Gaming Forums => Nintendo Gaming => Topic started by: Round Eye on June 18, 2003, 09:42:56 AM
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Round Eye on June 18, 2003, 09:42:56 AM
Does Nintendo really need to be number 1? It seems to me that they are doing OK as it is right now. They are still turning a profit at number 3, so if they can pull out a second place in the next round Nintendo should be fine. Ganted they have had the success of the portable business unit to back them up, but they are a smart conservative company that knows the value of a profit. That is the reason they have not jumped into the online arena yet, *sigh*.
I think they will be alright with a stronger showing in the next generation. As they said before the graphics of the next consoles will be about equal and it will then come down to the games. Nintendo has the definite advantage there. Also, Nintendo has been working very hard to establish relationships with some quality third party support.
As the Xbox and PS move into the complete home etertainment area, Gamecube might actually have less competition in the game console arena.
Also, the video game industry is making more money than the movie industry, so a company might not need a big share of the market to still be profitable.
Nintendo still cannot rest on its laurels. In the next generation they might not have as much of the portable pie as they are used to, with sony releasing the PSP. So they are going to have to take a bigger share of the console market. They need at a least a strong second to be comfortable.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: thecubedcanuck on June 18, 2003, 10:08:32 AM
Quote As they said before the graphics of the next consoles will be about equal and it will then come down to the games. Nintendo has the definite advantage there.
If that were the case then nintendo would still be No 1 as the N64 was far supior graphically to the PS1 and had all the Nintendo games.
Everyone here thinks Nintendo games are so so much better because they are huge Nintendo fans, this doesnt mean everyone sees them in the same light. I personally dont like many of Nintendo's recent offerings, and I have always been a huge Nintendo fan prior to this generation.
Quote As the Xbox and PS move into the complete home etertainment area, Gamecube might actually have less competition in the game console arena
As long as the new sony machine plays games it will always be competetion. To think otherwise is very niave.
Quote Nintendo still cannot rest on its laurels. In the next generation they might not have as much of the portable pie as they are used to, with sony releasing the PSP. So they are going to have to take a bigger share of the console market. They need at a least a strong second to be comfortable.
BINGO. Can they do it? I really wouldnt bet on it.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Round Eye on June 18, 2003, 10:30:18 AM
Opps, posted the same topic twice. Sorry, I did'nt think this one went through. Man I retyped it and everything.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 18, 2003, 10:59:26 AM
thecubedcanuck does not like what Nintendo has given us recently, whereas I like it a great deal (if only I had more money. . .). I think that there are two main reason that Nintendo is behind: they released their console too late (most people will get the next gen console that comes out first, no matter how crappy it might be. I'm not saying PS2 is crappy, but that's why it has such a large user base) and something has given the world the idea that their system is not the "cool" system. And maybe it's not. In my opninion it's by far the best, and I really think that a lot of other people would buy the cube if they weren't so misguided and brainwashed. The fact that Nintendo makes really good games doesn't seem to matter anymore.
I better clear this up; I'm not saying you're a brainwashed idiot, cubed; I have a grudging respect for you, actually. I was just going to talk about matters of opinion and stuff, but changed my mind. Sorry if it might sound like that.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Round Eye on June 18, 2003, 11:08:12 AM
Cubed Canuck-
The reason the N64 did poorly was Nintendo's choice to use cartridges instead of CD's. The cartridge format was much more expensive for developers. Also it was more risky because of the higher costs associated with it.
The reason why I said that Nintendo could have less competetion in the game console is that Sonys machine will continue to be more expensive. While, Nintendo can produce a higher powered gaming system for less.
Quote Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck<br BINGO. Can they do it? I really wouldnt bet on it.
Someone did'nt eat their corn pops this morning.
Title: RE: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: AgentSeven on June 18, 2003, 12:10:50 PM
I'm sorry, these "Nintendo's Doomed" and the "can Nintendo survive" threads are getting old, seriously old, and boring.
Canuck, and others like him seem to forget the most important FACT. Although $ony and M$ make more money as corporations, Nintendo makes the most money on games and systems, period. They also have the lowest cost of goods . Where M$ still loses over $100 per system and the Ps2 only recently started to "break even" on the hardware front.
I also think that Nintendo's recent offerings are some of their best ever! This isn't the 1980's anymore, people need to stop living in the past.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Ian Sane on June 18, 2003, 12:35:17 PM
Nintendo doesn't need to be #1 to survive. However being in a distant third isn't going to keep them alive forever. You can talk about how Nintendo makes more money and whatnot but there's still a big problem that Nintendo has right now that they've never had before: the sales of their big titles are being limited by the amount of consoles sold. The N64 wasn't a smash hit but at least it had a pretty decent sized userbase. When a big title was released it sold huge and easily beat the million copies mark. Now major Nintendo releases are just breaking 1 million if they're lucky. Games like Zelda, Mario, and Metroid are still selling very well within the Gamecube userbase but the userbase is too small. As a result minor titles on the PS2 are outselling Zelda because their just aren't enough people with Cubes to give Nintendo games huge sales. That's not a good situation to be in. Plus at the rate Nintendo is going they are becoming less and less popular and that's eventually going to catch up to them. You can't remain in last place too long or people are going to stop buying your console. Nobody wants their console of choice to be in last place all the time.
While Nintendo doesn't need to be number 1 they should at least try to be number 1. This laidback approach they've been using just isn't aggressive enough. The ideal situation is for them to be a strong number 2. Kind of like the Genesis to Sony's SNES (boy does THAT analogy sound weird). That way they still get most of the third party games and they can have a good sized userbase. That can only improve game sales.
Seriously if Nintendo continues a "we're in last place and we don't care" approach how many people are going to continue buying their console? Like it or not how popular a console is plays a lot how well it sells. People just don't like having the "loser" console. Plus being in last results in less games and less availability of games. How many of us have complained that we can't find such-and-such a Gamecube game for rent (or sometimes even for sale)?
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Round Eye on June 18, 2003, 12:46:01 PM
I think Nintendo will be fine.
