Sheikah

No, I'm not. Short but sweet answer.

So what are you saying Ville? Because it's done all the time, it's fine? Sexuality and race are more personal things that people don't choose unlike someone's fashion, religion or political views. Hence, discrimination of those is more of a big deal and should be challenged more readily. You can hardly argue that racism is the same as judging someone's taste in clothes, can you? And for the last time, I'm not forcing him to believe something else. I'm pointing out that it is discrimination. Nothing more, nothing less.

You keep saying this, that it's your choice. When have I have I argued otherwise? I don't see why you keep mentioning it. You have fabricated yet again another argument. However 'polite' you do it, it's still discriminatory to avoid people based on their sexual orientation. I don't really feel like arguing over this any more so I'll leave it here. But damn man, you should really reflect on some of the things you come out with.

It goes beyond merely thinking something though, doesn't it? Avoiding people or treating them differently on the grounds of sexual orientation is discrimination. You're putting a belief into practice. Even if you don't actually do it, if you're arguing that that's ok then you're condoning it. I mean, you're free to do it, sure, but don't get in a fluster when people call you on what it signifies. It would be the same as if I said it's fine to avoid black people. I could do it, but yes, it would be discrimination.

It's not going to give your 'sex ability age', is it?

I don't follow. Are you asking us if we are bigots for challenging anti-gay views?

Good luck with gaming from now on. The Wii U didn't come with Wii remotes so it seems unlikely games in the far future will be built around motion controls. And the other manufacturers haven't run with Wii remote type devices on the new consoles. I'm glad it lost its popularity as motion controls are frankly irritating, imprecise at times and altogether annoying. I hate having to waggle to do something that can be done much more easily with buttons. Regarding virtual reality - it really depends on how well thr technology turns out. I still dream of the popularised fully virtual worlds...perhaps one day?

The dictionary definition of the word accurately describes you, so I don't view it as an insult. You're free to believe what you want, but likewise, people are free to believe what they want about you for doing so.

That's pretty much what I read from it too.

Nobody here is mocking you. And making threats like that is a total dick move.

Actually, the problem here is that you are a bigot (not just in this topic, but throughout many topics on NE), and you don't like that I stand up to you. Many times now I have seen you pass off highly personal and offensive comments in topics as if they were nothing, and I really don't get how you don't have any shame over it. It's all a bit revolting, really. Regarding this issue, I don't agree that it is harmless to hold hateful views, like Diageo said. It would affect the way you treat homosexuals, even if subconsciously, which can easily lead to discrimination.

The very fact you know certain people have homophobic beliefs means they preached it (unless you have the ability to read minds). If people truly had no intention of doing harm with their view, they'd have kept it to themselves. It's like someone hating the Chinese, then going around telling certain friends. What's the point? I can only think it's to find some sort of agreement with the people you tell, or validation of your own beliefs.

Absolute zero.

Fuck knows. I imagine it sold pretty well...it was the kind of desirable thing that I could easily imagine parents being blackmailed into buying.

Not at launch they didn't. There was just Mario 64 and Pilotwings, and people gobbled it up. SM3DW had no such effect. A large part was due to the technical feat and new gameplay people had never seen before. But we can hardly let them off if they're not really at the forefront of that any more...

Not really odd at all - some people want the Nintendo games but only to an extent (ie. they would take them on a console they already own, but not go buy a Wii U just for it). Plus all the boons that come with the other consoles that Nintendo consoles lack - that's a big reason here why people want to see them on other consoles. You've also got to remember, even though some people want this to happen, they still buy the games as they currently are anyway (hence they still get sales). Most casuals are not willing to part £200 for the same old Nintendo content, unlike the glory days where people sank £250 (back then money) for just Mario 64. Nintendo just don't have the same pull these days.

Dudebros, Nintendo are SERIOUS with their marketing now! They're in McDonalds for Christ's sake.

Totally agree. That's why I would be happy if they just developed their home console games for another system. If they can't stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. Who says they are? As with anything unproven, wisdom states we assume that isn't real/happening unless they can prove otherwise.

I'm not saying Nintendo software doesn't compete on some level with other manufacturer first party content (although it seems to be faring worse on Wii U). What I am saying is that I don't think Nintendo titles are as revered as they used to be, since I think more would buy the Wii U if that was the case. I remember Mario 64 literally selling the N64. I think the gaming landscape has changed a lot in the past 5 years - people more and more look for added value in their purchases.

What about on an individual basis (as Nintendo have more games)? Where do Nintendo's games chart? I'm sure that recently at least, a lot of their games (at least Wii U) have not been charting that highly. Like DKC Tropical Freeze. And then I have a feeling they drop off big time... If Nintendo's name was really selling like it always did, why aren't more buying the Wii U? Also we're not talking last gen (naughty you). This is about the here and now situation Nintendo finds themself in.

When you say force, that brings all the wrong words to mind. They're free to ignore or take on board your comments if you challenge their ignorance. Just maybe you'll make them rethink their view. Although I get what you mean. Induce change in nonviolent, civil ways, as opposed to yelling at people like a lunatic.

But what does that mean? Nintendo's own games sell the best...on their own console? Hardly an achievement really, is it?

The main problem I see with this is that the competition has 2-3 year old+ games that are below £10, or have even been given away for free or not much money (Plus/Steam). It's ok to argue that Nintendo games have their own unique feel and are high quality, but so are certain other publisher's games that have dropped in price as time goes by... As with many aspects, adapting to certain modern trends or desires is key! Be different only where difference is good, and follow standards when standards are demanded.

Yeah Souls is pretty linear in one respect (progression through levels), but also gives you freedom in the order of areas you can visit as well as much optional content (bosses, shortcuts to skip stuff and come back later, etc).

But Nintendo shit isn't selling on name alone anymore, surely that's the real point? Drop prices plz...