Flaight

You hit the proverbial nail on the head, as a reason why Nintendo is picking itself up. Good ideas need good guidance and execution by the top man, and I think Iwata has been the key. The others may be doing the hardwork, but in the end Iwata has to conduct them well and gel them together.

I must totally, utterly and profoundly disagree with those points because: 3) "Milking" is such a negative perception and I find a bit of your personal distaste resulting in your misjudgement. Franchise, traditionally, do get used a lot to represent the company's products and you can interpret that as "milking", if you so wish. For instance, Lightsabre and Jedi Knights are "milked" by George Lucas, if you WANT to look at it that way. Does that make them necessarily bad? No. The real question here is how that "milking" manifests in the product. Many manifested with great creativity, making room for exploration of what games can do even after 20 years of "milking" gaming ideas. Nintendo, Miyamoto in particular, is good at expanding on gameplaying ideas. So what if they use Mario & co as the skin to represent such endevour? 4) Bongos. It had positives, but lets just say it was a complete failure as that would satisfy your judgement. I'm afraid that sort of peripheral is a necessary sacrifice when you are trying to do something different. Virtual Gameboy is another example. Again, the real question here is not so much about how Nintendo failed with a product, but how such failures manifest. Nintendo often tries things others don't, and thereby make a break thru in gaming. Other companies often copy Nintendo, safe in the knowledge that the idea works. But what if it doesn't work? Nintendo takes the blame. In reality, the bravery Nintendo shows in exploring different ideas is bound to result in some good AND bad outcomes. Criticising the bad results is the same as denying the chance for creativity to flourish. Afterall, how can anyone make any progress if nobody tried anything different and risk failure? And what could we possibly achieve if we were afraid of failures? 5) I don't get your point at all. Can you expand on it a bit more? 6) Mario Party series was fun party game for a lot of people if you could provide that sort of environment. And most companies tend to have a few titles that goes on to create a pillar. I agree it went on a bit, but does that justify labelling it as the reason why Cube failed? That's rediculous. Talk about exaggeration. ================ All in all, the points raised (understandably) represent your personal frustration, but that is different from a more fundamental reasons why Cube "failed" (if you want to look at it that way). Everyone has niggling complaints about a console or a game, some unbearable. But don't let that take your eyes off a more fundamental error in market strategy. For more depth, please refer to my earlier post.

I think it's the fault of N64's tech & market strategy. Cube is fine, nothing wrong with it. I think Cube is seen as a failure because Nintendo lost the market share considering that they were the King of consoles till N64. And I think that's where the fault lies - N64. I suspect N64's fall was the reason for Cube's fall. If N64 had been a smash hit like SNES, Nintendo would have kept the big devs, making N64 the home of all big titles. Cube would've had more chance of holding onto them. But, PS1 overtook N64 and Sony side got more key titles in the end. PS2 "inherited" that momentum. Personally, that's the only thing that went wrong with Nintendo.

I think the decision to remake is mostly financial. It's an easy money (sort of). But, I also tend to dislike remakes, just because the "new" audience tend to miss the point of the original. To me, jap movies are unique in their ability to inject superficial bizarreness into a mould of sentimentalism and humanity. Artistic subtlety seems to bridge that impossible gap. Hollywood caters more for Attention Deficit Disorder type, where everything is fast moving and everything has to make crystal clear sense at the end. That's what people demand, and so Hollywood gives the supply. They do the same with remakes. In doing so, they cut up the deeper layers and instead amplify what's on the surface. It's that McDonald'ization that concerns me. I can see that is also fun at times, but I also find it superficial and loses the intricate artistic expression that existed in the original. When Ring remake came out, the cyberspace debated on which was better. Many people commented that remake is better because the original is so unclear and slow moving. Remake was more exciting, vivid and well explained. Some went as far as to say the "original sux". See what I mean? To me the most beautiful art is that dark corner I don't get to see. It is the point of analysis and fascination about jap movies. Hollywood will remove those bits.