I was just trying to make the point that a lot of people are always talking about how can Nintendo regain the number one spot again? What I am trying to say is that Nintendo does'nt really need to be number one to be succesfull.
I think a lot of doom and gloom thinking stems from Segas exit from the console industry. People tend to think if you are'nt the number one seller you will soon be out the door. Well Nintendo is not Sega. Sega never had a dominating console in its history. Nintendo had two. Sega never had any of the handhold market. Nintendo owns it.
And now I think that there is a lot more to go around at this point in the gaming industy. If you can pass the movies, you know you are getting into some serious coin.
Nintendo has a large extremely loyal fan base, which they cater too.
Most important of all, like you pointed out Agent7, is that Nintendo is making money. I think its pretty hard to go bankrupt when you are profitable.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Ian Sane on June 18, 2003, 01:21:57 PM
"Most important of all, like you pointed out Agent7, is that Nintendo is making money. I think its pretty hard to go bankrupt when you are profitable."
Well yeah Nintendo is profitable now but the issue is whether they will stay profitable if they continue doing everything the way they're doing it now. My arguement is that Nintendo's current approach is hurting their image and eventually people are going to stop buying their consoles if Nintendo becomes known as the big loser of every console generation.
Think about it this way. Imagine an average gamer who likes Nintendo games and has always bought a Nintendo system but isn't a diehard Nintendo fan that will follow them everywhere.
In 1985 they buy an NES and after a few years they think "wow this is great. Every game I ever want is on this system".
In 1991 they buy a SNES and after a few years they think "well there are some really great games on the Genesis but this system still has a lot of great exclusive third party games and fantastic first party titles. All my genres are covered and I get most of the games I want so I'm pretty happy with my purchase."
In 1996 they buy an N64 and after a few years they think "hmmmm, a lot of games I'm really interested in are going to the Playstation. The first party games are still really good though and are much better than anything on competing systems. Sadly there aren't many RPGs. Although it's not the number one console it's still pretty easy to find games in stores and I can rent practically any title I want. It's a disappointment but Nintendo is switching to discs so that'll bring back third parties."
In 2001 they buy a Gamecube and after a few years they think "well I'm getting more third party games but a lot of them are poorly translated PS2 ports that are full of bugs. A lot of multiplatform titles are also going to PS2 and Xbox but not the Gamecube (particularly mature titles). The first party games are still great and there are some really good third party games too. Unfortunately there still aren't many RPGs and some publishers have been cancelling games due to poor sales. Some of the stores in my area aren't getting their Cube games in right away or they only get a few copies. None of the rental stores in my area have decent Cube rental sections. Plus I want to play online games and there's only one online game on the console with no more in sight."
Now is that person going to for sure buy the next Nintendo console in 2006? Maybe, but if things slowly get worse and worse with each console generation are they going to get a Nintendo console in 2011 or 2016? If Nintendo doesn't try to be number one (and thus improve things for it's fans) people are going to be less interested in their consoles which means less sales which means less profit.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: mouse_clicker on June 18, 2003, 02:46:09 PM
I think this is the most concise answer once can offer to such a question as does Nintendo need to be #1: no, they definitely don't need to be #1 as they've proven time and time again that profitability can come no matter what your ranking, but if Nintendo WERE to achieve the prestigious #1 spot, the benefits would be boundless and said profit would skyrocket. Okay, maybe that wasn't all that concise (although it wasn't exactly an essay), but what I basically mean is Nintendo's fine at #2 but would be better at #1.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Oogle on June 18, 2003, 04:35:04 PM
<sarcasm>Well, let's see... Honda is #2 in Japan. They'll go bankrupt soon. Hmm, and ABC is #3 in the ratings. They're gonna go bankrupt too. Disneyland or Busch Gardens? Hmm, tough call. One thing's for sure: One of them is gonna go bankrupt.</sarcasm>
Title: RE: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 18, 2003, 04:52:35 PM
Nintendo doesn't need to be #1, since we're all used to them where they are since the SNES days. I like how Iwata-san said that being in 3rd place is making them more determined to make great games. He says that they WILL be #1, and I don't doubt that, but I do agree that it's gonna be a long road. The thing with Sony and MS is that they are slowly making the average gamer think that all those extra features are what's needed in gaming consoles, and so NIntendo will be crap to them. I know that technology is making everything smaller, and we can fit all these things in, but seriously. It's not needed.
I read somwhere that the PS2 was/is sold, and has sold best as a DVD player. I want to see Sony and MS make games-only machines for the next generation, and see how they REALLY perform compared to Nintendo. Internet can be included. PSX was cool cause you could listen to your CDs in it. No more of that. Games only, and the best anti-pirate software you have.
Let the games begin, I say.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Nintendo Gamecube on June 18, 2003, 05:01:19 PM
Nintendo makes the most profit out of the three companies, so it's surviving the best. 'Nuff said.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: joeamis on June 18, 2003, 10:28:02 PM
Quote Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck
Quote As they said before the graphics of the next consoles will be about equal and it will then come down to the games. Nintendo has the definite advantage there.
If that were the case then nintendo would still be No 1 as the N64 was far supior graphically to the PS1 and had all the Nintendo games.
Although the N64 was graphically superior, the cartridge not only costed more for developers but it also resulted in much less textures, giving the PSone the advantage. It also resulted in worse sound and music (not saying N64 had bad music, just saying PSone's "sound quality" was better, and they had games like Gran Turismo and Tony Hawk that contained music with vocals from popular bands, something not possible on cartridge unless they upped the size of the cartridge and in turn lost more money from the cartridge format)
I agree that the next generation of consoles will probably not come down to comparing graphics as much as the consoles do now. This gives Nintendo an edge. However, I see the "PS3" and "XBOX2" will probably have tons of extras that the next "GC" might not have, for instance a DVD burner (don't say no they won't do that because of piracy because Sony has already finalized the specs and features on its new PSX and it has a dvd burner) So all these extra features will give M$ and Sony the edge... interesting to note that it's basically what's already going down now, with M$/Sony having features Nintendo does not.
I can't wait to see the next generation battle in store for us all, it will probably be the best yet.
