James

[color=#707875]I never found his work "bad" as such, but I did occasionally find it boring. Having said that, Romeo & Juliet is one of the biggest masterpieces ever written. When you read it for yourself and you interpret what Shakespeare is saying...the way he uses language to convey emotion and thought is really unmatched. He can talk about one tiny little thing...and object or a small gesture and use one sentence to reveal the eternal significance of it. I can't explain it without going into great deal, but, Shakespeare has always greatly impressed me whenever I've studied his work. I personally found Romeo & Juliet to be better than Macbeth...which I found incredibly boring. The reason I found it boring, however, is largely because we watched an old movie of it at one stage...and the movie was pretty bad in my opinion. So I lost interest. It would have been better to just focus on reading it, I think.[/color]

[color=#707875]And now you're banned. I think an immediate ban is definitely in order here.[/color]

[color=#707875]Gah...I just lost my entire response to you. I'm going to start again. V_V;[/color] [quote][b] guess I'm basically speaking just for myself, and I happened to agree with a lot of what Mattei said, mainly because I've personally been continually disappointed at Nintendo, so the bad stands out for me more detailed than the good. I grew up with Nintendo, so it's kind of a fanboysh feel of betrayal that I've grown. This shows pretty much in my anger towards the prices of the GBA to GBASP, as well as the Game Boy being pretty much the same system through so many years; and people always bringing it up whenever there's a discussion about the GameCube, exclusively.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]It seems like you're mostly talking about the GBA here. Is your disappointment in Nintendo really that high? And for the most part, you seem to be focusing on price concerns. I don't know what else I can say. Nintendo has to offer the GBA SP at a certain price. It does cost them so much to manufacture each unit, afterall. And it would simply make no business sense for the company to incur a significant loss on each unit sold. So, that's largely what dictates prices -- manufacturing cost. When I did work experience at Nintendo Australia, I discovered the price differences between manufacturing, wholesale and retail sales. I can tell you that when Nintendo does make a profit per unit, that profit is only a few dollars. Usually, companies do not make profits on hardware -- only software. This is because, if you bought hardware at a price that is profitable for the manufacturer, you'd probably be paying a whole lot more. When Xbox came out, Microsoft would have needed to charge circa $1,000 to make profits. They aggressively cut the price down in order to be competitive. Yeah, that's good for the consumer...but meanwhile, Microsoft predicted that Xbox would cause the company to lose $5 billion over its lifespan. And this projection came about back at that time -- given price changes since then, the losses could be even higher.[/color] [quote][b]The reason why I got upset at the $100 price of the GBA SP was because I felt the "upgrade" made to the system was far more necessary than other similar re-releases. I can't really agree that the SP was made solely for people who didn't own a GBA, as complaints logically came (I suspect) from people who bought a GBA and were disappointed with the lack of lighting. I assumed the release of the SP was not only for new gamers, but also for the ones that were disappointed with their previous purchase. I therefore concluded that it should've been only fair to make the SP cheaper to appeal both groups.[/b][/quote] [color=#707875]The GBA SP is essentially a repackaging of the GBA. But remember, again, it costs more to manufacture. The physical design, the front light, etc... So, Nintendo obviously isn't going to want to subsidise the cost to that degree. I would say that they're probably doing that somewhat already, particularly given recent price reductions in various places. Secondly, the GBA SP does address issues that exist with the original GBA. However, it is definitely squarely aimed at people who are either a) not gamers or b) not interested in buying a handheld game console. The physical style of the machine is evidence that Nintendo is going after a different demographic. Of course, there will be some people who do buy the GBA SP and who already own an GBA. I'm sure Nintendo expects that. But what do you want them to do? Lose money? Nintendo, like Sony and Nokia, is a business. That's not an option.[/color] [quote][b]EB Games had an offer where you could get the SP for $70 if you turned in your used GBA for a limited time, but I wish this offer would have been a standard in all retailers.[/b][/quote] [color=#707875]It's a good offer, I agree. A smart move on EB's part. But really, once again...what does Nintendo want as a business? Do they want people to trade in their GBA to buy an SP, or do they want [i]new[/i] buyers to invest in an SP? Obviously, the latter. Because the latter option is what delivers greater software sales. I think there's only so far a company's compassion is going to go. Nintendo is usually the only manufacturer who actively tries to maintain low prices -- or as low as is affordable. Therefore, I think it's unfair to attack Nintendo based on GBA SP prices. There are physical limitations to what the company can do and at the end of the day, it does cost a certain amount of money to actually make these things.[/color] [quote][b] can't say that the PSOne was as "unfair" as I feel the GBASP price was, as the PSOne offered no upgrades whatsoever, so people who already owned a working PS weren't compelled to get the newer system (Well, other than its new look and smaller dimensions). As a result, I feel the system was made only for non-owning PS owners. [/b][/quote] [color=#707875]But why are GBA owners compelled to buy the GBA SP? I mean, let's think about what it offers. It offers a slimline design (hardly anything necessary), a rechargable battery (is that really such a huge advantage if you already own a GBA?) and a front-lit screen. It would be just as easy for you to buy a pack of rechargable batteries and a Worm Light -- for a lot less, I might add. I don't see the "compulsion" to buy a GBA SP. I mean, sure...you want it, but it's expensive. But I don't think that Nintendo is doing anything unfair in this regard -- I'm in the same boat. But I know I'm not compelled to dump my GBA for a GBA SP. On the other hand, if Nintendo tomorrow dumped GBA and released a successor that plays new games that won't work on a GBA...sure, then I might be in a position to complain about it. I think that my original point still stands here. It's such a trivial issue, really. I could just as easily complain about PSOne as I could with GBA SP. I could say that it's unfair of Sony to make the flat panel PSOne screen so expensive, because it's such an important part of what the PSOne offers (though most of the screens were non-Sony, but I digress).[/color] [quote][b]As for the XBox S controller, I guess I'm one of the very few people who didn't originally buy Microsoft's console just for the controller. I tried it out when it was being promoted, and I disliked it so much that I was convinced not to buy the console. As soon as they fixed the problem with the new S controller, I bought my system in a special kit at Costco. Then again, there's a difference between paying an extra $100 for a new system than 30 bucks for a controller. I was all for Nintendo fixing the problem, and to a certain point releasing the SP... I was just upset with the retail price. [/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Yeah, there is a difference between a controller and a console. But the analogy still stands here -- someone who can barely afford new controllers and who has just forked out for a few original ones, is going to be angry. But that doesn't mean that Microsoft is unfair or greedy. I mean, if I am a company and I produce a handheld...and it costs me $100 to make each unit, am I going to sell it for $90? Or $70? Of course not. If that were the case, what's the point of being in business? I have to sell for [i]some[/i] profit, even if it's a break-even $100. That's just how things are. Nintendo is a business just like Microsoft or Sony.