Quote
Nintendo wants their console to appeal to the entire market. To do this they have this INSANE strategy (that has never worked and never will) where every game is designed to be suitable for everybody (but ends up appealing to nobody as a result).
Wow, this statement is so false I can't believe it's being uttered. Pokemon appealed to everybody: it had my PC-RPG/Strategy loving uncle buying a gameboy to play it. Mario consistently appeals ACROSS boundaries, as do Zelda games. My best friend and his college buddies actually begged to borrow my GC broadband adaptor and Mario Kart: DD copy because they play it so much in their dorm, even after all these years. Animal Crossing got friggin entire Japanese families, mothers and kids, playing. And of course, mini-game based titles like Mario Party and Wario Ware continue to sell strong numbers DESPITE lack of ads, lack of graphics, low production budgets and their "non-conventional" nature.
IN ADDITION, Nintendo remains the most profitable hardware maker in the industry. Electronic Arts is the only company that can be expected to beat Nintendo in terms of profits/sales. I wonder how a strategy that "never works and never will" could accomplish all that.
I also wonder how someone who actually follow's Nintendo could even think otherwise: the very reason we're all here is because we believe that there's something worth fighting for in Nintendo's drive for quality gameplay instead of fad-based niche appeals and innovation as opposed to Tomb-Raider-esque not-even-trying-to-make-a-diufferent-game sequels. If we didn't, we'd all be Sony or Microsoft fans.
Quote
They better suit someone like Sony who has made a true "everybody" console by offering a varied library where all sorts of totally different games are available and as a result there's something for everybody.
INCORRECT. Silicon Knightd best suits MICROSOFT. Microsoft has shown themselves as a company perfectly willing to take risks and bankroll ambitious titles that are cemented FIRMLY in the hardcore gamer segment. Some of these gambles fail (like that mediocre Oddworld piece of...) while others succeed (like buying a little-known Macintosh developer and stealing from Apple a breakout game like Halo).
Microsoft has also shown a keen interest in following Nintendo's lead and where Nintendo once showed interest in a company, Microsoft practically purchases the company outright in search of Nintendo gold. That's why they bought the bloated Rareware, with nothing to show for it except one port in 4 years, a standard action/adventure title to launch the X360 with and an FPS whose only purpose is to look pretty until Halo 3 comes out. This is also why they bought Silicon Knights: they're hoping that whatever Nintendo saw in the company, they can buy it for dollars and cash.
Quote
It's too bad because they totally had the "make great games" philosophy in common. They should have worked together perfectly if (surprise) Nintendo wasn't a stubborn old fuddy-duddy.
That's ridiculous. Have you PLAYED ED? Nintendo fans let themselves be overhyped by that game, but in the end realized that had it not been for Miyamoto's input, the game would've likely been saddled with a control system WORSE than RE's. Also, reviewer's were grasping at good things to say about the game, so it eventualy came out that the game had "eh" gameplay, was too short, BUT...and get this..BUT... it had great voice acting and cinematics. How convincing. It wasn't a BAD game, but it absolutely failed to deliver on the hype. Sales numbers bore this out.
When Silicon Knights says "great games" they don't mean the same thing Nintendo means when they say "great games." Nintendo means strong gameplay, game design innovations, and straight-up fun. Silicon Knights means ambience, cinematics, and the graphical power to let them use cinematic conceits; Silicon Knights is all about making players think they're playing a great game while Nintendo is focused on the player actualy playing that great game. Silicon Knights has MORE in common with SQUARESOFT than they have in common with Nintendo.
I have absolutely nothing against Silicon Knights, I own ED, beat all 3 storylines, got scared once or twice, jumped when I heard a torch snap-crackle-pop... I even enjoyed the game for what it was! But it simply didn't have the gameplay quality you'd expect from a game with Nintendo on the box, or the game design polish (seriously, I like their spell system grammar concept but it was absolutely skeletal and not fleshed out one bit) I expect from a top tier game.
I'm not saying that SK won't do well in the future. They have some intrigueing ideas about Too Human...just like they had some intrigueing ideas about Eternal Darkness. But I get the feeling that SK will not be the developer-to-talk-about in 3 years, because they've displayed certain weaknesses in gameplay carry-through and design that need to be solved before I can believe that Too Human will stand out in any way versus whatever other action title the Japanese come out with then.
Spend loads of money on a trilogy epic project that's been in development since 1998 from a company that delivered mediocre gameplay but great voice acting with their last venture? Microsoft is willing to take that risk in hopes of a payoff, while Nintendo evidently doesn't believe the end result 5 years from now will be positive.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com 
Topic: Developer/Editor Feedback regarding the NRC (Read 39763 times)