Title: RE: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Ocarina Blue on June 19, 2003, 01:09:41 AM
I think alot of people here are just looking for something to blame for Nintendo's fall. Like Sega, Nintendo fell pray to a few bad descisions, it was Nintendo that scrapped the deal with Sony, and it was Sony who built the Playstation. It was Nintendo's fault that they fell, and it will be them that climb on top of the rubble again.
Title: RE: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 19, 2003, 01:21:06 AM
Oh well.
I just want Sony and Microsoft to NOT have any extra features, and create GAMES-ONLY machines, so that we can see for REAL which console can really survive. NO FEATURES, not even MUSIC CD playback. JUST games, and internet gaming (no surfing the net) If they lose money cause they're not putting in these features, or people start openly complaining about it, then tough. They should't have relied on them in the first place.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: thecubedcanuck on June 19, 2003, 01:55:48 AM
Quote just want Sony and Microsoft to NOT have any extra features, and create GAMES-ONLY machines, so that we can see for REAL which console can really survive.
Please dont tell me you think the PS2 has done so well because of "EXTRA" features?
Fooling ourselves a bit arent we?
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Mario on June 19, 2003, 01:56:53 AM
Why else has it done well?
Title: RE: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 19, 2003, 02:57:03 AM
That's the main reason why it's done well. Back in the initial PlayStation days, did you ever come accross a person who DIDN'T say how cool it was that PSX could play CDs? Retailers advertised this in their catalogues, and even said the coolest feature on the PSX was the fact that it could play CDs. When PS2 was launched, the sales-pitch around the crap launch titles was that you could play DVDs. "Oh, don't worry about waiting for Dolphin. PS2 can play DVDs too." And NOW that it has lots of games, they add that into the sale. "Oh, don't buy a Gamecube. PS2 can play DVDs, and it has lots of games. That's much cooler." I've heard that too many times.
And if you think that it went well not because of theDVD playback, why don't YOU suggest to Sony (and MS) to ditch all the features and make a games-only machine? They might have lots of games for the games-only PS3, but the console sales will be much lower than the DVD-playback PS2.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: thecubedcanuck on June 19, 2003, 04:04:23 AM
oh man, you guys have got to be kidding.
The PS2 as did the PS sells because of the games, is has the largest selection of games in every genre, simple as that.
Can we please try and be a bit more objective.
Title: RE: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 19, 2003, 04:06:30 AM
i know that, but the hype surrounding it was all about the playback features.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on June 19, 2003, 04:42:39 AM
Quote Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck Please dont tell me you think the PS2 has done so well because of "EXTRA" features?
Fooling ourselves a bit arent we?
When the PS2 was released in Japan, it was the cheapest DVD player at the time. Don't tell us the "extra" features sold it. It did.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: egman on June 19, 2003, 04:46:35 AM
I agree with TheCubedCanuck. Extras played a small roll--the fact the PS2 had a constant steam of must have games is what proprelled it, with GTA as the exclusive to solidify Sony's place.
This has been Nintendo's biggest weakness this gen. They have a stack of amazing games, but none of them generated that must have excitement that Mario 64 and Zelda: OoT had in the last generation. You can chalk that up to a combination of embarrasing promotions and the reality that these games just do not have the same appeal anymore. Nintendo doesn't have the kids market anymore, Sony has, so I think the best thing for them to do now is what they have begun doing in the last few months. They need to offer a broad range of titles rather than putting the burden on their usual suspects and assuming that the kids market is in their hands. I love their design philosophy, but truth be told this is no longer a family market.
A good illustration of this point is the Henry Hill thread that was posted awhile ago. While I feel Nintendo should be proud that can still design games that can appeal to wide range of people, even a harden criminal--the sad fact is Henry Hill does not buy games. His son buys games, and he clearily stated his feelings on how uncool Animal Crossing is. That one interview most clearly shows that battle Nintendo is fighting.
Nintendo doesn't have to be in first place, they have shown that in two generations. But I don't think it's good to be in 3rd either. I have been looking at 3rd party sales, and I have been confused as to how some titles still sell low even with a userbase that is supposedly bigger than Microsoft's. Part of it is fans that prefer Nintendo's offerings, but another than I don't see too many of us talking about that needs to be factored in is number of people that have the GC as a secondary system. I'm willing to be that a good part of that "40% are over 18" number that Nintendo presented at E3 are multi console users. Combine this with the fact that multi-platfrom titles usually get a weak treatment on the Cube, then you have the beginning of the blame cycle. I still think 3rd parties can sell on the Nintendo consoles, but you can only apply a multi-platform strategy in the rarest occasions. The problem is, people are buying Cubes for exclusives games while the rest of industry is moving towards an EA model for software sales. Exclusive titles are becoming an endangered species.
Nintendo can't stay in 3rd place if this is where the industry is headed. I think they realize this and now have a lot things going on behind the scenes for their next gen offering to insure that they are firmly in the 2nd spot rather than playing a who's who game with MS again. Iwata has recently made statments about finding new franchises, so I think they realize that Mario and Zelda will no longer carry them.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: thecubedcanuck on June 19, 2003, 06:57:51 AM
great post egman, I agree 100%
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Round Eye on June 19, 2003, 07:04:22 AM
The one thing that I really like about what Nintendo is doing right now is how they refuse
to follow. They have clearly set their focus on quality gaming. And continue to innovate
with creative titles like Pikimin and AC. Nintendo could have started running around and
tried to copy games and strategies that have worked for other companies *cough* GTA
*cough* DVD. Staying true to their roots and releasing a pure game machine keeps me
happy. Maybe others can't see the benefits such as price/performance the fact that they
showed some engineering ability to fit it all into a tiny package. Unlike Microsoft who
decided to just throw a desktop computer into the system, hence the size. I think some
of the current fads will fade, and we will see a return or people to quality innovative titles
like the ones Nintendo has consistintly produced.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Ian Sane on June 19, 2003, 07:23:38 AM
I don't think that extra features like DVD playback sold the PS2 on their own, but I do think that it's the sort of thing that makes someone choose a PS2 over a Gamecube. If you're just an average gamer who doesn't know a good game from a bad one and one console can play DVDs and the other can't which one are you going to pick? The DVD player is a key feature that the Gamecube doesn't have and therefore in the eyes of the average consumer the PS2 and XBox look superior. Little things like that are what ultimately hurt Nintendo. The Gamecube doesn't have DVD suppport, and the it only has one online title, and until recently it didn't have demo discs. Those are all things the competition has that Nintendo doesn't and that's the sort of thing that can affect a person's console buying decision. In the next generation Nintendo has to match Sony in EVERYTHING. There shouldn't be any missing feature that makes people choose the competition instead. Unless Nintendo can beat Sony's price by like $200 or something (ie: if Sony goes nuts with features) they have to match or beat everything.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: egman on June 19, 2003, 07:50:10 AM
Ian Sane-I can see what saying about how that hurt the Cube a little, but I think for at least this generation those extras weren't really key. Sony got a small boost from releasing the PS2 at the time DVD was going mainstream. When DVD players started almost 50 dollars, I doubt it pushed the system. I also believe the Xbox saw no benefit from DVD playback. What pushed these systems were appealing, "everyone must own it" games like GTA and Halo.
