to that within me. Now there are more games that can expand the experiences that the Superscope hinted to me back with the SNES, there are games that will inspire the same simple mindlink that I got when playing (Hot?) Coffee Break in Mario Paint, there are games that FINALLY don't use the dual analog control set-up that I HATEHATEHATE in FPS games that I dearly want to play (but not competitively). And... there's the possibility of cheaper games (I don't care how graphical you are, I'd prefer not to pay $60 if I can) and indie games (Blast Fighters? de Blob?) and for games from more zany, more unpredicatble small developers (Space Station Tycoon). Maybe we'll even get some sandbox experiences from Rockstar, a company I first latched onto after getting a taste of their world design in Body Harvest 64.

And with the Wii, the future is wide-open. The chiefest attraction is that it ISN'T a Gamecube 2, a PS-whatever, an XBox-yeah. I've always played Nintendo not only because they made the best games of their kind, but because their games were always different and unique in some fundamental way. This is why Zelda games are so hard to genre-fy, they're not simple action-adventure games. They're ZELDA games. Finally, after the disappointment of the Gamecube sequel era (Pikmin not withstanding) I can see that old uniqueness and individuality returning with a vengeance. And this time, not only from Nintendo, but possibly from an entire industry.

You think they're dumbing down games Ian? You think that Nintendo has gone more mainstream than Madden? I never hated mainstream (except when I was a flaming fanboi... but those are not times to be proud of). I enjoyed Sims. I enjoyed Halo... much like I ate up Perfect Dark's co-op mode, I beat Halo 2 in a night with my younger brother. I enjoyed Fatty Bear's Birthday surprise (a surprisingly good adventure game from my childhood!). Heck, believe it or not, I'm perfectly willing to PLAY Madden when I have some company, because cooperation is fun, and I actually find football to be a pretty neat sport! ... and for the first 6 months of my original Playstation's life, I played an NBA basketball game with my dad every night (and yelled about how the computer cheated on hard mode).

And you know what? I hear that Hannah Montana: Music Jam is turning out BETTER than Ubisoft's Jam Sessions!!!

So you can go on hating what is essentially a gamer drift AWAY FROM YOU, but I can't help but see the possibility that Nintendo might have unlocked a hidden treasure trove where gaming, in all its senses, explodes all of a sudden in every direction, exploding with newness and uniqueness and experimentation, exploding with radically new experiences that I've always searched for in the past, whether it be through Syndicate, or Mario Paint. This isn't a Nintendo that's betraying me. This is a Nintendo that's fulfilling me.

[Pittbboi]

Quote
Having Mario and Pikachu as mascots doesn't make them kidd!e, Sony, Sega and whoever else just spun it that way.

And I agree with that. I actually loved the Nintendo from the Gamecube years...well, the first 2 years or so of the Gamecube years. You know, the "F*ck DVDs! The Gamecube a no-nonsense machine for games." But they should have been more mindful of their overall image and how it would be perceived . That, more than anything the competition said, in my opinion, hurt the 'Cube.

[Pittbboi]

Quote
So you can go on hating what is essentially a gamer drift AWAY FROM YOU, but I can't help but see the possibility that Nintendo might have unlocked a hidden treasure trove where gaming, in all its senses, explodes all of a sudden in every direction, exploding with newness and uniqueness and experimentation, exploding with radically new experiences that I've always searched for in the past, whether it be through Syndicate, or Mario Paint. This isn't a Nintendo that's betraying me. This is a Nintendo that's fulfilling me.

This is a very inspiring scene you've painted here, Kairon. But I really don't think a wiimote alone is going to bring about a gaming revolution like we were led to believe. At least, it hasn't yet.  In this attempt to explode in all directions, in all it's senses, Nintendo seems to be neglecting one important aspect of gaming--graphics (YES, it's important, or Miyamoto wouldn't be going out of his way to make Galaxy look as beautiful as it does), and a budding aspect of gaming--online. I think it's false to consider Nintendo on some higher plateau when it comes to the game industry. They're doing what everyone else is doing, trying to make money and doing what they can to make as much of it as they can. They're just doing this by reaching out to a different market. Nintendo's not some Mahatma Ghandi of gaming...

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
This is a very inspiring scene you've painted here, Kairon. But I really don't think a wiimote alone is going to bring about a gaming revolution like we were led to believe. At least, it hasn't yet.  In this attempt to explode in all directions, in all it's senses, Nintendo seems to be neglecting one important aspect of gaming--graphics (YES, it's important, or Miyamoto wouldn't be going out of his way to make Galaxy look as beautiful as it does), and a budding aspect of gaming--online. I think it's false to consider Nintendo on some higher plateau when it comes to the game industry. They're doing what everyone else is doing, trying to make money and doing what they can to make as much of it as they can. They're just doing this by reaching out to a different market. Nintendo's not some Mahatma Ghandi of gaming...