[/color] [quote][b]As far as online gaming is concerned, if Nintendo saw several problems with making the GC online, mainly infrastructure restrictions and unattractive demand, then why are Sony and Microsoft still trying to make it work; or why did they even bother to go online in the first place? [/b][/quote] [color=#707875]I'll explain why Sony and Microsoft are trying to make it work. In Sony's case, you've got a situation where PS3 and its Cell architecture form the foundation of a home entertainment network. Sony's goal with PS3 (though maybe with PS4 at this rate), is essentially to produce a set-top box system, where you download everything. So, no physical software -- just downloading. Why do this? The aim is to deliver entertainment directly into the lounge room, via the Internet. If Sony can be the first to do this, it can become the dominant figure in the market. So with Sony, you've got PlayStation 2 as the stepping stone to what PS3 offers. The problem, however, is that Sony dramatically misjudged the console market. Originally, Sony said that it planned to launch its online gaming services in mid-2002. The time came and we heard nothing from them. Then, they said, "late 2002". Once again, the time came...and nothing. No comments about it. Finally, Sony said "sometime in 2003". And then, "late 2003" for a full roll out. There's only one reason for this backpedalling -- Sony misjudged the potential of online gaming in its current form. The [i]concept[/i] of online gaming is not in question here; it's the [i]implementation[/i] of successful online gaming networks that causes problems for these companies. Implementation is a problem because demand lowers dramatically when monthly fees are put into the equation. And both Sony and Microsoft need to do that to recoup their investment in servers and maintenance staff. Microsoft has a similar goal to Sony. Microsoft wishes to use the Xbox as a stepping stone into the lounge room entertainment center idea as well. There are some subtle differences though. Firstly, Microsoft only chose to make Xbox because it saw gaming as the most viable way of introducing a set-top box-esque system. Xbox is the precursor to Xbox 2, which will be even more online-focused. And Xbox 2 is the precursor to "HomeStation". So what is HomeStation? HomeStation is basically like a computer for your TV. Why does Microsoft want to make that? Microsoft wants to make that because it wants to introduce MSN into the lounge room. And that is essentially the primary reason for Xbox's existence. What about Nintendo? Nintendo does not deny that online gaming is a great concept and could be popular. However, Nintendo understands the console market and in particular, it is unwilling to shoot holes in its wallet for some vague future goal. In addition, Satoru Iwata did say that he wanted to offer [b]free[/b] online gaming. How can costs be recouped when you think about the huge investments in infrastructure, technology, staff and so on? The current business models cause very little but heavy leaking of money. This is both because of the technical and business-related challenges, as well as the sheer lack of support from consumers. That, in a nutshell, is why Sony and Microsoft are in the game right now, in regard to online gaming. Nintendo doesn't have an axe to grind -- it isn't going to introduce movies on demand or Tivo-like services to your home. And more importantly, Nintendo intends to deliver online gaming when the conditions are appropriate for doing so. Unfortunately, those conditions do not yet exist.[/color] [quote][b]While the current state of the online console market is anything but successful, its future may not follow the same negative pattern. At least that's what one can assume when Microsoft and Sony have yet to back down from offering this service. There has to be something that makes these companies keep going forward with their online projects.[/b] [/quote] [color=#707875]I am sure -- as is Nintendo -- that online gaming will one day be highly successful on console. The key phrase there is "one day". That day has not arrived yet. I've mentioned above why Sony and Microsoft are doing this. And I've mentioned why Nintendo aren't. Both points of view are legitimate, in my opinion. However, I feel that Nintendo cops a lot of flack for its online decision...and this is done in an unfair and selfish way. [/color] [quote][b]I will stop defending Matte's article, but I will say that it has helped me realize some things on my own regarding this whole issue. Not because of the fact that he may or may not be right, but the points themselves that he brings up are worth thinking about.[/b][/quote] [color=#707875]Well, yeah...Mattei's article is defintely a discussion point, apart from discussing why he's not a journalist. lol In any case, I've enjoyed the discussion with you. It's a sign of respect that you respond to my points and try to understand and interpret what I'm saying. It can be frustrating when that doesn't happen. And, by the same token, I'm responding to you in this point-by-point fashion as a mark of respect -- like you, I'm investing the time to sit here and think about these ideas and look at the [i]why[/i] behind it all. And the "why" is the key here. I'm not an expert on Sony or Microsoft, because I don't cover them directly in what I write. However, I do make it my business to understand where each company is coming from. And on that basis, I am inclined to disregard unfair criticism of [i]any[/i] party. If Eric Mattei had criticized Nintendo for including the very lazy Triforce quests in The Wind Waker, I'd be fine with that. If he'd complained about the fact that every Super Mario Advance title comes with the same Mario Bros. title as an inclusion, rather than something new, I'd be fine. And if he complained about Nintendo Australia only [i]now[/i] releasing Animal Crossing down here, I'd be quite happy with that. But you see, those are legitimate criticisms -- you can be critical of those things and have some basis with which to draw reference. And as with all things, you can be critical in a constructive way -- rather than venomously attack a company and an individual with very little factual support. This is what I object to with Eric specifically. Fundamentally, I feel that Nintendo is often attacked unfairly. It is becoming fashionable to bash Nintendo -- often for the wrong reasons and on the wrong issues. As a Nintendo fan, I would rather address more specific and realistic concerns (like those that I mentioned above) -- concerns with quality, with competitiveness and so on. But also, we have to realize that Nintendo isn't Microsoft or Sony. And as time goes on and the latter two companies morph their consoles into home entertainment units, Nintendo will be going in the other direction. Does that mean that any one company is right or wrong? No. It just means that Sony and Microsoft are really aiming for something else. And because of that, people are starting to judge Nintendo in irrelevant points. I just dislike the unfairness involved. I get just as annoyed when people say things like "Micro$oft" or when they complain about trivial issues relating to MS or Sony. All I want is to see fairness and intellectual honesty, particularly from within the media. It's just that lately, Nintendo seems to be bearing the blunt of the flack, while Microsoft was in a similar position before and just after the Xbox launch. It was equally unfair then, too.[/color]