Nintendo has a very high quality line, but it has lost it's appeal--this is the main problem. I think the N64 gave a Nintendo a false since security, hence why they have put all their eggs into EAD's basket. I think the reliance on EAD has been unfair to EAD and the other internal teams. Unreasonable expectactions have been set for EAD, so when technically flawless software like SMS has come out, it has been ripped to shredds because it was not mind blowing in the way that Mario 64 was. At the same time, it seems that teams like Hal and Intelligent Systems are being squandered. I have no idea what the hell Hal has been up to after SSB:M and Intelligent System seems to be wasting it's talent on the GBA. Advance Wars is the best game for the GBA and is diffenately on the list as one of the best games this gen, but does the GBA really need that support from IS? Pokemon is what is really selling GBA's.
On top of that, I learned recently that IS was mainly behind Super Metroid, arguable one of the top five games on the SNES. Now I have this question--why in the hell were they not given Metroid Prime in the first place? Retro did an amazing job, but it seems to me Nintendo is missing an oppurtunity with some of the resources it has right under its noise. Teams like IS are perfect counter points to EAD, but Nintendo did not capatilize on that this gen, which really hurt it.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 19, 2003, 07:55:18 AM
I honestly believe the only reason that the PS2 is in the lead is that it was released before the other two systems. The DVD player almost certainly didn't sell it. True, many Gamecube owners might be multiplatform users, but most of the PS2 owners are casual gamers. I remember watching some show, and this girl was talking about her house, and she had a PS2. She said she didn't even play it, it was just for when the guys came over. That's who owns a PS2. That's the majority.
I''ve met many people that have all three systems. Approximately twenty. About 2 or 3 of those preferred Xbox, five to seven preferred PS2, and around 10 liked Gamecube the most. These people were at gaming message boards, though, so they're not casual gamers (I'd like to note that they were not Gamecube forums, they were general gaming boards). I think that Nintendo could win back the next generation, or perhaps the one following that, but they have to strive for it. I agree with egman's post (though not 100%; maybe 70-80%), but I don't think that the multiplatform users necessarily prefer the other systems to the Gamecube.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: evilnate on June 19, 2003, 08:08:30 AM
Quote Originally posted by: Hostile Creation I honestly believe the only reason that the PS2 is in the lead is that it was released before the other two systems. The DVD player almost certainly didn't sell it.
I agree that the year head start had alot to do with it, but the DVD player helped. Actually, I think a bigger contributor to the PS2's success is it's backwards compatibility. There were so many PS1 ones and games out there that the PS2 was the natural step up for most gamers. Add to that the fact that many of the old accessories work on the new system as well. Even though the PS2 system itself is more expensive than the cube, it's really not if you've got a PS1. Once you've bought a Gamecube, a memory card and a game to play, it's more expensive than a PS2 if you've got a PS1 at home. You could buy a PS2, and wait to buy a game, while playing your old ones.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Ymeegod on June 19, 2003, 08:09:50 AM
Actually there was a DVD player with the GC. It's called the Q and it was released in Japan and that didn't stop people from chosing the PS2.
Reason why, it has the games that alot of people WANT. FFX, GT, ect.
What's killing Nintendo? The failrure to capture certain markets--example sports/RPGs/ect.
Nintendo's like there isn't a fanbase so why bother but you can't gain fans from nothing. You need exclusive games and you need them at launch--not 2-3 years later like FFCC.
Still shocked that nintendo couldn't get a develope a pokemon clone in time for the GC release.
Title: RE: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: BlkPaladin on June 19, 2003, 08:39:38 AM
I don't agree with Nintendo unable to capture the sports market, Sports really has never done well on any of Nintendo's consoles. That was one of the reasons there was so few only sports game makers out there during the SNES/Genesis days. (I think EA was the only one.)
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: thecubedcanuck on June 19, 2003, 09:35:33 AM
Quote She said she didn't even play it, it was just for when the guys came over. That's who owns a PS2. That's the majority.
Bullsh!t You have no facts at all to back that up, ZERO, sweet frick all. 20 million PS2 owners all in the wrong LMAO. When will it sink in that maybe, just maybe, people like the games the PS2 has to offer better? Maybe they like the better selection of games?
But to say that the majority of PS2 owners are bumbling morons who bought it simply because the commercials had flashing lights, is just plain stupid. Simply wishful thinking.
Some people just dont like nintendo games, even a lot of former nintendo nuts are starting to drift away from what Nintendo has to offer, myself included.
Can Nintendo win me back? Yes, give me what I get from the other consoles, large selection of games in ALL genres, not just the ones they think are appropriate.
Nintendo needs to let the consumer make the choice as to what they feel is morally acceptable to them. Give the masses what they want and they will buy it. You can try all you want to buck the trend, but in the end, if it isnt what the consumers want, then it wont sell.
In the end I really dont care if Nintendo is 1st or 5th in the "console war", I will buy the system that has the most of what I like on it, regardless of who makes it, nintendo sony or betty crocker for all I care. Hmmmm, consol and easy bake oven all in one............................................
