Sheikah

I think it was meant to stack but didn't. That's what I remember...

Grab whatever is left if he can't have two.

No need to brace I think, that post sums it up perfectly. I think when you look at Guitar Hero (or whichever series first did this), they show that you can come up with a device that's pretty novel, and they didn't need their own hardware platform. I don't really buy when people say we'd only ever see their most popular franchises such as Zelda and Mario, and never F-Zero. If the demand for these games is there, then surely there will be enough money in it for a game to be made (whether Nintendo were first or third party). I just don't understand how he can predict all of this. At the moment the Wii U has very little third party support so the amount of actual developers supporting the Wii U (not talking 3DS) lost if they went third party home console seems to be negligible. I mean, you even have companies like Ubisoft saying that they're making exclusive games for the Wii U, then announcing that actually it's going to all consoles (Rayman Legends - probably because they saw how badly the Wii U was doing). For that reason, even the next Xenoblade/whatever isn't exactly a cast in stone Wii U exclusive (so not really known if it's 'their loss). As for their finances, I don't know the figures but the Wii U must surely be haemorrhaging money on account of how badly it's doing. At the end of the day, if it's a choice between losing a lot of money/being unprofitable with their Wii U vs making good money but paying licensing fees on other consoles then the latter seems preferable. If you have more money, I would've thought that'd mean more potential to have more studios and hire the talent. People talk about how the 'company culture' would fall apart, but would it really? And would that necessarily be a bad thing? A lot of Nintendo games have got rather stale - perhaps more studios with larger numbers of fresh staff is a good thing. Let's face it, many of Nintendo's games (particularly New Super Mario Bros, Mario Kart, Zelda) have become a bit formulaic - I think even with the loss of the 'company culture' that they could easily produce these sequels as they are doing now. They just follow a set of pre-defined standards and traditions when making these games.

I finished it and did absolutely everything in it. It was a really nice game, even if the hover utility made some aspects a little easy. That and great level design made the FLUDD-less levels (when it was robbed from you) my favourite of all Mario experiences. Looking back, I liked this more than Galaxy, although Galaxy got much higher praise. Funny, that.

I kinda liked the grind and slaughter fest of Dynasty Warriors, but one thing I always thought they could improve (maybe in later hardware revisions) is to have more people actually doing something. The game could always boast having many models on screen on once, but that was because the vast majority didn't even try attack you. Apart from the generals.

Thanks, but now the internet personality post is gone. Sad times. :p

Growth egg, it costs 500k and doubles EXP and JP gain for the party but you get no money.

It isn't just the money factor though. If Wii U games came out on PS4 for instance you'd have next gen graphics, a robust online system and arguably a better controller (I'm not a huge gamepad fan).

Skyward sword was so divisive because a lot of people didn't like motion controls, among some other reasons. I know a lot of people on here, myself included, didn't like motion controls. The bolded part, I just don't agree with. Nintendo shouldn't be looking to control methods as a way of innovating their games. Unless virtual reality becomes a hit. I think the most important thing Nintendo can do to improve Zelda is to redesign the format - change the game content. Nobody is crying out for a new way to control Link. In some ways to me, having a new method of controlling your character is a bit like someone removing your mouse from your PC and giving you a new peripheral. Interesting, perhaps, but can also be pretty annoying.

Regarding the comment 'why would I buy the 3DS when I can get Mario on X1/PS4' - surely if that were true, nobody would have ever bought any Nintendo handheld if they could just buy a Nintendo home console? The handheld/home console formats must be different enough for people ever to buy both anyway. People can't get Pokemon, Phoenix Wright or Layton on home console, for instance.

Why not just torrent or Crunchy Roll? I dread to think what it'd be like to try buy all of One Piece...

No by n=1 I mean that you can't use a single example to argue that that's the way it'll go for anyone else. It's a moot point, really. You can study the case to try and figure out where they in particular went wrong, but with just one example you can't really conclude that the same would happen again for everyone else. Especially when you consider that Sega are vastly different to Nintendo in the sense that they were forced into that position and lost much of what made them great. When you lose that, you're not going to produce the same kind of games. And as said before, a lot of Sega's games didn't carry over with generations. Nintendo have several very popular to popular well established game series. What happened to Sega therefore would be very unlikely to happen to them.

You and I are arguing over 2 popular uses of the word 'compete'. You can argue that by being a games/console developer you are also competing with the other companies. Similarly, it is often said 'there's no competition' when talking about a competitor not really coming close to other candidates. Or you can say 'they can't compete with our prices'. Technically they're competing, but for all intents and purposes they aren't. As for the handheld vs console - New Super Mario Bros features on both handheld and Wii U, as does MH3, as does/will Mario Kart, as does a (sort of) Mario 3D Land (/World). I agree that there is a difference between handheld and console, but the 3DS vs Wii U comparison is still far more relevant to completely different, understandably less popular/established franchise comparisons that Andy made. Some are even practically the same games in my comparison. It just shows that people aren't that interested in the Wii U. Anyway...this is getting long, but I agree with the consortium. I would go one step further and suggest that a unified format that still supports individual peripherals like PC would be better for the consumer, but naturally that'd never happen.