[quote][b]I worded what I said wrongly. What I meant was that while Nintendo kept releasing different, meaningless upgrades to the Game Boy as a way of profit, they could have chosen better ways to achieve their wanted numbers. Examples of this would be to increase their library of the Nintendo 64, at the time, or find alternate ways that would be more beneficial to consumers. Sure, the Game Boy is the top-selling system out there, but popularity doesn't necessarily mean quality. They promote and upgrade with just enough features to incite consumers into buying them. For example, the change from the GBA to the GBA SP isn't that much of an improvement, yet just enough to warrant a purchase... but $100? What about the majority of people that already bought their GBA? They would have to pay $100 more for just a front light and a more mature-looking system, when they already have one to play GBA games. It certainly doesn't seem fair, and the fact that you need headphones specifically made by Nintendo doesn't help, either.[/b][/quote] [color=#707875]In terms of diverting funds from Game Boy to Nintendo 64...I don't know. I don't believe that Nintendo 64 would have benefitted simply by Nintendo putting a greater focus on that console than on Game Boy. Since the SNES days, it's true that Game Boy has become Nintendo's bread and butter. Without doubt, Game Boy is Nintendo's primary source of income and it has been for several years. In terms of small updates to each Game Boy...you're saying that Nintendo puts just enough changes to "incite" people to buy the newer machines. But these said people are not forced to buy the machine. Let's bear in mind that, with some exceptions (perhaps Game Boy Pocket), all of the Game Boy updates have brought something to the table. Game Boy Color obviously brought colour visuals, but it also brought with it a slew of new titles that took advantage of the technology. To say that Nintendo was only offering token increases in technology to suck in profits isn't something that I agree with. While the technological update for something like GB Color was relatively minor, Nintendo chose to invest their time and money into new software for the machine. So, this is an argument that cannot focus entirely on the hardware. Whether or not the hardware is a major leap forward is, in my opinion, a non-issue. I say that because the hardware is only a means of delivering game content. If the game takes advantage of the hardware to deliver something that the previous machine didn't...so be it. As for your Game Boy Advance SP argument...I don't understand why you're even making argument there. You're saying that GBA owners are left out in the cold and that they need to pay another hundred bucks just to have a more mature looking system and a light. But who says that everyone is going to be concerned about having a "more mature system"? The SP is primarily there for people who don't yet own GBAs. Are you saying that Nintendo shouldn't have produced the GBA SP at all? I mean, Nintendo cannot win here. The SP is a legitimate step up and it's a legitimate alternative for people who are on the fence about buying a handheld. If current GBA owners (like myself), are going to sit there and cry because their GBA doesn't have a fancy slimline case...that's just bad luck. If that concerns them, then maybe they own a GBA for the wrong reasons. The two machines play the same games. If you want a light but don't want to buy an SP...buy a Worm Light. I just don't see how Nintendo can be criticized for this decision in particular.[/color] [quote][b]Despite all that, I bought my GBASP while owning a glacier GBA. I spent a total of $190 in both systems, because of the simple fact that the GBA was too hard to play in not-so-well lit areas. I, like everyone else, didn't know that Nintendo would have plans to release a new version of the GBA when the system came out, nor did we know it by the time the project became a reality and Nintendo was actually working on it. It's a market strategy, of course, but certainly an unfair one for consumers, one that we don't see as often from Sony and Microsoft in the video game industry. [/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Nintendo didn't have plans to release the GBA SP when they were developing the GBA. The SP itself is really more of a response to complaints about the primary GBA unit. So what would satisfy you? For Nintendo to ignore such complaints and to arrogantly say that the GBA itself is plenty and that these issues shouldn't be addressed? The GBA SP is a way of addressing any issues related to the GBA itself. If this isn't a response designed to directly benefit consumers, I don't know what is. In relation to Sony and Microsoft...I don't know how you can say that these companies don't do it as much as Nintendo. They do it as much, if not more. What about the Sony Dual Shock Controller? That game out well after the original PlayStation controller. Am I to get frustrated because Sony has released a superior version after I've just bought my three or four regular controllers? I can respond in one of two ways: I can be frustrated because Sony is taking advantage of me as a consumer, or I can be pleased that Sony is being competitive and responding to market demands. The same thing can be said for Microsoft and its Controller S. If I, having bought four regular controllers on launch, now see a Controller S hit the shelves...once again, do I complain and say that Microsoft is hoodwinking the consumer? Or do I look at it as a case of Microsoft addressing an issue with its product? And then there's the PSOne. What is the PSOne? It is a smaller and more compact version of the PlayStation. It was the PlayStation's replacement. Why are you not complaining that you had to dump your PlayStation to buy a PSOne? It's the same deal as the GBA SP, except that the SP actually addresses design concerns with the original GBA. PSOne doesn't. You can look at things in a cynical way if you want. But if you want to complain about Nintendo, there are far more substantive ways of doing it.[/color] [quote][b]Moving on, I'm well aware of Mattei's reputation, yet from experience I know not to automatically dismiss something as incorrect just because of the person who's providing the information or opinion. The main point of the article is that Nintendo, rather than focusing on giving people what they want, expect people to like what they offer. This differs greatly from what both Microsoft and Sony are trying to do, mainly with online play.