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Ian Sane on June 19, 2003, 09:35:41 AM
"I think the N64 gave a Nintendo a false since security, hence why they have put all their eggs into EAD's basket. I think the reliance on EAD has been unfair to EAD and the other internal teams."
That's actually a pretty good point. Before the N64 Nintendo's first party lineup was a lot more varied. Now even games that aren't EAD's have a very EAD feel to them. It's like EAD's style is now Nintendo's style. As a result not only does it put a lot of pressure on EAD but it turns off anyone who doesn't like that style. Company's like HAL, Camelot and Hudson would probably make better games if they made something different that doesn't seem like something EAD would make. This would result in less Mario spinoff games but I personally would have no problem with that if it meant a more variety of titles and a greater variety of styles in these games so that everything isn't the EAD style super-cheery Mario routine. Camelot in particular is being completely wasted making Mario sports games when they could be working on RPGs, something that Nintendo doesn't have many off.
"I don't agree with Nintendo unable to capture the sports market, Sports really has never done well on any of Nintendo's consoles."
That's because Nintendo's never had much for sports games so thus the sports game fans (which are a huge market these days) don't buy Nintendo consoles. I think that Nintendo should buy or form a development team and turn them into Nintendo Sports. They don't have to have a huge lineup right away, the big four (football, baseball, hockey, basketball) would suffice. They don't even necessarily have to release a new title every year as long as they stagger the releases so that football and baseball are released ever odd year and the other two are released every even year. Sports titles are a big deal and Nintendo would look a lot more enticing to casual gamers if they had their own sports brand.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Round Eye on June 19, 2003, 10:30:04 AM
Quote Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck
Nintendo needs to let the consumer make the choice as to what they feel is morally acceptable to them. Give the masses what they want and they will buy it. You can try all you want to buck the trend, but in the end, if it isnt what the consumers want, then it wont sell.
In the end I really dont care if Nintendo is 1st or 5th in the "console war", I will buy the system that has the most of what I like on it, regardless of who makes it, nintendo sony or betty crocker for all I care. Hmmmm, consol and easy bake oven all in one............................................
Give the masses what they want eh? I guess you are right. Nintendo should start making mediocre movie license games, maybe Mario should start shooting hookers, long ass over rated boring RPG games are the best. I think you are on to something here cubed.
Yah, who would want to play crappy games like Metroid Prime,its lack of load times and creative graphics really blew goats ass. Wind waker man I am not even going to go there. Viewtifull Joe, that game seems to lack all fun. RE4, no one is going to play that! Why am I wasting my time with these titles!
Nintendo better drop all of those games quick. Hopefully for the next consol, we can have some Minority Report 2, and some sweet Terminator 3 third person, CSI miami is going to be so hot.
I'm with you Cubed. I will come over and bake some cookies with you, and we can play Re-Enter the Matrix.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 19, 2003, 10:36:12 AM
Jesus Christ, cubed. First of all, I was making a point, and that's an extreme case. I was merely saying that most people that own PS2s are not really involved with them. Sure, of course they like the games; they wouldn't buy the system if they didn't like them. But they do not like the games as much as a fan likes the games, and Nintendo could easily win these people over by just letting their system out early. I'm not saying their a bunch of drooling morons, but video games are certainly not their priority. And no, cubed, you're very wrong and extremely naive if you think that most PS2 owners would buy a PS2 over a Gamecube for any reason other than an earlier release date. It's a matter of I get it better quicker. That's all.
My friend owns a PS2 for one reason: FFX. He later bought Sly Cooper and Parappa the Rapper, but FFX is the only reason he bought it. He also has a Gamecube because he's a big Star Fox and Sonic fan. There's nothing wrong with owning a PS2, and I in no way meant to insinuate that PS2 owners are idiots or anything.
And screw facts. If this were a political debate or something I actually cared about, I'd try to make a reasonable argument. But these are video games, and I don't really care about statistics and all that crap. I like playing them. That's it.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: thecubedcanuck on June 19, 2003, 11:37:37 AM
Quote And no, cubed, you're very wrong and extremely naive if you think that most PS2 owners would buy a PS2 over a Gamecube for any reason other than an earlier release date. It's a matter of I get it better quicker. That's all.
LMAO, thats why the PS2 Still outsells all other consoles 2 to 1 damn that early release date
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: thecubedcanuck on June 19, 2003, 11:43:45 AM
Quote Yah, who would want to play crappy games like Metroid Prime,its lack of load times and creative graphics really blew goats ass. Wind waker man I am not even going to go there. Viewtifull Joe, that game seems to lack all fun. RE4, no one is going to play that! Why am I wasting my time with these titles!
I am glad you like those games, but apparantly they arent for everyone as sales seems to point out. I dont mind Prime at all, I love RE, I thought WW was boring as hell and have no interest in viewtiful joe. Looking at sales however, and this topic is about becomming number 1 after all, Nintendo needs to make the change, because even though you like these games they dont sell as well as many others.
Quote Give the masses what they want eh? I guess you are right. Nintendo should start making mediocre movie license games, maybe Mario should start shooting hookers, long ass over rated boring RPG games are the best. I think you are on to something here cubed.
why not? If thats what sells, then make it and sell it. You cant become numbver 1 without a product that is in demand. As good as Nintendo games may be to you all, if the majority of people who buy games dont feel the same way, then it doesnt really matter from a sale point.
To be number 1, you have to sell the most, to sell the most you have to provide the majority with the products THEY want.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Ninja X on June 19, 2003, 11:59:31 AM
Quote Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck
why not? If thats what sells, then make it and sell it. You cant become numbver 1 without a product that is in demand. As good as Nintendo games may be to you all, if the majority of people who buy games dont feel the same way, then it doesnt really matter from a sale point.
To be number 1, you have to sell the most, to sell the most you have to provide the majority with the products THEY want.
Sell-out.
If that's what it takes to be #1, I hope Nintendo never becomes #1.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: thecubedcanuck on June 19, 2003, 12:09:10 PM
Quote Sell-out.
