@MirkoS77:

Saying Nintendo's listening more than they ever have been when failing to pull that into context that they've never really listened in the first place isn't really saying much, so you'll have to forgive me for holding any expectations past the bare minimum.

I never suggested that they listened much in the first place though. I think one of their strengths historically has been that they have not crowd-sourced game ideas or developed the specific games that people have asked for. As I said: Yamauchi's philosophy was that if you're "looking sideways you are not looking forward".

Let me be more explicit about why I think that quote applies here.

Nintendo's strength has always been that they have shown fans things we didn't even know we wanted. The magic of Nintendo has been that the core of their business was about imagining worlds and experiences that surprised and delighted players.

If you take that away - if you ask them to "just create a "good" Metroid game" (whatever that means - I'll get into that next) - and if they actually do that, then what's the point? You are directly asking them to erode the very DNA that makes them special, whether you know it or not.

I don't mean to say that you can't/shouldn't desire a specific game from them; I need to separate these concepts clearly for you here, because I'm not going after you for wanting particular things. You can want whatever you want. But because Nintendo aren't creating exactly what you want on your approved timeline, you accuse the company of being remiss or somehow deficient; the two things aren't related in the way you're trying to relate them, that's what I'm pointing out to you.

Here's an example of the misfiring that I see going on here:

They "can't produce every game that fans request at every moment in time"? How about at any moment in time? The degree of remiss on Nintendo's part is incredible, as are the continual apologists trying to excuse it.

Here you are simply ignoring all the games they have made that people want. I'm not painting you as an impatient, self-entitled gamer; I'm saying it's valid to want a new Metroid or Wave Race, that there's nothing wrong with that. But because Nintendo has filled space with other games for the last few years, you think they are remiss? What about the people who didn't want Wave Race but who were excited about Splatoon? Are they just wrong? Are they remiss or negligent in some fashion?

As I said - and as I'll repeat - it's perfectly fine to want a new [insert game title here]. Totally fine. I don't care about that and I'm not arguing against that. I'm just saying that you're drawing a long bow by connecting your personal disappointment in this situation into some broader narrative about Nintendo being remiss and Iwata somehow being a poor leader - it's just an unnecessary and irrelevant connection to make.

How Nintendo managed The Wii so perfectly and then failed so miserably only a few years later without the word phenomenon, fad, or gimmick involved.

As I said, I don't really want to re-litigate the argument yet again. If you're really keen to have this discussion, I'd consider a private message chat if you like.

But let me be really, really, really clear again: I never suggested directly or indirectly that Nintendo "managed the Wii so perfectly" or that words like "phenomenon, fad, or gimmick" were not involved. That bears zero relationship to anything I've ever said about this topic. It's quotes like this which suggest to me that you aren't coming to the discussion with an open mind, but rather, with a pre-defined narrative that everything must be shoehorned into. That's what makes me cautious here.

Anyway, give it some thought, if you want to have the discussion then I'd be open to private messages. :-)

Let me make one final point without going into all the dimensions of this, related to this quote:

Abiding by minimum standards of competence and parity that defines the console industry today would be a great start.

Do you realise - honestly - that you're really misusing a word like "competence" based on some of the bullet points you included below? I mean, for god's sake, you talk about E3 press conferences vs Nintendo Directs as an example of incompetence! Geeze. Don't you realise that you might have a personal preference for something...but others (including Nintendo) might disagree? This doesn't make them incompetent! It simply means that what you prefer in a particular case isn't necessarily what they've decided to do - I mean, I'm not sure that this warrants the wide-ranging barrage of attacks that basically say "if Nintendo do anything that doesn't sit on my wishlist, they are by definition incompetent or somehow neglectful".

On a final note, stop acting like you're exclusive to Nintendo's history and philosophies; even if you were it doesn't relegate everyone else's opinions on Nintendo immediately wrong or ignorant.

I'm not exclusive to Nintendo's history and philosophies; if I were, I wouldn't have recommended David Sheff's book! :-)

But if I see something that appears objectively wrong or blatantly unfair, I'll call it out. Much of your analysis about Iwata and Nintendo's business structure is, I think, clearly objectively incorrect. So I'll call that out when I see it.

Certainly though, there are many people who have great expertise in Nintendo and how they operate (aside from David Sheff). I'd be happy to give you more reference points if you're interested.

Are you saying that people take games too seriously now or are too analytical when it comes to games? I'm not sure what you mean.

One thing I will say though is that I've noticed a trend towards greater anger and saltiness in general. Although rivalries always existed, I feel like people were into games purely for the fun, and all kinds of fun were considered okay. But now everything feels so divided - you have to choose a brand, you have to justify your purchasing choices by referencing sales and market success, you have to choose games that have a historically important impact on the industry, etc etc...