[/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Firstly, I did not dismiss Eric Mattei based on his reputation. You saw me only just respond to the points of his article. I responded to the substance of what he said -- or the lack of substance as it might be considered. Also, I understand the main point of his article. And the contention he provides, in a vaccuum, is fine. I disagree in some respects with that basic idea, but it's his right to hold the opinion. What I [i]don't[/i] like, is the inaccurate and erroneous stuff that he throws in there. Even I could criticize Nintendo in a more accurate way that Eric Mattei. It's one thing to go off on a purely emotional rant, it's quite another thing to provide intellectually honest responses to market-based concerns. Moreover, I'm not convinced that Nintendo is simply offering what it thinks people want. Firstly, you have to once again look at the sales and Nintendo's market position. If we are to judge popularity based on console sales alone, then we must also say that Nintendo is offering consumers what they want [i]moreso[/i] than Microsoft. Do you see what I am saying? The basic principles behind the article are not valid. They don't hold any factual weight. While Eric himself may want to see certain things from Nintendo -- and whilst Nintendo's games may not even fit his own tastes, I do not know how he can extrapolate that to fit a broader market view. It can't be done, because it's not a broader market view; it's Eric's personal view. The problem is that Eric is claiming to speak on behalf of the gaming market. The raw sales data suggests that Eric [i]isn't[/i] speaking on behalf of the market at all. And on that basis, Eric is only demonstrating his lack of understanding when it comes to the industry.[/color] [quote][b]The fact that Nintendo hasn't gotten into the online world with its GameCube console while Sony and Microsoft did is actually a testament to what consumers can expect from each company. One will trust a company more when they are willing to risk immediate profit by giving people what they want, instead of companies that choose not to for themselves. If Nintendo is "all about video games," it's more than expected that they should be the first ones to tap into the online possibilities of their system. It is preposterous that this isn't the case. Sony and Microsoft are both losing money to their online plans, while Nintendo is saving up money by not doing it. As a gamer, what would you care for the most? You certainly couldn't care if a company is saving money... you just care (and rightfully so) about what the company is actually GIVING to you, the consumer. Surely, Nintendo is saving up money over Sony and Microsoft for now, but if one takes under consideration the economic factors that make consumers be "loyal" to a product, you would understand Nintendo might be in deep trouble for the next generation. Sony and Microsoft are building up a strong fan base with their online capabilities that will carry out to the next generation, while Nintendo isn't. This is a point that Mattei addresses with pointblank accuracy, so dismissing it because he's an "ignorant blowhard" isn't exactly wise. To make money you have to spend money, and Sony and Microsoft are obviously looking for future profits that would grow from today's spending on online play. The difference? Sony and Microsoft are planning on making profit by giving fans a service = online play. Nintendo does it by not risking themselves in giving consumers online play. In this case, from Nintendo we get = nothing. [/quote][/b] [color=#707875]The problem here once again relates to the fact that Mattei is claiming to speak for the market. You have to understand that while Eric and yourself (and myself for that matter) would love to play games online, this is [b]not[/b] the viewpoint of the market as a whole. The console gaming market is fundamentally different from the PC gaming market. Studies that have been carried out over the last two years confirm two things: 1) The number of console gamers who are interested in playing games online is [b]below[/b] 50% and; 2) Of those who want to play online, the number who are willing to [b]pay a monthly service fee[/b] falls to less than 20%. This idea that online gaming is the ultimate bastion of gaming, or that this is what all gamers want is totally and utterly [b]false[/b]. I mean, in all honesty, I would like to play Mario Kart online. I can think of few hardcore Nintendo fans who wouldn't. But that's not the point here. The point is that Eric is trying to make a broad claim about the views of the entire gaming market. In doing so, he ignores the facts as they are. In regard to the sales issue, once again, you have to look at the success of online console gaming. The truth is that so far, it hasn't been particularly successful. Xbox Live is thusfar falling well under Microsoft's most conservative targets and Sony's online service isn't even fully rolled out at this point. Moreover, you have to look more closely at Nintendo's strategy with online gaming. Firstly, Nintendo does not want to charge people a monthly fee to play online. Satoru Iwata once said that if you buy a game, you shouldn't have to then pay [b]more[/b] just to play that said game. Are you going to tell me that Mr. Iwata isn't looking out for gamers when he makes a comment like this? In addition, Nintendo has concerns about accessibility. By 2005, it's estimated that only 25% of Europe will have access to broadband Internet capabilities. Nintendo has legitimate concerns about the availability of infrastructure and the ability for the company to deliver a global service that is both stable and reliable, as well as cheap. But once again, Eric Mattei ignores these issues. For him, it's a simplistic "Nintendo won't go online because they're selfish! BLAH I HATE THEM!" It's simply not the viewpoint of someone who actually studies the game industry and has a knowledge of the issues at work. Why should Nintendo be made to lose billions of dollars when a) the infrastructure isn't at an acceptable level globally (which would cut a lot of gamers out of the picture) and b) when there is actually [b]little demand[/b] for online gaming services amongst the console market? It's easy to sit there and claim that Nintendo is a greedy monster or something, but it requires effort and logic to deconstruct the matter in an intelligent and factual way.[/color] [quote][b]This is a point that Mattei addresses with pointblank accuracy, so dismissing it because he's an "ignorant blowhard" isn't exactly wise. To make money you have to spend money, and Sony and Microsoft are obviously looking for future profits that would grow from today's spending on online play. The difference? Sony and Microsoft are planning on making profit by giving fans a service = online play. Nintendo does it by not risking themselves in giving consumers online play. In this case, from Nintendo we get = nothing. [/b][/quote] [color=#707875]Point blank accuracy? O_O I have been involved in the gaming media for several years now. And let me tell you; there is a [b]reason[/b] why 99.9% of the industry ignores what Eric Mattei says. His comments are far from "point blank accuracy". If Eric was accurate, Nintendo wouldn't even exist at the moment. In terms of losing money to make money...once again, it's a simplistic argument. It doesn't take into consideration the factors that I mentioned above. Nintendo has known how to develop online applications for several years now. They will do it when market conditions are appropriate (ie: when demand is at a reasonable level and when Nintendo can offer the service at very low cost). If you want to play Xbox Live, that's fine. I'm quite happy to play on it myself. And I love to play online games when I get the chance to play them. And yes, I'd love to play Nintendo games online. But I have enough knowledge about the industry to know that my personal taste does not reflect the broader market view.