Chairman Kaga said:
How can a name that actually has something to do with the system be stupid? I think what you're trying to get at is that less thought was put into the names, and, therefore, these names are lesser in comparison with the Wii. This, however, tends very often to be false; Nintendo has never had a name that hasn't been both catchy and pertinent to the system. As I've previously stated, the meaning behind Wii is incredibly abstract and created in the misguided spirit of "innovation", not as a method to attract people to the system. It's simply another case of Nintendo trying too hard to stand out when it's not necessary.
The names did not make or break the success of the four systems you listed; all except for the Dreamcast were promoted on a very small scale and were doomed to failure from the start; the Dreamcast simply didn't deliver as far as good games went. The quality of a name is subjective, but it's undeniable that it's representative of more than a mere title for the system.
Stupid wasn't the right choice of words, but I'll explain it anyway. Stupid as in not a whopping cool name that everyone will jump all over. Does "GameBoy Color" sound like a cool name to you or does it sound more "stupid" then cool (sure it has a meaning behind it)? I'm not saying Nintendo needs to go out and make a system called the Nintendo Galaxy, I'm just fine with their names that has meaning behind it. We all know (or at least I hope we all know) that the name "Revolution" just wasn't going to cut it. You say "misguided sprit of innovation" but I've sated before that the "i" could mean both people getting together or the Wii remote. And what is the whole thing behind the innovativeness behind the Wii? The new controller, and that's in the name. It's just like the past systems, it's just not as clear as some people want it to be.
Chairman Kaga said:
I never said that I wanted all customers to be pleased; it's impossible, but it is possible to make a system that isn't going to alienate a considerable amount of loyal customers. The issue here is not attracting customers, because, as is obvious, if one is not a Nintendo fan now, odds are they never will be, and I would hope that Nintendo still has a shred of realism small enough to realize this. What they're doing is bad business sense.
If everyone wants to stick in the days of normal gaming then they can stay that way. But how many gens can the "We got the best horsepower, we got the best specs, we got the best graphics" last? Have you seen the PS3 and 360 games? They look really really great. But how long will that style of gaming last, a gen (after the Wii/PS3/360), maybe two? How much better on graphics can they get? FFXIII looks really really real, some of the 360 games (CG shots) I was shocked because it was so dang real. But what happens once them systems gets as real as they can? That's what Nintendo is looking at, they are changing the gaming market again (back in the 80s the game market crashed and everyone thought Nintendo was stupid for getting in the mix. We all know how that turned out, I'd even say that we wouldn't be as advanced as we are today on gaming if Nintendo didn't go out there and start it back up). They know it's not going to last so they are going to tick off a few people and maybe in the process bring in others and set gaming on a new track. You say that the Wii isn't going to bring in new people, it's only going to piss off a bunch of others and go off worse then the GC. Well you're not thinking outside of the box. I'll put it this way, Most people that play FPS games plays it on the PC (ask Jack about that), mainly because the controls of a console sucks next to the controls of the PC. Now I'm betting on a great deal of PC FPS gamers will buy a Wii just to play the FPS games. Mainly because it might outdo the old mouse and keyboard when it comes to FPS games. It puts you there in the game, there controlling who you are in the game. Many gamers want the play to be as real as it can, and if you feel like you're there shooting that gun then I'm sure many FPS players will be happy with the Wii. Not only FPS players, but sports players, lets say you always wanted to bat for the Braves (my team XD) and really bat for them. Well you can with the Wii controller, it'll be like you're there swinging that bat. Or you want to play golf, or tennis, you can do both with the controller. Or if you want to go beyond sports and have a nice sword battle with someone then you can do that as well with the Wii. Now think about what you said up there, you said "if one is not a Nintendo fan now, odds are they never will be" but with all that sweet stuff on the Wii I bet for sure they'll pull in new fans. FPS fans, Sports fans, sword fans, fighting fans, racing fans, flying fans (that sounds strange XD), and others that just wants to try it out. I don't think they're making a stupid move, I study Nintendo and how they do thinks. They do stuff out of the box and 99% of the time it works (I say 99 because we know how the Virtual Boy went), I think the Wii will be no different.
Chairman Kaga said:
I find that you use statistics to prove your points far too often. The quality of a system isn't quantifiable, as there have been both obscure systems that did not deserve failure and prominent systems that have no redeeming qualities. It's a new system, and people purchase it out of curiosity, not because it is particularly innovative. Principle plays as much a part in how deserving a system is of success as actual figures do, and most people who purchase a DS have no idea they're playing into Nintendo's hands, buying something that exists solely because Nintendo wants to be the best at something. In case you've forgotten Nintendo slapped together the DS as quickly as they could after the PSP announced and invented the "innovation" line to cover up the fact that their main goal was nothing more than to reduce Sony's market share. PSP is only suffering because of the higher price, otherwise it would be far more popular than it is now. Sony's problem is that they're unwilling to lose a bit more in the wholesale price of their systems in order to recoup losses through increased game sales. Nintendo, however, has the price game won, but produces so few quality games that it completely ruins their strategy. All DS owners I know in real life have no more than two games for their DS, one usually being Super Mario 64, so the statistics you're using obviously take Japan into account, and, as a whole, they enjoy more kitsch and have deeper pockets, so they'll settle for less.