For actual evidence to support my point, look at the sales of similar Nintendo franchises on a console people do want (3DS). People do want Nintendo games; they are really good. They're more popular than more recent franchises that have been mentioned before. Nintendo just aren't competing though in the home console sector these days. They've lost third party support and the Wii U is performing really badly. Now people that do like Nintendo games may pass up future releases because they don't want to sink £200 on a Wii U. As for people gravitating towards a console that has the games they want - naturally. But that doesn't in any way mean that Nintendo games sell well because they are on a specific machine. If every Nintendo game of the noughties released on the epically successful PS2 instead of the gamecube, do you think Nintendo would have sold no games? I imagine they very much would have sold games. Probably more. If Nintendo went elsewhere, the core audience would likely follow. Similarly, those who like Nintendo but not enough to buy a Wii U would now be able to get Nintendo games.

@Serebii 60 FPS has been achieved on next gen. Given that Nintendo's games would in no way push the next gen systems based on what they normally output, I see no problems. X1/PS4 are also said to have very similar architecture. The only reason there have been issues so far is probably because they were rushing for launch and had a very short time to get to grips with it. Nintendo spend years between game releases so wouldn't really have that problem. Why? Handhelds and consoles are very different. As proven by 3DS being successful and Wii U failing. People clearly see/want something differently in handhelds than home consoles. They are distinct from one another.

Yes, but you don't look at one instance of something happening in history and say 'well we can't do that, because this is what will always happen'. The world doesn't work that way. Especially when the two companies are not the same, do not have the same calibre of content and most importantly, are not being forced into losing what made them great.

Put it this way - whatever they can achieve technically (60 FPS etc) can only ever be more impressive on far higher spec machines. It's not as if Nintendo software is some kind of magical creature that only performs properly on a machine with a Nintendo brand. Even those Nintendo machines are made from parts that they didn't personally hand forge, so what's the big deal?

I don't think so, really. Most of my favourite games are produced by third party developers. And can Nintendo get that much worse than what they're doing with the Wii U now? Heh. To be fair, plenty of companies like Bethesda spend years between releases (e.g. Morrowind - Oblivion - Skyrim). What they produce then are such comprehensive, quality games that they make tons of cash. This crops up time and time again. Never in any other setting would anyone use an n=1 observation to base the outcome of all future similar events. The reason I don't agree with the comparison is because Sega were forced into their position whereas Nintendo have money and wouldn't be forced into anything. Put simply, it wouldn't be the same situation at all and people who bring this example up never seem to consider that.

Firstly, that's some attitude. Second, there's really nothing more to say other than what you did was a bad comparison. By your own confession, Nintendo games sell better than the ones on Sony consoles you mentioned. However, what you did then was to assume that those games on Sony consoles sold worse than the Nintendo games because of the console they were on (and that there was no audience). Not only is that a huge oversight, there's simply no evidence to support it. The Nintendo games that sell loads have large existing fanbases and have long histories. And probably, most people would agree that those games are just more fun to play. Put it another way - quite understandably, the Nintendo games sell better and are more popular. Yet, the Wii U is struggling hard. Clearly, it's not an issue with the games, which people have shown time and time again that they like. It's the console - people may love the occasional big hitter Nintendo title, but can't justify a (technically last gen) console purchase based on just those. It's for that reason I think Nintendo would do better to not waste time and resources producing home consoles that don't compete anymore, and release their titles on other formats.

Not at all. A much bigger audience. The Wii U is selling horribly, but that doesn't mean fans of Nintendo have dried up. They just don't want the console.

It wasn't evidence, it was a very poor comparison to game franchises that are nowhere near as popular as Nintendo's.

We'd just be repeating ourselves really. It was never full Nintendo 3rd party - just home console that I was suggesting.

What do you mean 'is there an audience for Nintendo on other consoles'? Of course there is; many people with Nintendo home consoles get another console anyway. And the people who normally just buy a Nintendo console for Nintendo games would buy the console that now had Nintendo games on it. It's no different. You act like people who buy PS4s/X1s are another species who couldn't possibly have any interest in Nintendo.

I know what they are, and I'm sure most PC gamers can run this game to look better than the PS3 version already. PS3 is old tech. The point that you're overlooking is that the definitive edition, aside from some model touch ups, seems to have been developed to overcome some of the shortcomings of the console versions (which don't seem to have been present in the PC version). That's what I got from watching the video by the definitive version devs. Draw distance was one such thing. For that reason, that may even be why there isn't a definitive PC version, simply because the PC version (aside from models) is pretty definitive anyway.

How can you say 30 FPS on the consoles vs butter smooth PC frametate (and higher resolutions/AA) is practically the same? Most people would say these are big improvements. And do we even know the definitive version will hit PC? I've found no word of it. I also checked out a video outlining the definitive version changes. Most of the video is them saying how they can overcome certain limitations of the PS3/360. It sounds like to me that these limitations shouldn't have been present in the PC version, so I'm guessing they probably weren't. It's a shame that the definitive version is still only 30 FPS though.