[/color] [quote][b]Furthermore, while Nintendo has the biggest share of the video game market with the Game Boy Advance, it doesn't come close to the PS2 with the GameCube alone. The market is divided into the handheld market and the home console market. Nintendo dominates the handheld market, and that's it. Sony and Microsoft, for now, don't take under account the GBA sales, as they have no system to compete with it at the moment. The PSP is on its way, and while we can't assume anything at such an early time, the fact that Sony took Nintendo's "leadership" of the industry with the PS is enough for Nintendo to start giving costumers something that the competitors haven't as of yet. [/quote][/b] [color=#707875]No, Nintendo doesn't come close to PS2 with GameCube alone. Nor does Microsoft. But once again, based on this idea that Microsoft is "giving people what they want" by the bucketfull, you'd think that'd be different, right? As far as PSP goes...I wish Sony luck. But this is a whole other issue. You have to understand the technology and the differences between GBA and PSP. PSP is a high-end device that will have a battery life of maybe 3-4 hours. GBA is a low-end device with a long battery life and low cost. I'm not saying that one is better than the other -- I'm saying that they're different. [/color] [quote][b]Another point that Mattei successfully portrays, which relates to the above, is the poor connectivity "advantages" between the GameCube and the Game Boy Advance. While this is the only unique feature it has over other consoles, it's too useless to be of mention. For example, with The Wind Waker you basically got tips from Tingle to reach certain unreachable areas, and in Metroid Prime, with Fusion, you got the Fusion suit and played a game that certainly hasn't aged well: Metroid. I own the "classic," and pretty much anyone who's interested in playing such an antique are the ones that have already gone through it back in the NES days. Making Super Metroid playable would have been a much wiser choice, but predictably that did not happen. [/quote][/b] [color=#707875]I agree with you. And I'd say that there are few who would disagree. In my view, the biggest problem here is that Nintendo hasn't successfully supported what is fundamentally a sound idea. Connectivity is a good idea, but Nintendo haven't given gamers reasons to get excited about it. Perhaps games like Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles will change that. I don't know. But I doubt it. So, on this point I agree. But this certainly doesn't make Eric Mattei some kind of game industry oracle. This isn't a revelation by any means -- anyone in the media will tell you the same thing. Talking about a blunt fact is like flogging a dead horse. [/color] [quote][b]Nintendo hasn't been given the chance yet to actually show they truly know what they're doing with the GBA, as there has never been any competition. All developers are flocking around the GBA since it's the only handheld system out there. Nintendo doesn't have to worry about strategic decisions up to this point. The Game Gear was another failure from Sega's list of bad decisions, which is why Nintendo has yet to feel the pressure of good competition... until now. If the PSP becomes a successful system, Nintendo will have to be forced to actually change their ways in response to market loss. Then again, all this paragraph is nothing but a prediction based on possibility, but there's nothing stopping Sony from giving Nintendo a good "war," even if the barriers to market entry are higher than they were for the home console market back in '95. [/quote][/b] [color=#707875]Everyone from Sega, to Bandai, to SNK has attempted to nudge Nintendo out of the handheld arena. The reason they didn't was not necessarily because of poor products alone. Nintendo knows what it's doing in this field. In terms of PSP...once again, I can only tell you that it's a different machine to GBA. In my view, PSP competes more directly with N-Gage. As far as I know, N-Gage will be considerably more expensive than GBA SP as it is. Same for PSP. I'm not dismissing the efforts of Sony and Nokia though. I hope that they can bring something to the handheld market -- and I look forward to seeing what they are going to do in the longer term. I also look forward to the opportunity to play the PSP for myself. Right now this is an open question. The PSP isn't even available yet. When it's been out for six months, then we'll all be in a better position to know how successful for unsuccessful Sony's strategy is.[/color] [quote][b]The article is anything but a total waste. It shows some pretty good points, and it actually expresses the frustration that grows from people that can easily foresee the endless amount of fun from playing games like F-Zero GX, Super Smash Bros. Melee (not my cup of tea, but I know its popularity) and Mario Kart: Double Dash online. Thank you, Nintendo, for not giving to us. [/quote][/b] [color=#707875]The article is a complete waste. It doesn't demonstrate anything particularly valid. The only point I can think of that Eric brought to the table of any legitimacy would be the connectivity issue. I agree with him there, but you'll find few who don't. And you'll find many articles that deal with connectivity in a more realistic and accurate way. If you can enjoy endless fun playing those games online, you can also enjoy them offline. I mean, I understand your complaint about this...and I've already explained that I also would love to play these games online. But I take great issue with Eric Mattei for the reasons I've mentioned above. Nothing he says is supported by any kind of real market data, he frequently misrepresents Nintendo and the market at large and he frequently insults the intelligence of gamers the world over. The fact that Eric puts Shigeru Miyamoto on a pedestal, as though he is solely responsible for everything Nintendo does is [i]incredibly ignorant[/i]. This guy is supposed to be writing for a Nintendo website. He is supposed to be a member of the gaming media. But his glaring and undeniable misinterpretation of the industry is [b]only[/b] a demonstration that he doesn't know what he's talking about. This is bad journalism, it is often mean-spirited and it stretches the truth to a ridiculous degree. While Eric's individual complaints are reflections of his taste -- and while that in itself is fine -- his misguided attacks and fraudulent representations of the market are very troublesome and problematic. He is not a journalist by any measure.[/color]

