I'm typically the end all be all Nintendo supporter, but even I'm thinking it's time for some management shake up. If you spend enough time reading into it, Iwata makes it pretty clear he's more concerned with keeping the internals of Nintendo happy and layoff-free, and it's costing the consumer, which is not the kind of business tactics that make people happy. I love my Wii U, and I've had plenty to play on it this year; if it was up to me, specifically, I wouldn't change a thing at Nintendo. For me, as a gamer, everything they're doing is exactly what I want.

The problem with this is that I'm clearly in a minority here, as the Wii U isn't reaching enough people to make it successful, and as someone who wants to see Nintendo releasing the games that I love for a long, long time, my continued happiness is reliant on Nintendo finding a way to reach more gamers. And that's something they aren't finding a way to do.

Iwata's stated himself that he hasn't been able to see what gamers want outside of Japan, and he's shown in the past he's not exactly willing, nor is his team, to look outward from their own creative minds. The reason that worked so well for them in the past is because gaming is just now coming into it's own. Nintendo always found a way to expand the gaming experience beyond what anybody had seen, and we're unfortunately now reaching a point where we've seen just about everything done that's going to be done. And it's time Nintendo started paying attention to what the people are asking for, instead of just making what they're going to make and saying, "take it over leave it." I'll gladly bite on anything Nintendo-developed, but most gamers are choosing to leave it alone. And there's the problem.

There's a pretty simple solution that would turn the Wii U into an insta-hit:

Create a great effing Pokemon game on it, and market it like crazy. It doesn't even need to be an RPG, as the higher ups at Game Freak have no intention of releasing a non-handheld main entry in the series. Just find a way to turn all of those Pokemon fanatics on the 3DS into Wii U fanatics with something from the Pokemon franchise that would bring them in droves. It's not the complete solution, but I definitely think that's where turning this thing around would need to start.

It's pretty much recoding the game so that it runs properly on the new system. What people don't understand, and this is why people think all of the Wii's virtual console should just be on the Wii U shop already, is that it's not a simple copy and paste job, even when the system's architecture is similar to the previous console. It costs quite a bit of effort to make it run properly.

This is also the same answer as to why having more powerful hardware doesn't just automatically make a game run and look better. This is why people think the Wii U is less powerful than the 360, when it's not.

Nobody under or overrates anything, that's why it's their own opinion, and that's why everyone has them. Claiming someone's own thoughts on something they're experiencing for themselves are somehow stupid or wrong is a childish act that people would be better off phasing out of their lives.

@BrunoBRS: I think you nailed it on the head there. So I suppose I'll have to reword my theory and simply state it's entirely possible Zelda takes place in the distant future, in its own world compared to the length of ours.

I wish most people on the Internet were this well spoken and logical. Reading a compelling argument is so much more preferable to -- "no. Just no. Only an idiot would say that." My hat's off to you my friend.

Evil Jayson wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole.

For what it's worth, I loved Skyward Sword. I loved the controls, I loved that the overworld was a giant puzzle waiting to be solved. I shared the same frustrations that everyone else did, though. I found the controls a burden sometimes, and I definitely missed feeling like there were things to see and do in the game besides advancing to the next dungeon.

But what I found particularly odd about Skyward Sword, seeing how it's the first chronological title in a series that's so heavily rooted in medieval themes, is how mechanical the game felt -- especially when traveling into the past. That's when I started wondering if Zelda's actually set hundreds or thousands of years in the future.

Let's get this out of the way and admit that this is just a video game, and the developers are really just letting their creative wings spread unburdened by the logic of the first game in the series featuring technology far advanced compared to later entries. The team at Nintendo wanted to make Link travel back in time to a bunch of weird, robot Furbies with super-cool technology, which is set even farther back than the first game in the timeline. Now that's out of the way, let's get down to business.

So, what I've been thinking about is that just maybe the games are set far passed modern time, where science has advanced far enough to create strange, light powered mine carts in some creepy, super race of man-rodents. During this period, something cataclysmic inevitably happens and sends mankind (and Zora/Goron, etc) back into the stone ages we remember from games like Ocarina and Link to the Past. It isn't until Twilight Princess, which is one of the very last titles in the timeline, that we finally start seeing weird gadgets, like that chicken-mech-cannon that shoots Link into the Sky Temple -- and when society has rebuilt its wherewithal in the tech world. When I'm wondering why the tech in Skyward Sword surpasses that of later entries in the series, it seems like the only explanation is that it happened far in the future and saw the world crumble in on itself, only to have to start over and provide the medieval world we've grown to know in Zelda games.

Other theories are welcome, of course.

You mean the guy who shows up, drops undeniably sound logic, and then gets the f*** out? I'd want to be that guy.

The thought process is sound, and I see how you're adding up the math, but that logic is founded in the belief that the games themselves don't cost anything to make. Nintendo isn't profiting sixty dollars a game because they also have to cover the costs of producing the game itself.

The lawsuit sends something like five dollars for every system to the guy who won, certainly not 66%.

This is a statement I find rather confounding. You argue that Mario Galaxy, a game in which the majority is played with standard platformer controls, was too unbearable to play due to a select few levels and moves that require a minimal amount of arm movement, but then argue that you only use the Wii for a game that requires more movement than any other title on the system outside of Wii Fit. So, why exactly was the occasional flicking so unbearable here? Are we playing the same Wii Sports Resort?