You know why? Because stats don't lie, 10 million (as of Jan) DS sells proves one thing, it proves it's liked. And you say people buy the DS because they want to know what it's about? Well maybe that's true, but it's not no freaken 10 mill. So all them people are playing right into Nintendo's hands…. Right, I'm guessing next you'll say there's some great conspiracy to have games that controls the mind of everyone. Yes I do know Nintendo slapped the DS together to get it out before PSP. But 10 mil on sells, I'd say Nintendo did a hell of a good job slapping together a great great handheld. No, Sony's PSP isn't at the top of the market solely because of it's price tag. You say people buy the DS because they are blind into thinking it has new stuff, well I say people buy the PSP because they are blind and see the MP3 playback, movies, pics, surfing the web stuff and go all out for it. But I'll leave it up to people who know something about gaming (not that I don't), places like G4, GameSpot, IGN and others has said that the DS is a better handheld because of one very very big thing. The games are better, they are more fun then the games you'll find on the PSP. Now is the touch screen due to this? Maybe, maybe not. Games like Maro Kart, Metroid Pinball, Super Mario 64 and others doesn't really use the touch screen much (all three are big sellers and good rated games yet you could do without the touch screen on them games). But you also got games that uses the touch screen and they got high ratings (Metroid, Wario Ware and so on). One uses a touch screen the other doesn't, but both get high ratings. Hm…
Now I also got two games for my DS (my brother has one), but I'd own Metroid right now if I wasn't saving up for the Wii (I got the money to get it). And I plan on getting Metroid, and Pokemon D/P, and Starfox, and others once I get the cash. But if you're going to say "Well the people in Japan has the money to buy lots of DS games", don't you think the same would be for the PSP games?
Chairman Kaga said:
I stand by my belief that Nintendo needs to be taught a hard lesson, but I have never stated that because I think a certain way, everyone should. I can accept that there are people who like the idea, but, on the other side of the argument, no one seems to be able to accept that there are people who don't like the idea. "Closed-minded" isn't even a term that should be used in debates anymore, as it's one side's way of discreetly telling the other that they're incorrect simply for disagreeing. I could just as easily call you closed-minded for refusing to even consider the possibility that the Wii is not going to be received well.
And what lesson would that be Kaga? Them dying out like Sega and just be a game maker? Them going so low on sells that they got to go back and say "We made a stupid move"? Nah, they make too much money for something like that. So what is the hard lesson you want them to be taught?
You could say I'm closed minded for that. But I can bet more people will think like me and at least give Nintendo a chance. You on the other hand wish it would die out and that sort of stuff. Any real gamer (unless it's some loony fanboy) will at least acknowledge that Nintendo should be out there making games just like Sony and Microsoft.
Chairman Kaga said:
The "innovations" you listed above were not Nintendo's idea, nor could they have ever been innovations because they were incredibly common methods for game control in their respective times. The D-Pad had long been used along joysticks in arcades, the analog stick is nothing more than a more sensitive joystick, and the DS isn't even a console, nor is it a legitimate heir to any of Nintendo's lines. It already has the XYZ axis directional control of any modern console even without the touch screen, so it adds no new dimension of gameplay. Nor does the Wii; motion-sensitive control allows for freer movement in some respects, but at the cost of almost all other control. It's a payoff that I'm not willing to make.
I'll put it this way. Before Nintendo there was no D-Pad on systems (how many goes to an arcade to play games? How many do you know goes to an arcade?). An analog stick could be looked at as sort of a joystick so I'll let that one be. The DS is a Nintendo system, that's like saying the GameBoy Advanced isn't a GameBoy. And it doesn't add any new dimension to gameplay? Wow must have missed the hole touch screen part, seeing how nothing else has it. Then don't make it Kaga, if you don't want to at least think about all the stuff you can do with the Wii then don't buy it (I can't wait to see you post saying something about a Wii game you got). I'll just say you'll be left out of it all (on top of that I'm guessing you haven't heard of the shell for the controller, the one with all the old buttons, old style controller and so on).
Chairman Kaga said:
Then I'll take up your offer and continue to say that Nintendo's lost its soul whatever chance I get. I do happen to hate the DS for a number of reasons superfluous to this argument, but I can assure you that I've played the DS for lengthy periods of time with games such as Super Mario, Feel the Magic, Metroid, Mario Kart, Kirby: Canvas Curse, and various others and have come to my conclusion only because I've had experience with it. I couldn't care less about graphics; specs have always been of no import to me, but the overall appeal of the system is of great importance to me. I'd much rather have something that plays like an actual, traditional game system than something that is new for newness' sake.
And I'll just say you know nothing about Nintendo every chance I get. Oh good, at least you're not a mindless Sony fanboy like Kevin that can back up anything when he says "The DS sucks". Now, I don't see how you can hate new things, change isn't always bad (as you may thing). By the looks of it you hate all change when it comes to gaming. Sometimes it's needed as well as wanted. The PSP has old style of game play, the normal gaming style. Now the DS has that (like I said up there, games like Mario Kart don't use the touch screen) as well as the new (and IMO) better style of gaming. You can play games on the DS you won't find on another system (Wario Ware for example). It's the same with the Wii. Many people are sick of WWII FPS games, but I bet you they'd love to take a crack at Call of Duty 3 for the Wii (it's a WWII FPS like any other WWII FPS like ones on the 360/Xbox/PS2/GC). Why? Because it's something new, it's something different, and it's something that might just work in gaming. Now like I said, if you want to stay with the "traditional" style of gaming then by all means go on. But that style isn't going to last as long as everyone hopes it will (as I said up there, going all out on hardware, graphics and so on isn't going to work).
Now if you want you can reply to all this, but don't look for a reply from me. Mainly because if I haven't gotten to you by now (with all the new things for the Wii, how it'll change gaming and so on) then I think nothing will. And I don't feel like sitting here typing up another 3 page MSWord doc saying the reasons why the Wii will be great, and why Nintendo isn't going to die and all that.
