this is gonna just for general news regarding video games

well another company says "ehh no dice" to the Wii Uhttps://games.yahoo.com/news/yet-another-hugely-popular-gaming-franchise-spurns-wii-163541469.html

and Ubisoft states what always happens https://games.yahoo.com/news/super-smash-bros-could-ignite-141900990.html along with no more M rated games for the console

At some point, even if its not this generation, Nintendo is going to have to either A) upgrade their hardware severely to compete console-wise or B) start being a third party developer.

Because right now, they can't compete at all hardware wise. They were only barely ahead of last gen when the WII U came out, and everyone I know has skipped this console. Because most of the people I know bought a Wii, bought like 8 games for it, 7 of them first party, and then never touched the system again. The current price of the WII U is a lot to demand for what everyone expects to be the exact same experience.

Anyone who expected differently from the WiiU didn't follow the news or ignored very obvious signals.
It's a secondary system and any multiplat game will be a LOT better on something else.

And this is coming from someone who owns every Nintendo system except the Virtual Boy (also bought WiiU D1 because of ZombiU and Monster Hunter 3U came out not long after that).
Some of the devs are using some weird comparisons though (multiplats that have less features then Ps3/360-versions, coming out months after superior versions (especially the launch 3rd party games, etc). But even if they came out with the same amount of stuff and/or at the same time, I'm sure the WiiU version would sell less, even when you would just look at percentages of console-owners.

That said, Nintendo has enough assets available to sit this generation out and (hopefully) make a better decision in 5-6 years.
I don't see them going third party because they still own the handheld market and it does not seem like that will differ anytime soon, but as far as home consoles is concerned they need to seriously pick up the pace for the next one or just focus on handheld.

Nintendo only selling point IMO is nostalgia

The problem with just focusing on handheld is that a lot of the best games they have ever made, from Ocarina of Time to Metroid Prime to Super Mario Galaxy to Mario Kart to Super Smash Bros, are all originally console games. They are also all better on consoles imho, and....... well how the crap would Mario Kart or Super Smash be a handheld game? It's just.... a lot of the popular Nintendo Games are also games you play with your friends. And most of the people I know would rather sit around a 30 inch with controllers than a bunch of separate handhelds each more expensive than a ps3.

I don't even like triple A games, so what do I care.

idk if this belongs here, but: Announcement: Readers who feel threatened by equality no longer welcome

That is a good article.

This is a disturbing article because while I agree that there should be more representation in video games, there is such a thing as allowing your zeal to blind you to reason. And I think Colwill is a victim of that. He's oversimplified the present debate stirred up by Quinn and Sarkeesian, and made a sweeping, hateful generalization about invested gamers. Worse than that, he's shutting himself off from all discourse, and specifically said that there is no more room for debate.

You know who else did that? Hamas.

I mean, this is clearly not on the scale of an international human rights concern. But even if there seems to be a clear line between right and wrong, even if I believe strongly that video game culture needs to change, bigotry is not the way to change it. Name-calling is not the way to change it. Excluding people is not the way to change it. All that does is turn people against each other and reignite a conflict that needs to end.

It's kinda hard to take your point seriously after you compared this blogger to Hamas.

To me, it's reasonable to say, "These are the underlying values and premises and vocabulary that we will be working from and if you don't agree with these, we cannot have meaningful discourse." I find very little value in engaging with people who fundamentally do not believe sexism exists, for example. It just becomes an intractable argument that just rehashes itself repeatedly over years.

For me, the idea that these anti-"SJW" people and these feminists have equally meaningful contributions is ridiculous. It's false equivalency. Many of my friends and I have very different opinions on many topics but we can talk about them because we aren't constantly talking about whether or not sexism exists, which is the most shallow end of one of many deep pools.