I can't even begin to imagine how well the remake will be made. If what they want to do is just to improve graphics, perhaps they should. At the end of the day, FF series have been about theatrics with multimedia, and so they should be able to do better with PS3 hardware. On the other hand, if they mess around with it too much, it'll just lose the "magic" the original had, then I'd be against it. Too early to tell for me.

Analogy aside, I think if the price tag of $600 doesn't turn your friend off, you probably couldn't talk him out of it. I'm one of those people who tend to buy all consoles, but $600 is such a turn off. If multiple 5star games come out (after the cooling off period), I'll be forced to get it. I think that's how it works. So if telling your friend "It's $600" doesn't convince him, he'll get it no matter what.

Actually conzer, I think this is a problem of phraseology. I can't speak for Sarka but from the context, when I first read his post, I read that he's dividing those who have turned thought into action and those who haven't. He happened to associate the term 'paedophile' to those who didn't turn it into action, while using the term 'child abuser' for the other. I think the point here is that a child abuser is a paedophile, but a paedophile is not necessarily a child abuser. Man, this is friggin confusing EDIT: ok... it seems Sarka replied himself just before me, so there we go.

Personally, the biggest crunch point is at what point a society completes a "child" into an "adult". Long ago, when the life expectacy was like late 30s for the lay people, everything happened a lot sooner and younger. That is of course very different today. I think physically, there is no 'physiological' reason why a sexual contact should automatically result in an emotional damage. I think there is a point, around just before the early adolescence, where you can actually take a physical damage. But there onward, it becomes a question of social conditioning, generally known as "victimization mentality". Long story short, our mind works in such a way that if you are told over and over that you are a victim, you really become one even if there needn't be a physiological reason why you should be. This is where the link between what happens in physical world and psychology of it gets established. Say, if a 15 year old slept with a 18 year old. Physiologically, there is no reason why there should be any damage, so psychologically too there needn't be any damage. But say, if all of a sudden many people gathered around her, taking pity on her, telling her it's alright, everything will be ok, Here have some sweets and it's ok if you don't want to go to school for a while. She will in the end really do become a victim, not because she actually is, but because she's been conditioned into a mindset which takes damage from a certain occurance of event in life. There are many other examples of this by the way. Incest is similar. Like in the US, there was a case where a brother and a sister ended up sleeping together without knowing. I think the brother got imprisoned in the end, but basically the point was that the psychology behind cringing at the thought of sleeping with your sibling comes from the social conditioning that incest is unethical. Of course there is a very good reason why it was made unethical (the genetic mutation and all), but some argue that in this day and age the act of sexual intercourse itself should not be taught as unethical, because you can prevent fertilization of an egg by using contraception. If the reason why incest is seen as unethical purely based on the fact that fertilization of an egg among siblings cause harmful inheritance problems in the genes, then by making sure the egg isn't fertilized you can make it ethical. And so on so forth. The debate goes on. The point is, so-called "emotional damage" is a very conditional thing, often more defined by men than by nature. There already is a variation of perception around the world depending on different cultures. Cannibalism is another. But it's becoming long again so I'll stop.

Final Fantasy Adventure original GB. It's a happy ending on one hand, but left a bitter taste in my mouth. It left me feeling warm, gentle, and sad. I think FF8 left a strong impression as well. Particularly THE spaceship cutscene. Never thought it'd happen at first, but half way through I was emotionally obsessed with that girl. A bit of an odd one out is Dragon Quest 5. The story with Bianca is memorable because of the way the story is told.