That's why you don't want a one console future. Nintendo obviously can't, or won't, do everything. This is why I stress third parties, why I appreciate PC and PS3 and XBox 360 efforts, and why I have absolutely no problem wif you want to buy a PS3. Actually, I'm sorta hyped for Little Big Planet... and I've been trying to persuade Golden Phoenix to get it despite her reservations!

I'm not saying that Nintendo is the ONE solution. I'm saying they're PART OF IT.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi

Quote
Having Mario and Pikachu as mascots doesn't make them kidd!e, Sony, Sega and whoever else just spun it that way.

And I agree with that. I actually loved the Nintendo from the Gamecube years...well, the first 2 years or so of the Gamecube years. You know, the "F*ck DVDs! The Gamecube a no-nonsense machine for games." But they should have been more mindful of their overall image and how it would be perceived . That, more than anything the competition said, in my opinion, hurt the 'Cube.

Well, the N64 had 35 million shipped worldwide. The GC had 20 million. The Gamecube probably lost those 15 million customers for ALL the reasons we've stated (though I'm inclined to believe that a failure to differentiate successfully was the biggest, but still, many rerasons), and fixing any one reason probably wouldn't have made that much of a difference.

[Ian Sane]

"Pittbboi, I agree with you about the Purple Lunchbox stuff, but it's the games that Nintendo made that people attacked them on more so. Having Mario and Pikachu as mascots doesn't make them kidd!e, Sony, Sega and whoever else just spun it that way."

If you're in school and everyone picks on you and calls you a sissy that's unfair.  But then if you go to school wearing a pink shirt the next day you're an idiot.  Nintendo is in full control of how they react to criticism or smear campaigns against them.  When you're accused of being for kids you don't make your consoles look like a purple toy and turn one your few popular franchises that isn't accused of being for kids into a cartoon.  Whey you're accused of being behind the times you don't not support online gaming (after lying about it) when everyone else is.  When you're accused of having gaps in the release schedule you try to avoid having your console start out with a big drought.  When you're accused of weak third party support you don't have the E3 debut of your console feature only ONE third party game.  The Gamecube flopped because everyone had a negative image of Nintendo and the Gamecube's first impression played into that image near perfectly.  Later on Nintendo went sequel crazy which fit into that negative "Nintendo rehashes" image.  It was really frustrating to watch.

So to say they couldn't do anything is like if a sports team relocates.  The assumption might be that the area the team moved from wasn't a good market for that sport.  But what if the team sucked and had a losing season every year it was in that area?  You can't really prove then that the area isn't interested in the sport.  Maybe they would be if the team didn't suck.  In the NHL Colorado is considered a good hockey market.  They had a team relocate in the past but the Avalanche have been very popular because the Rockies sucked and the Avs have won two Stanley Cups.  Meanwhile Nashville has one of the best teams in the league and the franchise is going to move because they aren't making money.  In that case it's fair to say Nashville isn't a good hockey market because they won't even support a good team.

"I don't know how much cred you need to have to be the type of gamer you describe Ian, but I'm someone with an NES and SNES in my history who LOVES the fact that Nintendo is living up to its potential in innovation, in creating new experiences, and in not getting caught up in comparing e-peen lengths with Sony and MS."

I don't want Nintendo to be like Sony or MS.  I want them to innovate and create new experiences.  That's why I'm concerned about the innovation and new ideas going towards non-games but not so much gamer games.  I want new experiences but Nintendo seems to want to save those for my grandma and give me the same stuff as before.  I think you and I in theory want the same thing from Nintendo but don't see the Wii in the same light.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"I don't know how much cred you need to have to be the type of gamer you describe Ian, but I'm someone with an NES and SNES in my history who LOVES the fact that Nintendo is living up to its potential in innovation, in creating new experiences, and in not getting caught up in comparing e-peen lengths with Sony and MS."

I don't want Nintendo to be like Sony or MS.  I want them to innovate and create new experiences.  That's why I'm concerned about the innovation and new ideas going towards non-games but not so much gamer games.  I want new experiences but Nintendo seems to want to save those for my grandma and give me the same stuff as before.  I think you and I in theory want the same thing from Nintendo but don't see the Wii in the same light.

