PixlBit

Yep, those are good points. I wanted to keep it within the realm of hardware power, but it is more complicated. 

If Wii U had even half of PS2 sales at this point, I bet FIFA would goddamn be on there. That recalls my point about being dead last. No market pull, not worth the effort.

3rd parties actively loathe Nintendo,as does the mainstram media. Nintendo doesn't play according to the agenda, or agendas, that the Industry (a 'cartel' consisting of major software publishers and the media sites they influence) wants to push, and they haven't had to for the most part. Conspiracy theory? Maybe, but I don't think so. From things I've read and little hints I've picked up, some of the big features that are/were going to be on the Xbone and PS4 are there at the behest of the 3rd parties, not in the interests of the consumer. Nintendo says no to that kind of thing, for better or worse.

And you brought up the branding issue in your article, and that thread continues into the imaging issue. Every brand or product has an identity that the mass market expects those brands/products to perform in accordance with. People expect a certain kind of experience, catalog, price point etc. from Nintendo. You are right to bring up the pricing history, which is part of their established image. The market isn't as malleable as some people might think. People want what they know. In Nintendo's case, that is a family friendly, relatively affordable, accessible, broad catalog. They want the NES, over and over. 

And then there is this effort to cater to 'niches.' I call them that, but they call them "demographics." I understand having a focus, but no console has been a major success only catering to core, or hardcore, or casual. The Wii could be brought up as an exception, but I believe a lot of core enthusiasts bought it when they thought it was going to deliver. And it still sold less than PS2, and slightly less than PSX (and population growth is a factor that Wii benefits from in that comparison). Point is, Wii wasn't JUST a casual machine, as JUST a casual machine would likely fail. Every successful console has had the attributes I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Even price: I think $300 and below is when consoles really start going mass market.  Which leads me to a btw: PS4's launch sales don't mean a thing. Launches don't tell the whole story. Launch sales are easy, especially when you don't have major shortages. Let's' see what happens in a year, or when a major price drop hits. Then we will see if there is truly demand for next generation.

Historically, weaker hardware has been more successful than its competitor(s) more often than not. The problem with the Wii U in this regard is not that the hardware is behind, it's that it's too far behind AND it's not the leader.  PS2 for instance, had two failsafes: 1.) it was just powerful enough to run versions of the games GC and Xbox had (even if quite compromised, as was the case with Splinter Cell) 2.) failing that, it was the market leader and so received the lion's share of the 3rd party support anyway.

Is WiiU powerful enough to run compromised versions of the high-end 3rd party games that XboxOne and PS4 will have to offer? I don't know yet. If not, if the Wii U's capacity is too far behind, then being way behind in sales will be detrimental. If you have no market pull, than the 3rd parties can afford to ignore you.  

Nintendo didn't need the most powerful machine, or even an equally powerful machine. Better to be in the same ballpark, even if it's up in the cheap seats, and come in with a price lower than PS4, but higher than Wii U.  You can always price drop or draw up deals to pull in the general public, families, parents, casuals, etc. You can't raise the hardware if you come in too weak -you're stuck. And the Wii U isn't a continuation of the Wii 'philosophy,' so that price/hardware comparison isn't helpful, imo.

The branding is an issue. A big issue, one that I don't think is given the proper amount of gravity in the media or among the players on forums. The masses still don't know what the system is about, whether it's a peripheral or a new version of the Wii.

,

Depends on how exacting you are in your Metroid requirements. You don't get any physical powers that let you pass obstacles. It's just keys and doors for the most part. But it does have back tracking, secrets (althoug not hidden in walls) and a bit of "choose your path." So I don't know if that's enough Metroidvania-ness to offset the heavy combat focus.

Yep. It and Demon's Souls are those rare games where I just want to walk around the world and fight/interact with stuff, not caring about progress, just be in the game. I've spent hours just running around and stabbing enemies, rolling off of high surfaces, making death defying jumps.

Art direction in Bioshock looks tight as hell. Story seems ambitious, although they just had to throw in some multiverse/time travel bullshit to please geeks, instead of just straight up addressing the themes in a relevant context. Too bad about that combat play though. Not interested in a new arena shooter, no matter how good everything looks. Would rather play Brutal Doom.

I can't really compare ZM and SM, not without some thorough testing of both, side by side, which I don't have time for. The presentation has so much to do with why Super Metroid has such pull that I'd have to see ZM's gameplay wrapped in the same dark wrapper to even begin to see how it stacks up. I will say that SM has far more subtle level design, while Samus in ZM is faster, which is what I like in my action games.

I think Super is more complex and ambitious than Zero Mission, so I don't know about it being basic in comparison.  Maybe 'redundant' is a more accurate term? I think the level design is more nuanced in SM, but it's the dark aesthetic (how Samus is drawn and animated, music, color palette, environments) that makes it my 2D Metroid of choice. It demonstrates how a game can be cinematic without aping cinema's camera set-ups

Prime IS my favorite Metroid to play though. And Echoes is underrated. (I'd rank the top 3 as Prime>SM>Echoes)

I don't know if any other game in the series lends itself to the level of analysis that SM does, though.

I mean if one were to take it at face value. Your list was so solid (according to my tastes, at least), that FFXIII sticks out like a sore thumb.  Also because I've seen people seriously claiming the characters were the best in the series and that Gran Pulse validates all the corridor crawling that led up to it.

People are in denial about their own nature.  They don't want truth in art, they want validation of self. They are children.

Knew you were trolling with FXIII.  It was like another person typed those words.

 have to agree with your #1 and #2, at least for games of this generation. New Vegas has the depth of a classic CRPG, but now on consoles. People don't appreciate this fact. It's quite an achievement, really. And Dark Souls is my game of the generation (but sometimes it's Demon's Souls).