Cripes. This isn't life or death.
I think Nintendo fans need to come to a realization here: Nintendo doesn't listen to, or care about, your opinions. Nintendo is the most politician-like of the Big Three. Meaning: "we know what's good for you, and you don't".
DS? I bought mine launch day. I've played a decent amount of Mario 64, but that's it. Nothing has come out for the system and nothing is on its way. Warioware? I have it reserved, but it's just a sequel. Nintendo has yet to have shown us one piece of truly new, truly unique software that takes full advantage of the capabilities built into the DS. The DS, at the moment, despite all of its possibilities and promise, is a fraud.
As was brought up, maps and item menus are not legitimate uses for the second screen. The Yoshi demo (which turned into the Yoshi game) was the most promising indicator as to the future use of DS. However, they turned a demo into a game, and have yet to deliver on the promise of the DS.
I have not yet played a game any differently than I had before.
Which brings us to the Revolution. If it's holographic, if it's gyroscopic, or if it's any of these ridiculous ideas floating around the internet at the moment, I quit. G-I-M-M-I-C-K. What's that spell? Gimmick. What's that mean? Nintendo's track record of "innovation" the past few years. Connectivity? Bunk. Dual Screen? Still waiting. Voice in Mario Party? Blows.
The idea of Nintendo trying to compete on an even level with the "big boys" being some sort of debacle or apparent loss, is flaw-ridden and smacks of fanboy insecurities. Nintendo has the ability to compete directly with Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo has the ability to compete with them and pull a solid second. Even in the US. How? Make a kick-ass system, pack-in a game, and open it up to developers. Make it cheap to develop for. Drop the licensing costs by a large margin, at least up front. Be aggressive for once.
I think that Steven Kent put it best in his article, which I don't have the link to so I'll paraphrase: People want a tough system and good graphics. The former was taken care of with the GameCube, but here's the kicker: Nintendo failed to provide the art. Their games look terrible half of the time. They've yet to have truly taxed the system, and Zelda appears to be the only one doing it. RE4 is being ported to PS2, and from what I hear, looks just as good. If RE4 can run on PS2, imagine what the GCN can do if someone tries to push it to its limits.
But Nintendo won't. They never have. Best looking games on N64? Not theirs. Rare pushed it. And that points to an immediate weakness in the graphical development of Revolution, so Nintendo won't be winning that one.
Revolution needs to be more standard than Nintendo is letting on. Make the controllers natively wireless. Pack online into the system from the get-go. Pack a wireless networking card into the system, for the love of Pete. I use wireless internet, and it's one of the greatest innovations in the past ... while. Provide mind-numbing power. Launch with Mario, follow up a month or two later with Mario Kart, follow that up with Zelda. But while doing this, make something new. Pikmin was awesome. But Pikmin 2 sucked. Was the game inheretly bad? No, but it was the same thing, minus the time restrictions.
The fact of the matter is, nobody knows what Revolution is, but a lot is riding on it. I agree with the post stating that, if Nintendo fails this gen, they're done. They are. Nobody will want them anymore.
If I were in charge of Nintendo, I'd consolidate my position as the Apple of the videogame industry and just focus on doing the nifty things that people want to see from me. And, this is just a hunch, but from what I'm reading about Revolution, all I see is another DS. If it isn't something cool, and if it isn't something worth playing, then I quit. Not a big loss to me. It's just a game.