I do think we want the same thing in theory Iansane, except that I don't draw as many lines as you do. Just because seniors are playing Wii Sports doesn't make me enjoy it less. If I had fun with it, then the game was made for ME. Just because the Japanese got a version of Ouendan with a different songlist than we got here, it doesn't mean that I can't play it. Those Japanese songs I can't understand are MINE. Just because Cubivore was an N64 port and never came out in the states on the GC until years after, it doesn't mean I turn my nose up to it. I was a PIGGY, goldarnit. I was PIGGY-CAI.

...PIGGY-FRICKIN'-CAI.

[UERD]

Guess how many copies of SSBM Nintendo sold? 6 million. Guess how many copies of Halo (1) sold on the XBox? 8 million. How the hell was Nintendo supposed to compete with Sony and Microsoft last generation on *their* terms? The N64 was definitely not less 'cool' or more 'k!ddy' than the PS1 (in fact, the PS1 looked positively dowdy compared to the N64). Never mind that Nintendo lost market share that generation and came in second (out of two consoles). What were they supposed to do?

Nintendo's franchises have to struggle to be considered 'hardcore'. There's nothing on any other console like Smash Bros, Metroid, or Zelda...and perception-wise, that's not a good thing. Smash Bros is seen as the 'black sheep' of fighting games, Metroid for FPS games, and Zelda for RPGs...even though none of those games belong in the aforementioned categories. 'Hardcore' gamers don't give a wooden nickel when Nintendo 'innovates', with a couple of exceptions.

Nintendo's last-gen lineup was actually pretty excellent. There were several very good third party games (although the overall quantity was not large) and a whole lot more very good first party games. Would they have done better if they had heavily emphasized graphics and gone for the FPS/Grand Theft Auto market? They might have, but there would be no guarantee that they would have been able to recapture the big franchises (like Final Fantasy). Actually, it's probably a good thing they didn't do that from a business standpoint: Halo would have had a much more adverse effect on Nintendo sales if it had been directly competing with Nintendo games.

So, no, Nintendo could NOT have maintained a viable business without reaching outwards. It's not like people were going to see Nintendo come out with a black-on-black chromed console with a 6 Ghz chip that cost $500 and been 'wow, no more k!ddy!'. Or to put it another way, how much better would the PS3 be doing if Nintendo's franchises were somehow magically transplanted to it?

Quote
This is a very inspiring scene you've painted here, Kairon. But I really don't think a wiimote alone is going to bring about a gaming revolution like we were led to believe. At least, it hasn't yet. In this attempt to explode in all directions, in all it's senses, Nintendo seems to be neglecting one important aspect of gaming--graphics (YES, it's important, or Miyamoto wouldn't be going out of his way to make Galaxy look as beautiful as it does), and a budding aspect of gaming--online.

Ya, graphics are important. How many people have a HDTV and HDMI inputs? How many people really care that much about the difference between last generation and this generation? The biggest improvements were going from the SNES era to the N64 era, and from the N64 era to the Cube era. Any improvements in the future are going to be more and more incremental.

Unfortunately, I think I have to agree with you when you say they've neglected online .

[GoldenPhoenix]

I think motion controls will be the future, at least in some form, and personally I think Nintendo will be the pioneer behind it as the technology improves for it. BTW Uerd, excellent post, Nintendo wasn't getting anywhere by focusing on the same market, they had to change, as with any great company they adapted.

[IceCold]

Well, here's a list of games I'm seriously considering buying before the end of 2007 for the Wii..

Super Mario Galaxy (given) - November 12
Super Smash Bros Brawl (given) - December 3
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (given) - August 20
Mario Strikers: Charged - July 30
BWii - October 29
Trauma Centre (if it comes out)
Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles - October
NiGHTS - November 13

Less likely, probably rent:

Dewy's Adventure - September 4
Soul Calibur Legends - November 6
Zack and Wiki - Fall 2007
Ghost Squad - November 6
Fifa 08
Smackdown vs Raw 2008

Add in games that I'm not interested in but I can see why many others would be (Mario&Sonic Olympics, DDR: Hottest Party, Godzilla, Dragon Quest: Swords if it comes out, Guitar Hero III, Dragon Ball Z, Raving Rabbids 2) and that is hands down the strongest 2007 lineup from all three consoles.

Personally, even right now in the middle of the supposed drought I'm behind in games, and with DS holiday games to consider (Phantom Hourglass!) there really isn't any way I won't be busy until deep into 2008, even if there are no new games for that year.

All I can say is, Nintendo better have millions upon millions upon millions of consoles ready for the holidays.