Can't it just be about what's fun to play, regardless of brand or how "revolutionary" the game is? Sometimes I miss those simpler times. :-)

@Pedro: I never said it was a debate about whether or not you can get sick. Obviously people do.

In that instance, I'm talking about people who are hoping that PSVR (or VR in general) will fail, and who suggest that it's a "trash" experience. I suspect many of those people have never used VR before.

What's interesting to me is that there are so many different reactions to VR. But I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of the commentary comes from people who have actually never experienced it (especially the critics).

When I first tried PSVR I thought I'd get headaches or eye strain, but I didn't. I played game after game, and found it really comfortable. The only exception was Batman, which at one point got really confused and lost the focal point (the menu started to appear off to the side, when it should have been in front of me).

I think it's true that there's no VR killer app yet, and that might be because none of the hardware technology is quite where needs to be. But who knows.

One thing I will say though: I don't understand why anyone would want any VR platform to fail. That is totally nonsensical, especially if you're truly a gamer at heart. VR is something many of us have been looking forward to for a good couple of decades now - no other gaming experience comes remotely close in terms of total immersion. And who wouldn't want to be immersed in their favourite game worlds?

I find it sad that a weird brand loyalty has crept in even to this space, where people seem to be gleefully happy at the idea of one manufacturer or another failing in this area. I want all of them to do as well as possible - Sony, Occulus, HTC - so that VR can evolve and become a cheaper, more comfortable, more advanced and more mainstream platform.

For me it depends on the console (and it depends what you mean by "extra"). I wouldn't be willing to pay more than the retail price (i.e. from scalpers on eBay).

I picked up a PS4 on launch, but I only just bought an Xbox One in December. I'll be getting a Switch at launch, but that's primarily because I want to play Zelda as soon as it comes out.

I think the scripted nature of the game is one key to its success. As you move through the game, it knows where you are and what you are doing - it's hard to explain, but you actually get that feeling while playing. You never feel safe. The experience is very guided in nature, but I think that's what makes it work so well.

This is maybe the one genre where a guided experience is arguably necessary to maximise the fear factor. There are a ton of moments where the game makes really great use of timing and location (e.g. you're moving back and forth through rooms and hallways repeatedly, but if you do something different, the game might respond with a surprise...)

I haven't played Alien Isolation so I can't really compare it to that. But I will say that in terms of enemies, I can't remember encountering a single one that was impossible to kill (I'm almost at the final boss now). There are some enemies that spawn into existence but this makes total sense given the context and plot. Also, the game isn't unfair about this; once you've killed enemies in an area, they remain dead at least until that area "changes" (long story). :-)

Here in Melbourne, the issue seems to be supply rather than demand. I've been trying to get a PSVR for a while now, but it's continually out of stock. Each new shipment that comes in sells out very quickly because people put pre-orders on the next shipment.

I don't know what kind of numbers they are doing, but I'm hoping to get one of these for my birthday in April...I hope more stock is available by then.

If you've actually used PSVR yourself, it's hard to deny that it's a pretty incredible experience. But it does seem that game development isn't moving at the kind of pace that it could. We'll see how it goes; I certainly hope it continues as a platform. Perhaps Sony will introduce a revised v2 at some point.

Well, there are a lot of different topics pulled together here. Rather than dive down every rabbit hole, I'll just pick up on some key threads.

Saying that Nintendo is listening more now than ever before is not the same as saying that they are literally responding to every suggestion and creating games on that basis. C'mon.

Also, surely I don't need to point out that the company has finite resources and time like any company - they physically can't produce every game that fans request at every moment in time. I'm sure you'll see more of those franchises eventually. :-)

How would I describe it? Well, exactly as I did in my previous post - Iwata very clearly led the company to some great heights, and he initiated the restructure that we're starting to see the results of (i.e. Nintendo Switch, extended use of Nintendo IP, a push into mobile, etc...) - we won't know the full results of those changes for another couple of years, I'd say. It goes without saying though that this restructuring and change of strategy is clear evidence of their business not "remaining in the past", so that argument has a conclusive answer at this point.

The biggest blot on Iwata's record is really the Wii U, which failed to meet the company's own expectations. But there are two ways you can look at this. You can be entirely reductive and say that this failure happened under Iwata's watch and is evidence of him driving a company into decline, or you can go deeper and actually look at the full breadth of history to understand Nintendo as a company.

If you take the former approach, then you might as well hang Yamauchi out to dry for the Virtual Boy fiasco. The problem, of course, is that this is a simplistic view of reality.

The Wii U certainly didn't succeed according to Nintendo's own lights, but that's the risk you take when you innovate! Even Steve Jobs said this in regard to Apple. Nintendo takes calculated risks, and they don't always pan out. But they continue to take these risks because they understand that their competitiveness lies in creating a point of difference.