In the broader sense, yes, ultimately ending sexism requires the buy-in of everyone including the intractable. And in a personal sense, yes, it can make sense to talk things out thoroughly with people in your social circle to engage them and share thoughts and learn from each other. A gaming website is not that situation. For a single gaming website to declare, "From here on out, on this website, we agree that sexism exists in video games and we want to end it," it does not end discourse in any other medium. People who do not agree can continue reading freely, they can talk about how sexism doesn't exist with other people of like mind on other websites, they can argue with feminists on even more websites, they literally have almost every other online space to believe this and talk about this. They have not been marginalized anymore than a person who eats meat who has been told that they can come to the local vegans' meeting but arguing with members about how veganism is wrong or stupid was forbidden (I had to really search for an example where I didn't think either side was morally in the right).

Also, regardless of my opinion on an issue, I absolutely agree with rejecting anyone who associates with and tacitly endorses people who have threatened and assaulted Sarkhessian for making video essays. Like, there is not a middle ground here. There isn't like an okay number of threats to send to Sarkhessian and people went over it. It's all or nothing here.

Related profile on Mary Beard.

Frankly put? I am all for equality in video games. 100% behind it. Let's do it tomorrow.

Furthermore, I would like to say that all the death threats and crap is just inexcusable. Like, there's no way that's even remotely okay. Those people should be ashamed or worse.


That being said, some of the time I feel people forget that video games are made for a specific target audience and they will make whatever they think will sell. So the only thing that would actually make a difference would be to convince the people making the games that there was a target demographic for such a thing and/or they would lose money otherwise.

Right now? There's not really a motivation for people to start putting more strong female protagonists into games. Unless they look like Lara Croft. Then there seems to always magically be room for that.

You know why? Because they know it will sell. And a lot of the people who get upset at it either A) would not have bought the game anyways or B) will play the game regardless.

It's very rare to see an actual boycott of anything. I mean...... just look at EA. And I don't mean on any specific issue. I mean just EA in general. People hate tons of the crap they do. But they still make money hand over fist so why bother.


In this case? If they tried to make a female protagonist that was overweight or .... frankly anything that deviates from what female protagonists in video games look like now, then they would have a hard time selling it. It's not a matter of opinion or anything. That's currently just the market. Whereas if they do that to a man.. well just look at Kane and Lynch. As long as you make them a hardened criminal or something it all works out and your game will make tons of money. Again, that's probably not right. But that's the way it currently is.

That's why so far the closest thing HAS been the COD or Skyrim character editor.

equality means that you can call zoe quinn out for being a retarded **** that abuses the youtube dmca process just as much as you would a male game maker

she's complete scum, woman or not

psa: did not read the article but I felt compelled to contribute because I'm an idiot

moving on to other news : The xbox one's recent update added media and USB support http://gamerant.com/xbox-update-media-p ... b-support/

Also it looks like if you have a 12GB ps3 no more GTA online for and i wouldn't go into a lobby that's offering free money either https://uk.news.yahoo.com/gta-5-news-ro ... ml#NJC4ROF

No... just no. The rest of your post could be nobel worthy material but just that bit invalidates it all.


The downfall of this argument is that no one even **** knows! It's not like there's a long history of varied gender/race/body shapes to come to such a conclusion, it's always been gritty white men and co. And selling or not shouldn't be a factor in wanting variety and diversity in a medium anyway.


Sorry but that doesn't make sense.

I apologize if my example came off as extreme. What I mean is that shutting off discussion doesn't resolve conflicts.


That's not what Colwell is declaring. The impression I got from the announcement is, "If you believe this thing, you are not welcome here. Get out."

That only fuels ill will. It doesn't change anyone's perceptions. You say it's fine if just a single gaming website does that. Well, it's not fine for the people who were posting there, is it? How much of a leap is it from excluding people who don't agree to demonizing those people? Flaming them? How far is too far?

I agree with Colwell, and you, DS and Fenix. I also believe that there are multiple sides to every issue. Should Quinn and Sarkeesian be receiving death threats? Of course not. But you can't just overlook the possibility that their own actions have been less than forthright. If I funded Sarkeesian's Kickstarter, I would be pretty pissed myself if I didn't get what I was promised. Sharing my views doesn't give anyone a free pass to commit fraud and disrespect intellectual property. Yes, some detractors of Quinn and Sarkeesian are insane, violent ****. That's no justification to blanket ban anyone who disagrees with your views!