[color=#707875]I don't even know why Eric Mattei remains at Nintendojo. His writing is poor quality, not to mention the numerous problems with the support behind his contentions, or lack thereof. Honestly, I don't mind people being critical of Nintendo. At N-Sider, we've run quite a few articles that have questioned and criticized Nintendo on various levels. But what is the difference? We never do anything mean-spirited and we don't spread baseless venom like this. We base our opinions on facts that we can provide and demonstrate. And we don't abuse our public platform by slinging mud at individuals. I'm disappointed in Nintendojo for not getting rid of Eric Mattei at this point. Nintendojo has run columns that oppose what he says...but still, why keep him around? Just for the controversy? Controversy is a quick shot in the arm if you're a dying site -- but ultimately, controversial articles like these are only going to hurt Nintendojo's reputation.[/color]

[color=#707875]Let me tell you right now; do not fall for Eric Mattei's rants. He's infamous within the gaming media for being an ignorant blowhard. This article is no different. I don't have the energy to respond to every single point of Mattei's...but I will make a few comments. [b]Cartriges[/b] Eric Mattei is fundamentally wrong when he talks about cartridges and the way that Miyamoto pushed them. First and foremost, Mattei seems quite happy to make Miyamoto responsible for Nintendo's decision to retain cartridges. I can tell you right now that from a purely creative point of view, Miyamoto probably [i]didn't[/i] want to use cartridges. The decision to use carts was based entirely on business, rather than creative concerns. Obviously, Nintendo felt that it could still justify the use of cartridges. And while there were downsides to the format, it's also true that many of the major negative issues with catridges became completely transparent during the latter half of the N64's life. Shigeru Miyamoto, for his part, was only towing the company line at the time. What is he going to say when questioned about cartridges? "No, they're horrible and they allow for no flexibility with game production". Seriously...Eric Mattei's understanding of the industry (and Nintendo specifically) is, at best, flawed. [b]So-Called "Opinion on the Street"[/b] Mattei often does this. He quotes people who work at various electronics and gaming stores and without fail, these quotes are always quite harsh and negative. Firstly, the use of such quotes is an emotive device. What do they really represent? And how often does Mattei actually speak to the owners of large video game retailer chains? It's all very well to talk to some kid who works at Target or EB, but that individual isn't going to have a broader view of the market, let alone their own employer. The truth is, these quotes are designed to somehow add legitimacy to Mattei's own thoughts. It doesn't matter how factual or legitimate these quotes are in and of themselves -- they make Mattei look right. And that's what he cares about most of all. [b]Sports Games[/b] While Mattei does tackle a legitimate concern, he does so in a completely uninformed way. And as per usual, he jumps all over Mr. Harrison's quote without actually considering what it means. It's quite true that Nintendo haven't paid enough attention to sports games within this generation. I don't think anybody would deny that. But to then claim that Nintendo are dumping the GameCube, as Sega did with Saturn/Dreamcast, is an absolutely wild stretch. [b]Microsoft Kicking Nintendo's Butt[/b] Okay, let's follow Mattei's line of thought here. Based on what he says, you would imagine that Xbox is clobbering GameCube based on Microsoft's understanding of what game players want. On the one hand, sports games on Xbox probably do attract gamers that may otherwise have bought a GameCube. And yes, that does take away potential GameCube sales. However, let's look at the actual sales data. Right now, GameCube is ahead of Xbox in the United States, to the tune of around 250,000 units. That's not really a huge amount, to be sure. But it's still a significant enough margin. Oh, so, Microsoft has come in and taken the nation by storm, has it? No. I'm afraid not. Once again, this is a case of emotive language outweighing cold, hard fact. If Nintendo didn't know what gamers wanted, this would truly be an obvious non-issue. Note that ERic Mattei makes no attempt to link to any specific sales data, nor does he use any solid reference guide here. Again, as per usual, he uses purely emotive ranting. There's nothing professional, authoritative or [i]true[/i] about what he's claiming here. [b]Nintendo Being Out of Touch/Miyamoto's Responsibility[/b] There is one big thing I dislike about Eric Mattei, and this article really is a strong example of it. Eric Mattei sees fit to blame Shigeru Miyamoto for Nintendo's ENTIRE strategy over the last several years. Not only is this plainly ignorant, but it borders on being nasty. Secondly, Eric Mattei claims that Nintendo is out of touch with gamers at large. I'm sorry, Eric, but by "gamers" do you mean "you"? Eric might be dissatisfied with Nintendo for reasons that I consider to be invalid...but more importantly, we have to realize something here. If Nintendo was out of touch, do you think that GBA SP would be outselling PS2 consistently in Japan each week? Nintendo has the greatest share of the video game market, when you combined GBA SP/GBA/GCN. How on earth does this translate to the company being out of touch? Not only does Nintendo hold a greater share of the market than Sony, but the company is also pulling ahead of Xbox in worldwide sales. I would like Eric to tell me how this plain fact equates to Nintendo being out of touch. [b]Rehashes of Old Games[/b] This is one claim that also annoys me. It annoys me because it's a very easy claim to make and it's an easily-believed claim. But I don't consider it to be true. Let's think about this. Eric claims that Nintendo simply stamps Mario on everything. Yeah, I agree with that. But let's take three games with Mario's "stamp": Mario Kart, Super Mario Sunshine and Mario Party. Three games that utilize Mario as a franchise character, but three [i]very[/i] different games. Different genres, different gameplay styles and so on. How is Super Mario Sunshine a rehash of Super Mario Kart? And how is Super Mario Kart a rehash of Super Mario Paint? See what I mean? To compare these games and to classify them as being "rehashes", based solely on the fact that Mario stars in them all is, at best, ignorant. Need I also mention Luigi's Mansion? Put another character in place of Luigi and think only of game mechanics. How on Earth could that game be considered a rehash of any other Mario titles? It can't, because it's not. Nintendo uses franchise characters as a way of giving new gameplay ideas a sense of familiarity. I can see why Eric objects to this -- because if you become bored of a certain character, you don't want to see them as much. I can completely understand that point of view. But why make false claims about it? Why not just be intellectually honest? [b]Eric's Game Examples & Online Play[/b] Eric talks about Mario Kart, Metal Gear and Rebel Strike. Oh, that's good. Apart from the fact that these games are probably going to be bit hits on their own, why is it that Eric conveniently ignores or forgets games like Baten Kaitos, Tales of Symphonia, Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, Viewtiful Joe, Resident Evil 4 and so on? Wait, I remember now -- we wouldn't want to do anything in a fair and balanced way. No, we don't do that, because it might hurt our ridiculous diatribe. The comments about online gaming are also interesting. These are the comments that also reveal part of Mattei's true intent. The nature of this article is to be selfish -- to tantrum about what [i]Eric Mattei[/i] wants. Frankly, based on this article, Eric seems like your garden variety casual gamer. Eric might claim to speak for the market, but I assure you that he doesn't. How Eric can sit there and claim to know about Nintendo's failings, whilst simultaneously making ridiculous claims about how maybe online gaming is the answer, is absolutely beyond me. Do I really need to sit here and tell you how much money Sony and Microsoft are losing on their respective online ventures? And is it really worth telling you how low the penetration of online gaming is in the console arena? Geeze. I'm not saying that I don't want to see online gaming -- of course I do. It'd be wonderful. But that's not the point. The point is that, as a matter of fact and intellectual honesty, I'm not claiming to speak for the entire market when I make those comments. I'm speaking for myself and myself only. Eric Mattei confuses the two. [b]The Last Few Paragraphs...[/b] Well, how do I end this? Is it even worth responding to such tripe? I call this tripe because there is [i]no[/i] sense of jouranlistic standard here. Where are the facts to support these claims? There are none. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that Shigeru Miyamoto is perfect. But to claim him as some arrogant nutcase who is completely unaware of the industry's current state is simply blind foolishness. Let's look at Miyamoto's role in games like Metroid Prime. And let's look at Miyamoto's cultivation of exclusive third party ties, along with Mr. Iwata's guiding hand. There are many actions that have been taken, like those that I just mentioned, which Eric Mattei simply ignores. Why does he ignore these developments? He does so because they don't fit his viewpoint. They contradict what he is saying. I will stand here right now and make a bold prediction for you. I will predict the opposite to Eric Mattei; I will tell you that during the next two years, GameCube will pull further ahead of Xbox and will continue to perform well (and to improve its position in the market). I will also tell you that the third party links that Nintendo is cultivating now will have a direct beneficial impact on its next generation console. And that will result in Nintendo being in a position to compete more directly with Sony for first place, rather than with Microsoft for second. Oh and, by the way...Eric might complain about Nintendo's rehashing of outdated technology with the GBA. But by doing so, he is single-handedly slapping the face of some 21 million + people who bought the machine and who actively purchase game software for it. It's 21 million and more versus one. That's about the size of it. And Cyke...how can you say that Nintendo is producing Game Boy 50 billion times and not expanding its library? Haven't you seen Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, Sword of Mana and the dozens of other franchises making their way to the machine? I mean, come on. Game Boy's library is far, far more diverse than Xbox or PS2 for that matter. Saying that Nintendo has produced a lot of Game Boys is simply a very weak argument. Game Boy Advance certainly isn't a "rehash" of Game Boy Color, for example. And more importantly...yes, I can definitely point out many negatives with Nintendo. But this kind of article is simply unfair. It's extremely biased and horribly inaccurate. If you're going to criticize Nintendo, do it properly -- not with this weak garbage.[/color]