[that Baby guy]

Well, Nintendo is nearing the point where the Wii is guaranteed to sell out for the rest of the year.  By September, people will start buying them to be Christmas presents, I imagine, so if they can reach then with sell-outs, they'll go on to at least Jan 2008 sold out.

If interest snowballs some more, they'll be able to sell out at least until March in that case, too.  This is certainly very interesting, at least to me.  Nintendo very well could go without reaching market saturation for another year or so.

[UERD]

Well, I hope they ramp up production, because people are eventually going to go for substitutes or lose interest. Your step-uncle's coworker's boss isn't going to wait outside a Best Buy for three weeks just to get his hands on a Wii.

[Pittbboi]

Quote
Guess how many copies of SSBM Nintendo sold? 6 million. Guess how many copies of Halo (1) sold on the XBox? 8 million. How the hell was Nintendo supposed to compete with Sony and Microsoft last generation on *their* terms? The N64 was definitely not less 'cool' or more 'k!ddy' than the PS1 (in fact, the PS1 looked positively dowdy compared to the N64). Never mind that Nintendo lost market share that generation and came in second (out of two consoles). What were they supposed to do?

Halo 1 was a popular NEW franchise that was hyped to the high heavens and to this day is considered THE game to revolutionize console FPS games since Goldeneye. SSBM is general fanservice wank. GREAT game, but definitely not marketed the same way the first Halo was and more specifically catering to people who had always been Nintendo fans. Not to mention the fact that, even though it didn't sell Halo 1 numbers, it was STILL a big selling game.

Gamers outside of Nintendo fans don't give a crap about Mario, Metroid, and Zelda because Nintendo had an image of being a rehash machine and they played into it. They milked the same franchises over and over with very LITTLE innovation (the BIG 3 haven't seen any sort of significant change until, well, this year) and that came back around to bite them in the ass. Nintendo is a quality developer, they make EXCELLENT games, but Nintendo in those days had a negative image and they did NOTHING to improve it but EVERYTHING to make it worse. Based alone on the quality of their products I can't say that Nintendo made an honest-to-god attempt at recapturing the market because they've ALWAYS had to potential to be the leader. But they kept doing what they had been doing with the N64 and then looked stupid and tried to blame the industry itself when it didn't work.

Can you imagine what kind of splash Nintendo would make if they announced a new gamer IP that was made with the same resources that Mario, Zelda and Metroid get? Can you imagine, for example, how A-freaking-Mazing a game like Project HAMMER could have been if it had been in the hands of EAD instead of Nintendo's afterthought team NST? That alone would have owned this year's E3, hands down.  

[Ian Sane]

"the BIG 3 haven't seen any sort of significant change until, well, this year"

For the most part I agree with you but I'll give Metroid full credit for doing something new last gen.  Metroid Prime was one of the innovative titles of last generation.  But otherwise you're right.  People think Nintendo just makes sequels and Nintendo's response to that was with sequels.  Who's dumb idea was "Who are you?"  That marketing campaign just screamed "we rehash everything".

New IPs or completely new takes on existing IPs (like Super Mario 64 or Final Fantasy VII) are always the big system sellers.  Why buy a Cube to play what was on the N64.  Nintendo was actually correct in feeling that innovation was important for the Wii.  The problem is they learned that lesson in a weird roundabout way that avoiding putting fault on themselves and they aren't extending that philosophy everywhere.  They see innovation as important to attract non-gamers but don't really see how important it is for gamers as well.

[Nick DiMola]

You guys are insane(no pun intended Ian), if people hated rehashes why the hell does Madden sell 10 zillion copies every year? That's worse than just reusing characters, that's the same damn game every year. The media jumps all over Nintendo for "rehashes" but I'm convinced no one else really cares. Bottom line is, people just thought all Nintendo stuff was g@y* and for little kids so they didn't bother with it.

Just to clear up another point, I'm GLAD Nintendo doesn't mess with the formula too much for any of their big name games, they are good just the way they are. As I've said before, I don't think Nintendo has ever done wrong by it's fans, and if you look back at the old generations, Nintendo games are consistently the best games of those generations, this is no coincidence. Instead of running with the crowd Nintendo has always done it's own thing. I respect that and I'm glad they pursued their own unique path.

* - not trying to use the word to offend anyone, just reiterating what so many people have said

[GoldenPhoenix]

We all know the Halo series has had significant upgrades from game to game. I'm sorry but using the same formula is not the problem, it is the image the series has that matters most. This is one reason why Nintendo has been brilliant with Wii, it is because they have finally realized this and must create something new to get back gamers in addition to creating new ones.