I have been through extensive discussions with you in the past about why the Wii's success was not simply due to luck; I refer you to those older posts. I don't want to re-litigate that again.

On your final point about the Nintendo Switch: my advice is to wait and see. The thing hasn't even launched yet, and you're already framing a narrative around it that fits neatly into a reductive view of Nintendo that you already hold.

Switch might be successful or it might not. Who knows. I personally think the concept looks great, although I share concerns about what the game library will ultimately look like as time moves on - but I'm willing to say that it's too early to really know how the landscape will look a year from now. Again, let's wait and see.

The relevant question at this point though is how you define success for the Nintendo Switch - what does it take for you to concede anything that doesn't fit your pre-defined view of Nintendo? From everything I've read of your posts, it seems to me like nothing will convince you until Nintendo makes a PS4. I mean, when the Wii U fails you place all the blame on Nintendo, but when the Wii succeeds you do all sorts of gymnastics to avoid crediting Nintendo in any way (it's luck, it's a gimmick, it's nothing but timing, etc...)

So, I'd be interested to know how you define success for Nintendo Switch, and then we can wait and see what unfolds from there. But I suspect that if the platform does well in your eyes, it won't have anything to do with Nintendo.

@TheMisterManGuy: In the first instance, I think this article asks a question based on a set of fairly shaky assumptions. For example, it starts by assuming that Nintendo is "arrogant" because they "don't always listen to fans when all we ask for is good games".

Firstly, Nintendo actually listens to fans more now than ever before. That may come as a surprise, but under Yamauchi's leadership, the general philosophy was that "if you're looking sideways, you aren't looking forward" (this was a reference to doing competitor analysis, although I think it can be applied to taking on board gamer suggestions as well). There are numerous examples in recent years of Nintendo directly taking player feedback on board and implementing it (everything from character suggestions in Smash Bros. to the constant player demands for Pikmin 3, especially where the commercial prospect of the latter is questionable).

Secondly, think for a moment about the subtext of this article: it is suggesting that games should be more subject to market pressures (i.e. "what's popular") rather than creative vision. I find this concept fairly ironic, given that gamers have for years railed against companies like EA and others who they see as pandering to market forces and sacrificing creative design at the altar of commercial convenience. I mean, would Nintendo have created Splatoon based on this approach to design? I think it'd be unlikely, at the very least.

I mean, this article directly argues against innovation and creativity. It holds up the PS3 - the "safest console of this generation" - as an example of the best possible approach that Nintendo could take, out of a broad range of possibilities. Honestly, I find that quite incredible, especially given the cynicism with which gamers generally view anything that they see as having a strong commercial - rather than creative - drive.

Overall though, what's most interesting to me is this idea that Nintendo have operated fundamentally differently over the last 10 years - I think this demonstrates a misunderstanding of the company's history, honestly. Nintendo never referred to focus groups or competitor analysis to design their products. They always had a view about "facing forward" and marching to the beat of their own drum. They also consistently held to the concept of leveraging "mature technology" and finding new uses for it; this philosophy began under Yamauchi and continued through with Iwata and now (to a degree) Kimishima (in fact, this could be one of many reasons why Yamauchi selected Iwata as his successor).

One final observation, which isn't directly related to this article but which I feel is still relevant in a general way: there's this idea that Nintendo never push technology forward, that they are always "behind" on a technological level. In reality, this isn't the case: all of their consoles have offered up some significant technological prowess, it's just that this investment hasn't always been weighted towards outright processing power.

I mean, if you look at the Switch, there's some incredible technology being packed into a small and affordable product. Taken as a whole, it's easily a technologically advanced as any other platform - but because it doesn't have the highest processing numbers, everything else gets dismissed as a "gimmick" or as somehow unimportant. This is an impoverished view, in my opinion, and a highly reductive one as well.

I highly recommend reading the book Game Over by David Sheff. It charts - in detail - Nintendo's history from the arcades up to the early days of the SNES. It's a remarkable read and it's the most in-depth resource on Nintendo's inner workings. If you read it, you'll find that you may come away with an updated perspective on the last 10 years of Nintendo. :-)

(By the way, Nintendo's performance was not "ever declining" while Iwata was in charge - that's rubbish. Iwata presided over the introduction of both the original NintendoDS as well as the Wii. Given where Nintendo had come from with N64 and GameCube, it is disingenuous at best to argue that Iwata simply managed a company in decline.)

I hate to say this, but there have always been console skeptics. This is not a new phenomenon. There have also been huge PC skeptics over the years, and I think they've been equally wrong.

What's interesting is that the skeptics are often people who don't understand/don't use the platform they are skeptical of. For example, I find that many console skeptics are not console players - therefore, it's easy to be skeptical, because they don't understand the value proposition of consoles (you can then apply this to any platform of your choice). Granted, it's not always the case, but I find it's often the case.