[color=#707875]Ah I see. Yeah...playing with firecrackers in the house is definitely not a good thing. In any case, I hope that they come out of it okay. At least nobody was seriously injured.[/color]

[color=#707875]o_O;; Harry...their house burnt down. Try to be at least a little constructive. Maybe you could donate some of your belongings to them, especially if they lost most of their stuff in the fire. Other than that, I don't know...obviously there is really nothing that can truly replace what they have lost. Do you know if they started the fire themselves, or if there was some other cause?[/color]

[color=#707875]If you look at the mist overall...it looks like a mouth wide open, like one of the images in the videotape on The Ring. o_O;; *sighs* Maybe I'm just too addicted to that movie, eh? Anyway, I like it. It's nice to know that there are some electronic music fans on the boards now and then...I mean, I've yet to see anyone make a BT/PvD/Riva banner for example. ~_^ I like the echo effect on the Remix...it adds something to the overall piece. I also like the glow effect on the bars. Cool bees.[/color]

[color=#707875]I can tell you, based on the people I talk to on AIM...99% of them (of those that I've spoken to) download full anime episodes with no intention of buying a locally-distributed copy. Obviously, that hurts local distributors. But it also hurts the source developer of the anime, who themselves won't earn anything from the series/movie. So, yes, I'm sure that there are people who sample stuff and then go and buy the full release. And that's fine. But I don't think anyone is really talking about those people -- the reason downloading full anime episodes is wrong (apart from the sheer copyright/legal issues), is because artists and publishers aren't getting their rightful income. I don't know what the statistics are (or if there are any in the first place), but I have only encountered maybe one or two people who download anime just to sample it. The vast majority of people I've spoken to download it, burn it and keep it. And they don't pay a cent, other than buying a blank CD.[/color]

[color=#707875]And, is it just me...or is the whole concept of controlling weather yourself nothing if not circumventing the power/s of the Gods/Goddesses you worship. I mean, aren't you worshipping figures who hold those powers over you, as opposed to you holding them yourself? *shrug* I don't know. It's interesting to learn about various religions, but I don't think that there are many of you in this thread who really understand Wicca.[/color]

OOC: Zerosaber...I am going to have to boot you from the RPG. I'm sorry, but your post quality in here is getting really shoddy. Your Sign-Up was good, but you're putting no real effort into dialogue or description. I want to see more than one paragraph...and some kind of effort to flesh out your character a bit more. I'll give you another chance, but please, try to put in more effort. [color=#707875][center]| | | |[/center] Dark grey shapes made way to deep pink hues, as the Venus drifted away from the grasp of the expansive storm clouds. The ocean was calm and as the Venus gently sank through the pink clouds, rolling green hills and tall white buildings became visible to her occupants. New Hokkaido sprawled over the grassy plains of Japan's northern island. The city was enormous, though not nearly as large as Novus Concordia. Nevertheless, New Hokkaido was the world's second largest city; it covered around 90% of the nothern island. At the northern-most outskirts of the city lay rolling hills, which appeared to unfold over the blue ocean beyond. As the Venus made her approach, Yang guided her toward the hills just beyond the city. Cyan walked into the central cabin and the Reploids who were still there looked up at him. "Okay everyone, we're almost ready to land. I'd say that we're about ten minutes away from home now," he said. This was the first time that anyone had really seen Cyan smile; he seemed happy to be returning home. "I will look for the others, who might be in their rooms right now...I want everyone to make sure that you have all of your luggage ready and that your weapons are with you. As soon as we land, the Venus will be going in for maintenance." The Reploids in the room nodded and Cyan smiled again. He walked out of the room and down the nearby hallway, knocking on doors as he went.[/color]