LMAO, how can I be a sell out when I never cared in the first place?
I dont care who makes the games. I would like GTA 3 if nintendo made it just as much as I like it now. I dont even know who makes most of my third party games and dont care to know.
I have no loyalty at all to products I buy. Its my money, and I spend it as I see fit.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Round Eye on June 19, 2003, 12:28:00 PM
Well if that's what it takes to be number 1 cubed, then I hope Nintendo is never number 1. And like I said early I don't think they have too, to be successfull.
Nintendo are making some steps in the right direction by going after some QUALITY third party support. And they are not just buying it, they are building relationships which should pay off for them in the future.
And if crappy licensed games are what you are after, then more power to you. As long as Sony continues to have success with that you should have lots of games to enjoy<--is that the right word? 'Suffer through' sounds more right.
And if you survive the plunge off the bridge following all the masses Cubed, Nintendo will still be here to take you in.
Your God, Round Eye
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Ian Sane on June 19, 2003, 12:50:25 PM
"I am glad you like those games, but apparantly they arent for everyone as sales seems to point out. I dont mind Prime at all, I love RE, I thought WW was boring as hell and have no interest in viewtiful joe. Looking at sales however, and this topic is about becomming number 1 after all, Nintendo needs to make the change, because even though you like these games they dont sell as well as many others."
I don't think sales indicate that people don't want to buy these games per say, just that they don't KNOW if they want to buy them. A big problem comes from marketing. Nintendo just doesn't make people interested in these great titles. They tend to release these great titles in a vacuum and expect people to buy these titles without really knowing anything about them. A few TV commericials with like ten seconds of game footage isn't enough to sell a game. I imagine with some decent marketing these titles could be way bigger than they are. You can't look at a title like Metroid Prime and assume that Xbox and PS2 gamers wouldn't want to play it given the chance.
"maybe Mario should start shooting hookers"
Why do people assume that whenever someone suggests that Nintendo should appeal more to the mainstream that they have to transform their existing franchises into gorey bloodbath titles? This "Mario shooting hookers" thing is ridiculous yet I hear this comment made all the time. Nintendo does NOT have to change Mario in order to be popular with casual gamers. Nor do they have to change any of their other franchises. They just need to have some mature titles that appeal to the mainstream as well. Mario and Nintendo's answer to GTA can co-exist. They don't need to make Mario a bloodbath. Mario is a decent enough seller to remain unchanged. They just can't have JUST Mario anymore.
One thing Nintendo could do though is avoid making kid-friendly titles more cutesy and kid-friendly for no reason. Super Mario RPG, Yoshi's Island and Ocarina of Time were ALREADY kid-friendly titles so why when they made Paper Mario, Yoshi's Story and Wind Waker did they have to make them MORE cutesy and colourful? If a series already appeals to kids don't make it more kid-friendly and risk turning off the older crowd. If Nintendo already has the kid's market then they don't need to be more appealing to kids.
Nintendo does not have to sell-out in order to regain the number one spot. They don't have to start making crappy games. They just have to make some more games that have themes and characters that appeal more to the mainstream (and not make their existing franchises cuter with every generation). There are good games that are rated 'M' and 'T' that have some violence and "cool" content that are also really fun to play. The GTA series isn't just popular because it's full of violence, it's also considered by most critics to be a GOOD game.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: thecubedcanuck on June 19, 2003, 12:54:17 PM
Ian Sane
Very well said, this is exactly what I was trying to get accross.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Round Eye on June 19, 2003, 01:47:39 PM
I don't think that Nintendo has to make the GTA's themselves neccessarly, just support the developers that want to.
And I also agree that they could be a little less cutsey, and that would appeal to the mass market more. But, the core element of each of their games is solid gameplay and they should never change that.
Nintendo Uber Alus.
Title: RE: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 19, 2003, 01:53:53 PM
Who here said that GTA3/VC was a bad game? I didn't. I'm just saying that it's popular for all the wrong reasons. IF the kids who buy it for the blood, gang wars and mass killings find some decent gameplay in there, well good for them. I play it every now and then at my friend's place, but it's not too interesting to me, plus the load times are a killer. I agree partly about Nintendo making their franchises just a little too kiddy, but then they weren't trying to do that in the first place. Yoshi Story was the way it was cause that's how Yoshi is. Paper Mario was a 'sequel' of sorts to MArio RPG without having to make a full blown rpg. And Wind Waker? Kiddy? I find that Wind Waker has more life to it than any other game I've played, even those with voice acting. I went back to playing OoT after WW, and it was static, lifeless, stiff, and, to say the least, boring. Even the more tender moments like Saria's goodbye to Link at the start as boring. Wind Waker is great. Kiddy? You must be joking. The nostalgic, OoT elements in the game just made me cry. Who didn't when they went under the sea and found Hyrule in all it's glory? I'm sorry that you take the stance of the general public. And I/we all know that there a great M and T rated games, and I too wish that Nintendo made some games with more themes than they do now, but WW is a perfect step in the right direction, so I have no complaints other than that.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Ninja X on June 19, 2003, 01:57:46 PM
Quote Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck
Quote Sell-out.
LMAO, how can I be a sell out when I never cared in the first place?
I dont care who makes the games. I would like GTA 3 if nintendo made it just as much as I like it now. I dont even know who makes most of my third party games and dont care to know.
I have no loyalty at all to products I buy. Its my money, and I spend it as I see fit.
Hmm...and I do not recall calling you the sell-out. If Nintendo ever did what you suggested in what I quoted in the earlier post, they would be sell-outs. Sorry...it must have been implied that I called you a sell-out.
