Sheikah

Don't mention it.

liger PSN just give the titles away as part of Plus, which is even better than cheap. Steam is often cheap. Nintendo are definitely far behind here. Games mostly stay at RRP.

It might be worth investing a small amount of cash into a decent VPN :p

There's some crazy echo going on on your cams @The Peeps and @Happenstance, everything you say is saying it sorta twice, can't really hear your game. :p

I get what you're saying and Nintendo has done that well in the past - games that everyone can get into. But there's also undeniably a lot of games that adult gamers do want to play that are available on the platforms apart from Nintendo's. It'd be cool if Nintendo could have their games and the third party ones.

That wasn't reaching out to adults, that was reaching out to non gamers. That fad has kinda passed now though. And I'd still say they need to adapt. People know what they want and Wii U sure ain't delivering it.

Oh crud, needs flash. Damn lack of/poor flash support on tablets. :/ Edit nvm. Found Happenstance's twitch address.

Fair enough. I agree I could have worded it better. I also want the Wii U to do better (having recently bought one) but boy, Nintendo sure don't help themselves sometimes.

What's the URL for this stream? Couldn't find it anywhere.

I'm not saying it can't appeal to adults, I'm saying a lot of the games that are specifically adult targeted third party games don't make it to the console. I don't think it is ridiculous. A lot of their customers they had from the SNES/64 era are now adults. I don't think their output has grown to please those adults (in GENERAL, not the niche community here). A lot of adults go to other consoles looking for games like GTA, Red Dead Redemption, Fallout and Skyrim. Say what you want about kids also playing these games, but there's no doubt in my mind that PS3 has many more mature games (and I don't just mean violence, I also mean games with more substance and generally those that make you think). Online on Nintendo consoles (in relative terms) is not a pleasant experience in my opinion. The online infrastructure of Nintendo consoles is notoriously poor. The 3DS for instance now has no way of communicating with people outside of games. Nintendo should he ashamed. The whole screaming kids thing on PS3 is a ridiculous cliche. It's just not that way at all. Except maybe on COD. Anyway, at least we know people have opted to pick out the tiniest part of my post to extrapolate rather than try tackle what I was actually saying.

Oh look. You guys are TOTALLY going off on a complete tangent rather than argue with the actually important issue here. Probably because you can't argue the actual main point. The Wii U isn't an attractive console for devs to develop for. So naturally it will make most of its sales from Nintendo games. It's not a negative that Sony/MS make most of their money from third party games. It's a sign of a healthy console. And that's the end of that.

Then you're part of the minority. I'm not saying that the games you play can't be enjoyed by adults, but by definition they are not adult games (an example would be Pokemon, which I like). There's a lot of more mature games that Nintendo consoles don't get and you know it. Anyway you're going off on a tangent and ignoring the crux of the argument in my post. Think about it - how many people have bought a Wii U? Not many. Even if they were mostly adults, which I'm not totally sure about, I'll bet more adults will buy the PS4.

So you're saying games like GTAV wouldn't sell on Nintendo consoles in part because of strong competition from games like NSMB? Ca'maaan think about it. That's not why and you know it. Nintendo home consoles indeed do have a different demographic of players - it's because they refuse to modernise in making consoles that appeal to adult gamers or third party devs. They still believe offline is the best experience and that their consoles don't need to conform to a certain graphical standard. They make their consoles accordingly (underpowered, poor online infrastructure). What I'm saying is...supposing Nintendo made more effort to attract the same sort of games, and games that run as well as on the other systems (same graphical quality, same online performance) then I think they'd make a lot of sales from those too. I don't think Sony and MS making a lot of cash from third party games is a bad thing. Attracting successful third party games is a good thing and the sign of a desirable console.

I know, it's fucking ridiculous. It's as bad as false advertising if you ask me. It is NOT 1080p.

What I mean is, Nintendo don't get a lot of the games that sell big (e.g. GTA) so you don't know if the Wii U would make a lot of sales from these games (since it often doesn't have them, or the versions are inferior to the MS/Sony ones).

Maybe Nintendo would be propped up by those games too if developers had faith in their consoles. Don't hate the system, hate the users.

I think the Last of Us and Demon's Souls top all of those games in your list Zechs in terms of gameplay and ingenuity, but then they are new IP whereas the ones in your list are Nintendo's bread and butter rehashes. I would say that Sony have more interesting titles these days than Nintendo. And it's not just 'grey shooters' at all.

I think you need to put down your researched charts and just do the test, Zechs. I can clearly see the difference on my 32 inch TV sat at a reasonable distance away. The difference between 720p and 1080p is really quite obvious, and I should imagine most people have at least a 32 inch TV. As has already been said, the man is talking out of his backside.

I don't think that's the case, I doubt the Mafia would admit to killing if they did it themselves.

This. As Nintendo have only just adopted HD I'd hardly expect Zechs to know the first thing about higher resolutions. :p

I've now got an image in my mind of a German kid standing at a game shop counter at 8:59 screaming 'schnell, schnell!' at the store clock.

You're just being petulant now. I don't know why you're suggesting I dropped the ball anyway. It's pretty clear I was one of the most anti Dedede lynch people here which was certainly a good thing. Why criticise? Can't we just forgive and move on over this? We both recognised various things and we've both done a fuck of a lot more than most here to work things out. Can we please hear from work the remaining people that I mentioned probably about 50 pages back. Especially Moogle. He's just gone totally silent.

You thanked a post that said it was too late to change lynch candidate [from Dedede]. Truly silly. And you can say what you like but it's there in black and white. I was putting forward points to counter the Dedede lynch why you still had your votes on him. And the vast majority of the individual claims of the anti-lynch argument I successfully linked to my time stamped posts.

Oh I'm sorry, my wonderful deductions came before something? Must mean I came up with it then. Case closed tbf. tl;dr version: DuD claims credit for something, challenges me to prove him wrong. He is proven very wrong. To add one last cherry to the cake on how little DuD believes anything he was saying: This was posted not long before Dedede's lynch happened. DuD thanked this post.

@DuD, you have indeed been claiming credit for others' efforts I see.