[color=#707875]Apparently I am a direct descendent of Robert Burns, the famous Scottish poet. This information came about because my aunt on my dad's side actually went to Britain to "study the family tree". So I don't know what the story is there...but I do know that my aunt on my mother's side has one of Robert Burns' original books. It's very old...as in, well over 100 years old. Other than that, I know that a woman on my mother's side was a famous nurse in the battlefield during World War I. I think she had a hyphenated last name...but I don't remember it, unfortunately; though I have seen pictures of her. I can't think of anyone else that I'd consider "famous" though. My family heritage is very broken up, anyway. I have grandparents from Wales, a great aunt from Germany and a great aunt from Japan. In any case, it's interesting to think about your family history. I discovered a lot of interesting things from my aunt, which I never knew. [/color]

[color=#707875]Obviously you guys are either forgetting or disregarding the idea that OtakuBoards doesn't allow for anyone to provide links or "assistance" when it comes to illegally downloading anime material. We have the same policy when it comes to ROMs and so on. We do not condone any kind of illegal behavior. If you want to discuss the actual issue of bootlegging...that's okay. But I urge the other Moderators to watch this thread closely and ensure that the discussion remains appropriate.[/color]

[color=#707875]If Nintendo ever attempted a movie...I think it would be great if they teamed up with someone like Pixar/Disney to do it. You know...none of that "pass it off to someone who doesn't understand anything about CGI movies" stuff. So, I'd like to see maybe a cel-shaded cartoon...I think it could be done. But certainly, it wouldn't be easy to please the fans. If I saw an animated movie though, I'd like a "2D CGI" type thing. So, in other words...something 2D, but very sharp...and with 3D elements added. If you've seen Invader Zim, you know what I mean (at least in terms of 2D/3D implementation...not necessarily "animation quality").[/color]

[color=#707875]I like your fan listing. It seems appropriate to me. It's a bit small, yeah...but I don't put you in that "I'm making this small to be uber-cool" crowd. The overall layout is very well done. It's easy to read/understand and your images are all very nice. ^_^[/color]

[color=#707875]Well, I really liked Catwoman in Batman Returns. Wow. She was awesome. ^_^;; I thought that they got every single thing right in Batman Returns. It was dark and gothic...and everything was updated in a subtle and careful way -- they weren't making Catwoman some stupid, ridiculous character. *sighs* All the Batman movies after Returns were pretty bad in my opinion. Joel Schumacher should be shot for what he did to the series.[/color]

[color=#707875]While school can have its downfalls...I think it's far superior to home schooling. You get an education that is properly accredited (depending on who is teaching you at home and whether they are qualified or not), but you also get a whole lot of important social interaction. And as a kid, social interaction is particularly important -- you need experience working in teams on group projects and so on. It's all important for your future. So, I think you will enjoy school...it'll make you feel more independent and you'll make more friends. Yes, there are negatives about it...but I think there are more negatives with home schooling, personally.[/color]

[color=#707875]I think it's reasonable to ask that the thread be kicked back onto its original subject. GuardianStorm asked what people's opinion of Wicca and magic is. And specifically, that's what the subject of the thread relates to. If you want to talk about the fact that you don't agree with Wicca (maybe as a comparison to your own religion), that's okay. But please...let's keep things on topic here.[/color]

[color=#707875]I think that religion in school is probably a big issue for many people because of the principle, but also because of that whole "slippery slope" argument. I can definitely see why religion and state are seperated; the same is true here in Australia. It's actually a good thing for religion, too...because it encourages religious freedom, rather than a singular theocratic system. In any case, I think that a moment of silence is fine. If you want to pray, go ahead. If you want to draw in your book, go ahead. If you want to simply contemplate the events of your life...fine. Who cares, really? I don't see this as an issue. [/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cyke [/i] [B][font=trebuchet ms][color=darkblue] I hope Silicon Knights has found a way to make the controls comfortable and second nature for the problematic GC controller.[/color][/font] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#707875]If anything, I think MGS:TTS will work a lot better on GameCube's controller than PlayStation's. I certainly didn't notice MGS taking any real advantage of the PlayStation controller...and after extended playing time with that game, it did become somewhat cumbersome. So I don't know. I think Silicon Knights is one company who can really do justice to the game, particularly because they do put so much effort into controls and fine details.[/color]

[color=#707875]As far as I know, you can pay JelSoft to install the vB for you. But of course, that does require more money. In terms of HTML...the bigger problem with vB is PHP, not HTML as such. I recommend that you either request assistance from JelSoft itself, or you work with someone who knows their PHP. I personally have absolutely no PHP knowledge, nor does Adam. This is why we hire various people to work with us on coding matters. Other than that, I'm afraid I am not going to be of much assistance. I recommend searching for vB help forums around the web, to see if you can find any further information when it comes to installation and setup. Note: This is also basically a spam thread. You should have used either PM or AIM.[/color]

[color=#707875]Yes, it's coming. This isn't a rumor...Square Enix confirmed the news yesterday at a press conference. As far as I know, the movie wil arrive on DVD exclusively (ie: it won't be a cinema release like The Spirits Within).[/color]

[color=#707875]Yeah, I know you were joking. Hehe Anyway, yes...we live in more of a global village these days. A policy that is "local" can also have global or regional consequences. I tend to talk about Bush in foreign policy terms because I guess that's what most people associate him with -- his foreign policy. Maybe that's just the most recognizable aspect of him, as a President. But I also think it's true that most Americans probably don't really consider foreign policy much when they vote. That's fair enough though; I think [i]most[/i] people in the world are far more concerned about what their national leader is doing locally, rather than internationally. [/color]

[color=#707875]I think it should be obvious that you should ensure that your friend doesn't use your account. You are responsible for your own account, regardless of who is using it. Also...your post quality is really not very good. If you don't make an effort to improve, you will probably be banned in any case. Please read the rules and watch your quality in future.[/color]