Nintendo will never cater to just what the audience wants. Yes, it is wiser, but it would destroy their reputation of delivering the titles they want to deliver. If they catered to just what audiences wanted, they would be selling-out. They always had a big reputation of delivering games they want to make, not ones they are forced to make. Nintendo is doing fine enough on its own without catering specifically to the whim of the market.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Plugabugz on June 19, 2003, 02:07:20 PM
Nintendo aren't kiddy. Nintendo are daring. Nintendo are renowned for always giving something different. A darker blend of this ever-changing-difference-ness (note I said 'darker', not more gothic or anything), plus some more eye-catching advertising, plus various console nit-bits, and things can easily improve.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 19, 2003, 03:05:45 PM
Ian Sane, I agree with you on a few points. Nintendo could introduce some more mature games, and they are, actually. Geist is one example, but they're opening the flow for any third parties that want to develop games for them. Killer 7, the Resident Evils, Metal Gear. I don't agree that they're getting more "kiddy". It appears that way, superficially. But when I play those games, they're wonderful. I'm not into RPGs, but what I saw of Paper Mario was cool (corny but cool), Yoshi Story was fun but too short, and for me, Wind Waker was about as boring as jumping from an airplane with a nuclear device duct taped to me. Not near as dangerous, but yeah, it was fun.
You can deny it if you want, but the early release date was the reason PS2 sold so much. Obviously not the sole reason, of course. The first Playstation was immensely popular, and they have a ton of ads. Those helped a great deal. But people want the best stuff as soon as they can get it, and Playstation came out first, so they got it. And it's still considered to be as good as the other two systems, so they don't necessarily need to buy another one. I honestly believe that those owners do not necessarily prefer PS2 games. Sure, to them they're as good as a Gamecube game would be (though perhaps there may be some Nintendo fans hidden in those masses), but I think that they could like Gamecube if they tried it. Cubed, you can laugh your @ss off at me, the naive little idiot, and tell me how wrong I am, but that doesn't necessarily prove me wrong. I respect your opinion, though, despite what you say, and even if I don't want to.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Ninja X on June 19, 2003, 05:46:39 PM
Quote Originally posted by: Termin8Anakin I went back to playing OoT after WW, and it was static, lifeless, stiff, and, to say the least, boring. Even the more tender moments like Saria's goodbye to Link at the start as boring.
I did the same thing...and I found OoT to be two times better than The Wind Waker...
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 19, 2003, 05:55:00 PM
Exactly. Nintendo outdid themselves with Wind Waker. I tried playing OoT after WW, but it was so slow and boring. And that's a wonderful game.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Michael8983 on June 19, 2003, 06:35:36 PM
I feel the same way. I just couldn't go back to Oot after Wind Waker. Wind Waker was so smooth and fluid that Oot is unbearably clunky and awkward in comparison. The characters in Wind Waker are alive with personality while just about everyone in Oot is like a zombie. Maybe it's not fair to criticize Oot like that since it could only do what the hardware would allow (which, compared to what's possible now, isn't much) but, the thing is, I can still enjoy Nintendo's other technologically out-of-date games. I can go back and play the 2D Zelda games on the NES and SNES and still love them. But I just don't seem capable of enjoying Oot anymore now that I've played Wind Waker.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 19, 2003, 06:44:44 PM
Same here. I'm still playing A Link to the Past a bit, and I still play all my other 64 games (Star Fox, Kirby, etc.). But no Ocarina. Or Majora's Mask, for that matter.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 19, 2003, 08:27:51 PM
Quote Originally posted by: Ninja X
Quote Originally posted by: Termin8Anakin I went back to playing OoT after WW, and it was static, lifeless, stiff, and, to say the least, boring. Even the more tender moments like Saria's goodbye to Link at the start as boring.
I did the same thing...and I found OoT to be two times better than The Wind Waker...
Really? I know that some people may think that we're knocking OoT just to make WW sound better, but it really is better. WW was waay more epic, and just about everything else was better than OoT. Some people complain that sailing was tedious. Yeah, I guess, but if you want it to be realistic, the islands would be waaay closer together, but the boat would be heaps slower, so it practically be the same. Trust me. We sailed the Whitsunday Islands for a week earlier this year on a 12 meter catamaran, and the islands looked so close together, but it took AGES to get to the islands, even with the motor. A sailboat like that can't go that fast, but at least it's better than having it truly realistic. I think this is what Nintendo mean when they say that if they want something to be realistic, it has to be truly realistic.
Sorry to be a little off topic, but anyway, what was it about WW that OoT did better, other than being the first 3D Zelda, and the cel-shaded graphics (they really are good)?
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Round Eye on June 20, 2003, 04:43:04 AM
Quote Originally posted by: Hostile Creation You can deny it if you want, but the early release date was the reason PS2 sold so much. Obviously not the sole reason, of course. The first Playstation was immensely popular, and they have a ton of ads. Those helped a great deal. But people want the best stuff as soon as they can get it, and Playstation came out first, so they got it. And it's still considered to be as good as the other two systems, so they don't necessarily need to buy another one.
What happened to the Dreamcast then? They were out before everybody.
I think the PS2 had a few things going for it. Backwards capability, equals instant user base of people who owned the original PS. DVD player, back then it was cool and not everyone had one. Advanced lead time, the only competition was the Dreamcast, and when that went down Sony earned even more credibilty as a winning system.
Nintendo could learn a few things from Sony. I don't think they need the DVD player, everyone has one of those. And they need to hype the system more than they do, advetising works. Look what it has done for the Xbox.
PS2 considered to be as good as the other two, not by me. That piece of hardware is freakin archaic, but Sony has always had success with mediocore hardware.
"We can go to the the West Keys, ride around on our Jet skis" -WIll Smith, producing the worst rhyme ever.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 20, 2003, 07:15:26 AM
Aside from no one knowing about Dreamcast, many of the people that did considered it a really late N64/playstation generation system, rather than the first new one. There's a fine line between old and new.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Ninja X on June 20, 2003, 01:25:50 PM
Quote Originally posted by: Termin8Anakin
Sorry to be a little off topic, but anyway, what was it about WW that OoT did better, other than being the first 3D Zelda, and the cel-shaded graphics (they really are good)?
Well...I started playing OoT perhaps a couple weeks after beating WW. I was fueled into playing OoT since I never really cleared the game 100%.
Well...anyway...the nostalgia factor set in and I remember all the great locales and dungeons. That is one thing that WW cannot top due to obvious reasons.
Another reason, though, is the epic-ness of the quest. Yes, Wind Waker is deep, but it never had the feeling of a true epic to me. Just let me remind everybody of the epic of OoT...