But nope. No discourse. That's what Colwell has done: he's reduced a complex conflict to a black and white us vs. them situation, and he's only fragmented the gaming community even further with his intractable stance. Not to mention this is effectively a declaration of war. What if this aggravates the death-threat crowd into perpetuating even more acts of violence? Is that worth the moral victory?

I feel strongly about representation in video games. But I feel even more strongly about censorship and exclusion. How can you claim to be in the right if you retreat into an ivory tower and forbid anyone from challenging you? Does the bigotry and ignorance of others make it okay to be bigoted yourself? I don't think so. Representation is important, but so is integrity... and so is tolerance.

I don't believe that it has to be us or them. I don't believe anyone has to be anyone's enemy. In the end, this debate is because all of us are passionate about games. We are all gamers. Why can't we set aside our prejudices and focus on what's really important: building a gaming community that all of us can be proud of, no matter our gender, race or beliefs?

Well let's call this quotes A and B and your responses A and B to keep it straight.

Let me handle quote B and response B first.

There are three main groups that get upset about this issue in video games.

A) People who don't play video games.
B) People who play video games but will still buy the games in question.
C) People who play video games and won't buy the game in question.

Now group A has almost no bearing on what gets done, even though they have the potential to be very large, because they aren't a target demographic. The people making games won't make money off of them reguardless. Their opinions thus just don't matter when it comes to sales.

Group B also has almost no bearing on what gets done, because they will still go out and buy the game anyways. It's not just on this issue. It's on every issue ever related to video games. Or anything else in general. If you don't like something, but you still buy it, your opinions won't get it changed.

Now Group C is the one that can actually get changes made. Group C is where they will lose money. The problem with that? It's not large enough to get anything done. Nothing ever gets boycotted ever because people really want to play that shiny new game. It is extremely rare for anything to even have a noticeable drop in sales that they can attribute to a flat-out boycott of their game. So while theoretically they would have to care here, right now it's not large enough of a group to make them do so.


What does all of this add up to? It means that the current system is safe and makes a lot of money. It means that the current system is a money-maker and they have no reason at all to change it. Because they are making money and they know they can sell what they are currently putting out.

Here is where your response A comes in. You are right. We don't know what would happen. And you are right, it money should not have an effect on the diversity of a medium. But you know what? Money has THE PRIMARY EFFECT. Whether or not you like it, companies have something known as the bottom line and they will do whatever is safe, makes them money, and has the least negative impact on their ability to make even more money in the future. That's how business works. Saying money shouldn't be a factor doesn't mean it isn't, and it's the direct primary factor for why video games are the way they are right now. BECAUSE IT SELLS. It's why we get COD every single year instead of some new series they could have been working on. Because IT SELLS.

Now why wouldn't the other kind of video games sell? I'm not sure about what kind you want to talk about or have done in particular, but 47% of gamers are women and that in itself means there is probably the target demographic there to do something about equality in video games.

Do you know what though? They don't do it because any target demographic that might exist is not asking for such things in large enough numbers, and thus it's considered not safe. There's a lot of risk involved. And whether or not it's right, it's highly unlikely that the vast majority of companies in the business will take such a risk.

Which all circles back around to Quote and Response B again. You need to grow the group of people demanding change, who are actually a target demographic, THAT WILL BOYCOTT UNTIL THEY GET THEIR WAY, and that is how you will see change. Until then...... if anything happens it will be at the snail's pace it's always gone at.

Censorship can't be a thing, people have to want to change on their own.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/08/30/ ... emember-it

my main reason to get a xbox one

Slider. Would you please at least start formatting the links in some way that I could tell what it's about. Like going "Here is what it is: Link" or at least mentioning it somewhere in your description.


And yes. IF I ever get an xbox one, that will be one of the first things to get.

Best way to do so it so use the URL tags and format it as text.

For instance check out this awesome NGA post for more information.