... interesting (?) debate here, if that's the right word. A bit disturbing to be honest. I too never thought this sort of case would crop out anywhere. Overall I agree with Sarka, because this is a debate IN principle logic. The first hurdle is in agreeing the basis of perspective. This is probably the hardest part. There are many examples of this - pro homosexuality vs anti homosexuality, pro animal experimentation vs anti, pro file sharing vs anti, pro female priests vs anti, pro Iraq war vs anti, pro abortion vs anti, pro divorce vs anti, pro artificial embryo vs anti, pro drug (of certain kind) legalization vs anti, pro teaching Creationism at school alongside Darwin's theory vs anti and so on. I can go on forever, if you like. In each case, there is a common denominator - which is that your belief manifests in a certain set of perspective of the world, and how you THINK the world should be. Inevitably, a conflict will occur between different perspectives. We all have our standards, and we tend to think the way we think IS absolute, and those who disagree are enemies - remember George W Bush said "You're either with us, or against us."? That's human tendency for you. This "standard" usually derives from what we see in our loved ones in our upbringing (including parents, neighbours, schools, religion, TV, etc which form our culture). If you like, you are "conditioned" into thinking in a certain way by your immediate society. So that's the general argument. More specifically, about this case, I think we have to decide what Paedophile is. If I'm not mistaken, a paedophile is just a person who like kids, rather than someone who assult them. The term 'murderers', for example, refers to people who have actually turned a thought into action. This is an age old debate about how a "thought crime" should be dealt with. Say, if you are starving and look through a shop window drooling at a piece of cake. There is a difference between you wanting them, and actually going in to steal them. You might walk in and ask for it, and as you pull out a wallet, you can think about running away with it - but there is still a difference between actually doing it and leaving it as a thought. I think our lives are infested with this sort of branching paths, from the moment you wake up. You have to get up, but your eyes still want to sleep, so you start to battle against yourself. You brush your teeth, and your cat is meowing for food and water, but you can't be bothered. Again, another battle takes place in your mind. If you have a thought you can fight and overcome, some credit you for such mental strength while others think you are dangerous and should be shot. Historically, this debate remains completely academic. Nobody has yet to produce a conclusive argument on how a thought crime should be dealt with. I think the biggest enemy in this sort of case is the "emotions". It's important as in my opinion it should occupy 50% of our thought processes, but it also has the bad habit of overwhelming us and forgetting every other piece of logic that makes us rational and wise. I think by nature we have an easier time becoming a slave to our emotions than to be the master of it. That's why it's important that you make effort to remain calm, thoughtful, and debate in principle. What Sarka is doing is 'Objective thinking', and it's a piece of academic skill that, in my humble opinion, we should all try. ... thats my opinion anyway. Deep? Yeah, maybe it is a bit. But for an emotional case like this, this sort of approach becomes much more important. In fact this sort of case really tests your ability to remain impartial and constructive. If not, we can destroy any chance of ever solving the very crime we are trying to solve. Don't forget, a 'crime' is a social phenomenon - not limited to any one individual.

To be absolutely fair to PS3, it has a potential simply because it is likely to become the shrine of traditional console gaming. Xbox 360 may take onboard PC based devs, but in the old days the whole POINT of console gaming was that it was distinctly different from PC. You just couldn't get the same experience in PC gaming. Many console gamers still hold this view. I see Xbox 360 as a bridge between console and PC. That, to me, is a good thing. But it has a negative side, which is that if people had a high end PC in the future, Xbox 360 would be more like a watered down PC. Several exclusive titles won't topple that disparity compared to PS3's exclusive console gaming. At the end of the day, people want to play software. Not hardware. So being totally different from PC can become a very important factor for some people. Based on my perception of console gaming, $600 is unjustified by any standard, so I'd say that's your best persuasion. It's a LOT of money to risk, so just tell your mate to wait and see how it goes. You life revolves around a console machine if you want to dish out 600 on it - that must be a very, very lonely life. On the other hand, if many Japanese devs come onboard Wii, THAT would completely change this theory...

Link isn't a little boy. He's just... well, just very Japanesie (you'd know what I mean if you've been there for an extended period).

The problem with all this is that it's a conflict of perception. Some see the value of microchips to be the value of the machine (hence the price tag), while others bring in other elements into the perceived value. Personally, I think it's a disease of humankind today that most of us see value of a computer based purely on the value of the microchips inside. It's the extension of other "superficial" views we see today (like "the bigger the better" etc). In fact, we should be complaining about how expensive Big Macs and Ferrari are, because they are ripoff, if you go purely by what makes them.