OoT's epic: A child of destiny sets out on a quest assigned to him by his leader The Great Deku Tree and the Princess of Hyrule, Zelda. In turn, Link rescues the Gorons from a deadly famine, gets rid of the evil within the Zora deity and saves the Zora princess. After receiving three stones needed to open the Door of Time, Link goes to Hyrule Castle only to see Zelda escaping and view Ganondorf, the King of Thieves, for the first time. After their confrontation, Link obtains the Ocarina of Time that Zelda left him. With the stones and the Ocarina of Time in hand, Link opens the majestic Door of Time in the Temple of Time to obtain the legendary blade of evil's bane, the Master Sword. Alas, but Ganondorf followed him and discovered the passageway that led to the Triforce. Due to not being old enough to hold the Master Sword, Link is sealed in the Sacred Realm for seven long years. In that time, Ganondorf takes control of the Triforce of Power and conquers both the Sacred Realm and Hyrule. Link eventually comes back in adult form, however, and is told by Rauru he is the legendary Hero of Time destined to save Hyrule from the King of Evil himself. In order to do so, he must use the Master Sword to rid the great six temples of the world from evil in order to awaken the Sages necessary to seal Ganon and his power away. With a help from a mysterious sheikah and various friends, he saves the dying forest from its grave, the Gorons from genocide (lack of a better word), the Zora from a frozen prison, the Shadow Temple from the evil that contaminates it, and befriends the Gerudos, a race that believes men are weak and useless besides Ganondorf. He goes through trials and obstacles in each of the five dungeons he must traverse through, only to emerge victorious and with six sages awakened. Link returns to the Temple of Time, only to find the Princess he had not seen in seven years. With a short introduction, the Princess gives him the weapon of justice, the Light Arrow. Unfortunately, Ganondorf detects her and captures her, thus securing a piece of the Triforce. He only had one more triforce left, the one within Link...thus setting the grand battle between the Hero of Time and the King of Evil!
Tell me that is not a grand epic...that epic, IMO, easily outweighs WW's epic...
Also, the temples in OoT are a lot better in desing IMO than the Wind Waker. The Wind Waker's dungeons were awkwardly designed. I didn't like the forest nor the Earth Temple much at all. They were a bit too linear. The Earth Temple would have you advancing floor by floor, when most of OoT's dungeons had you hopping between floors in order to progress within that dungeon. And the forest was cool in certain areas, but it was not dungeon-like. Perhaps that outdoor feel did not suit it well at all for me.
The bosses in OoT still rock to this day. Gohma, King Dodongo, Barinade, Phantom Ganon, Volvagia and others still are awesome bosses, regardless of how they look compared to WW's bosses. WW had great bosses, but the boss introductions and difficulty of the OoT bosses beat out WW's bosses.
Speaking of difficulty, man, in WW, I did not even have to worry about dying. Replaying OoT for the fourth or fifth time, I still died twice. Playing through WW for the first time, I have no game overs and never even came close to one. I absolutely hated that aspect of WW.
And the WW's Great Sea disappointed me. I know of time restraints on development and all that, but the oceans had too many small islands that served one or two purpose(s). Only five locales existed that are of great size: Outset Island, the Forest Haven, Dragon Rock Island, Windfall Island, and Ganondorf's fortress on the sea (forgot its name). Only three of these islands had a good amount of side quests. Only two had the type of liveliness many claim is in the Wind Waker. Maybe it was my expectations, but many people, including critics, built up the ocean as immense with many islands scattered around it. When I first sailed around the Great Sea chartering territory and looking for side-quests, I was disappointed. I did not expect this many small islands. It would have been sweet if another island similar to Windfall Island in depth took the place of one of the smaller islands...
I have a couple other nitpicks, but I'm done as for now.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Hostile Creation on June 20, 2003, 02:59:36 PM
I do not know how you prefer OoT, but heck, I suppose some people have to. I actually feel sort of bad about preferring WW. But that doesn't change the fact that I do like it more. It's fine that you like OoT, but I personally like WW more.
Title: RE: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 20, 2003, 07:00:54 PM
Ninja X: Ok OK. I think I'll stop there. I don't want this to be a battle of Oot is better than WW, since both games were great, i mean, heck, what games of the same series can score 40/40 from Famitsu? Both were epic games, but to me (and I'm not gonna rant anymore about this), despite the amount of dungeons in OoT, WW IS literally the larger game. If you can get into OoT now after playing WW, then good for you, and anyone else that can. I just can't seem to anymore.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Ninja X on June 21, 2003, 09:27:38 AM
Sorry about my long post, but those are the main reasons I like OoT over WW. WW is great. I just wanted to mention that I was NOT badmouthing it in any way. Termin8Anakin, it seems other people cannot get into OoT as well due to the slow speed. I read an interview where Miyamoto himself said he cannot believe how slow OoT ran in comparison to WW. I don't seem to be having that problem myself, but hell, you know what game I've been having a problem with recently...Perfect Dark. Too...much...blurring...it gave me a badass migraine.
Title: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: mouse_clicker on June 21, 2003, 10:03:47 AM
Jesus- this thread started off as a serious proposal of whether or not Nintendo needs to be number one to survive and now you're debating whether Wind Waker is better than Ocarina of Time? In only 57 posts this thread managed to go from a serious topic to incoherent ramblings about something that is in no way connected to the original subject matter. Astounding.
Title: RE: Can Nintendo survive not being #1
Post by: Termin8Anakin on June 21, 2003, 07:49:54 PM
Ninja X: Haha. yeah i know what you mean. Perfect Dark, i think, was too detailed for it's own good.
Back to topic. Everyone wants to be number 1. It's trying to hold that spot that's hard. We see Sony advertising harder than ever, but that's because they're trying to keep secure in case they make a few stuff ups. Nintendo needs to try harder than Sony. I think those public events they hold are great. It's a commercial that people participate in. Although they lose some money when they give free stuff away, i guess it's worth it. Nintendo is trying hard to be number 1, but when they get there, it's going to a harder road, cause you can be toppled instantly by simply making one mistake.
