Jim Sterling (The Jimquisition)

From a bystanser's pov, Nintendo creates everything they put out, Sony and Microsoft publish games fo their platform. Imo that is the difference, and what makes fans feverish.

The biggest games on the P Ses and Xboxeswere mostly third parties or first-party studios w/ different names. Nintendo though made your shit. They made your Mario, your Zelda, your Metroid, thus your childhood. So people defend them like loonatics

edited 6th Mar '17 5:24:49 PM by mrsunshinesprinkles

Yeah, those of us who are veterans of the original console war, Nintendo v. Sega, have a profound attachment to Nintendo that makes it really difficult to be mad at them and heart-wrenching to hear criticism slung their way. Nintendo basically crafted our childhoods. They're like family.

Some handle that in a less dignified fashion than others.

edited 6th Mar '17 5:26:48 PM by TobiasDrake

So the only difference is Sony didn't brand Naughty Dog or Guerilla Games as Sony Studio #5 and Sony Studio #17? And what about Game Freak or Hal laboratories?

And there are some....people that actively wish for the collapse of Nintendo, whether due to pure hatred or wishfully thinking Nintendo's games would wind up on other consoles or on PC. On the latter reason, people don't realize a defunct company doesn't suddenly lose all their intellectual properties.

I don't get why so many people are obsessed with hating on Nintendo... I mean it doesn't engage in immoral practices like Konami or ea.

To be fair, THQ being deader than disco didn't stop a new remastered release of Darksiders 1 from coming out last November.

Other than turning on monetization on other people's videos to get profits for themselves.

Plus some of Nintendo's earlier practices in the NES and SNES era were outright loathable (For example: deciding how many cartridges a third party product would get, ergo how many copies they could sell)

edited 6th Mar '17 6:25:04 PM by Ghilz

Well yeah that sucked, but it was also directly after a time where video games had zero quality control and Nintendo attempted to squash it. Of course this eventually bit them in the ass.

Then again, SOME form of control would be nice, considering all the trash that pops up in the downloads section on each console. Steam being the biggest offender.

@Hal, Game Freak: Forgot to mention them. They are third parties working in-house, but I'd say for mainline games they are exceptions. Not exceptionally rare, Platinum did Star Fox, Retro took a shake at Metroid, but in the case of those two Nintendo are the ones who started them. It might be perception more than anything else.

edited 6th Mar '17 6:35:38 PM by mrsunshinesprinkles

bull crap. Doctor Jekkyl and Mr. Hyde got approval. Total Recall got approval. Wheres Waldo, Super Pitfall, Deadly Towers and Terminator got approval. There was so much garbage on the NES that the console makes up the majority of AVGN episodes. And of Sean baby's 20 worst NES games of all time, only 1 was unlicensed- #19, Bible Adventures.

There was absolutely no quality control to Nintendo restricting cartridges, and everything to do with making as much money as possible and not caring about other companies.

Nintendo wasn't concerned with Quality Control (as even a cursory glance at the NES and SNES library will tell you), but QUANTITY control. They were worried that if they didn't limit the number of games released, the market might crash like it did in the great Video Game crash. Nintendo gave no fucks about if the games were good or bad, only that there weren't too many for the market to absorb.

A lot of their policies played havoc on smaller developers: You had to buy a minimum number of cartridges, and Nintendo also determined how many copies you could sell AND how many games you could release in a year. So you could very well be forced to buy more cartridges than you could sell, and not be allowed to make more games to sell your cartridge backlog. Or just not be able to sell enough copies to turn in a profit.

The only Quality Nintendo cared was their bizarre censorship, making sure nothing too adult could make it to the system, and trying to limit anything that might spark a moral panic.

edited 6th Mar '17 7:03:53 PM by Ghilz

The Atari 2600 had 585 games released for it over 15 years. The NES had 826 over 10 years.

Anything you ever heard about Nintendo doing anything to save or bolster the market after the crash is a myth created by zealous fanboys trying to paint Nintendo as a messianic figure and not, y'know, a company. They were highly opportunistic and came into the US market all competitors had exited with a healthy product, and just drastically reduced the audience base by cutting off most of the audience, lowered the age they targetted from all ages to just kids, as well as marketing it heavily to boys instead of being unisex, and then putting out shameless self advertising in the guise of independent and objective reviewing to stop any word of mouth noticing that 90% of NES games were shit. Thats the sum total of what they did to kickstart videogames again.

edited 6th Mar '17 7:43:52 PM by PincerMove

I remember devs like Capcom and Konami got around that by splitting up into smaller factions to bypass the rule. Funny how Nintendo was so censorship happy (well, more Nintendo of America than Japan), but looking at Breath of the Wild, that game is not afraid to talk about death, killing people, and also makes references to holy power. That would not fly in the old days of Nintendo.

edited 6th Mar '17 7:40:29 PM by Steven

Incomplete comparison when you consider the NES moved double the number of units the Atari 2600 ever did.

The heck does that have to do with supposedly stopping the market getting overcrowded? One has more games than the other, so its more crowded. The number of consoles sold is irrelevant.

... If your market has twice the demand of another market, it will obviously not get oversupplied as much, since the market can handle a far larger supply due to its larger, more numerous consumer base, before collapsing. And if you're aware of that, you know there's more room.

In Short, Supply and Demand.

The NES having 300 more titles than the Atari makes it LESS crowded when you consider it has double the number of consumers who can buy those 800+ titles.

That doesn't make any sense. The ratio of individual titles to unit of hardware sold does not matter for the individual consumers end experience, its simply the huge number of titles and high concentration of crap titles that matters. What, are you claiming that because there were 60 million NES consoles out there, all the bad games were bought up before people got there, ensuring that half of the users never realised that most of it was awful?

Selling an additional 30 million consoles wouldn't have stopped the Atari 2600 from crashing due to consumers hating the glut of crap.

edited 6th Mar '17 9:57:56 PM by PincerMove

At what point did I ever imply Nintendo gave 2 crap about the quality of its games or the end user experience. All I said is they cared about the ammount of games released. That the number of titles did not become so high as to devalue their cost and cause the market to crash. Which is part of what happened in the great video game crash.

I never spoke of them maintaining some quality standard. Obviously they should have, but it wasn't what big N gave a crap about. They were worrying about about the market being flooded with people who would sell titles ultra cheap, making Nintendo's own titles less attractive to buy.

edited 6th Mar '17 10:02:39 PM by Ghilz

You keep saying keeping the number low as if there was some critical mass of games Nintendo thought would cause the industry to implode again. If that were true, they would have kept the number of games below the number of Atari 2600 games, which they clearly didn't.

Meanwhile we have Zero Breath in the Wild Hills over the Horizon this Dawn.

Jim continues to be the only honest man in gaemz jurnelizm, and also proves that a Nintendo fanboy is definitely gonna stab him between the ribs one day.

http://www.thejimquisition.com/the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild-review/

edited 12th Mar '17 11:21:06 AM by PincerMove

And the inevitable death threats are already rolling in. . .

At this point, expecting death threats for not giving a Zelda game a perfect score may as well tell you that rain makes you wet. I loved Breath of the Wild, but some of Jim's complaints I agree with plus I have some grievances with the story myself.

EDIT: Welp, the site was yanked offline. Either a ton of traffic or Jim got DDOS'd again.

edited 12th Mar '17 12:28:26 PM by Steven

I think we're seeing the precise reason other outlets gave it 10/10.

From what I could read before the site died, people were accusing Jim of either not knowing how to play or purposely using click bait.

Or saying he should drink bleach.