The thrust of your first post seems to be that the above-mentioned Japanese comments are a surprise. I don't think it is. I know you aren't here to stir things up - I know you from the days of the old forum and know you won't do that. It's just that I was genuinely surprised by the fact that your first post came across as if this whole issue is a surprise. If anything, I think this news varifies what we knew all along - Nintendo has put a lot of emphasis on non-gamers (as opposed to Japan vs West argument).

I guess if you start off neutral to Zelda/Link franchize, this may come across a bad news to some, but personally I've always been a fan of Link. It's good to see him being liked by everyone, whatever sexuality. To me, this is a street cred

Why, all of a sudden! Have you lost your wisdom cap now? The common denominator is that both them and us are speaking from gamers' point of view. As Miyamoto said, Revolution is threatening to non-gamers and that's why he decided against it. The divide isn't West vs Japan. It's Gamers vs Non-Gamers. I would've thought you'd know that without being told.

The ceiling of value for consoles will rise quickly this generation. A can of coke was like 25p in the early 90s. It's all relative, I think. Particularly now that PS3 and Xbox360 carry the price tag they carry, the boundary is getting pushed as the whole floor will rise in people's mind. Some are complaining even with £150, but I reckon the time will solve this problem - soon people will think it's actually not much and just accept it. Grumbling will occur no matter what unless it becomes irrationally cheap. The argument based on microchip is probably not relevant once games hit the shelves.

I guess it all ties in with the idea that Wii name would grow on you after a while. I still remember only a few weeks ago there was an outrage here about the name (not me).

My thoughts: 1 - Lithuania's We're Win-ners didn't catch my attention the 1st time, but now I've heard it twice, including the 'rehearsal', now I love it! It's FANTASTIC 2 - That iceland woman thing goes right over my head. I think I just don't get it. Maybe understanding the character she plays is important (?) 3 - Couldn't believe how well Romania one did, but hearing it again I guess it's very "continental euro". 4 - That Greek woman. Good song and good singing, but her movement reminded me of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder from around 2:00 onward. 5 - UK. It was probably too 'contemporary' for europeans. It had a strong melody in the repeats, but the rapping bit wouldn't go down well in europe I reckon. 6 - Most songs need to grow on you before you can appreciate it. Many songs in this Eurovision were like that. But, Finland overcame that with fantastic visuals. It just grabbed my attention regardless of what I thought of the song itself. Good tactics there by the Finns. 7 - I voted for Croatia, it was somehow catchy at the time and felt very outlandish in an attractive sort of way. Seeing the votes, I guess I'm the alone in the UK. I thought Ukraine was good at the time, but now I saw it again it's not as good.

Good news, and a natural move really, seeing how the wand can be used to simulate hand movement. DS version fun thou it is, is too segmented and lacks flow so hopefully they are working on that.

Great attitude there Stocka. Often it takes balls to stick to sportsmanship in bizarre games like this, but you pass that test of honour with flying colours. Respect!

I agree that 10 men arsenal did surprisingly well against 11 men barcelona. They are both top class teams and 1 man would make all the difference (which it did in the end), but considering that handicap arsenal still played put up an even fight generally. Going down to 10 men in itself is nothing glorious or credit to arsenal, however. It was a foul play by Lehmann and as a team arsenal are responsible for it. About that video 10 german bombers, hilarious!! now that catchy tune is going around in my head I won't be able to sleep tonight

A bit of a mixed bag really... I think wrong decisions went both ways, some major, some minor. So in that sense it's no different from prem games we see every week. It's probably easier to find games where everyone comes out happy with a refree. Bearing that in mind, this game was no more, no less than usual.

lol them and their japanesesque drawings, characters tend to look japanese with a eurocentricism. Light hair and eyes, but with low nose bridge and oriental cheekbone. And japanese style narrow hip/thighs as well if it's a female character. A bit of everything

Nice 1! Thank you