- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A question about Nintendo from a non-gamer.
Posted on 12/18/12 at 1:55 am to oauron
Posted on 12/18/12 at 1:55 am to oauron
quote:
I'd like to think that Wii Sports and crazy sellers like Wii Fit, Wii Play, and Mario Kart Wii were the biggest drivers. Each of those did ~30 million.
yes
nintendo targeted a broad audience
Posted on 12/18/12 at 6:16 am to Drewbie
quote:
Please elaborate a point that I'm incorrect on? You can stroke your e-penis while you're at it. I've made no comment saying the 64 sold more. My point is that when Nintendo went the graphically superior route, the gamers got better products.
More to do with the fact that you think the Wii lost this console war and the N64 won its. Since the original Nintendo, the jump from the SNES to the N64 was probably the biggest jump in console history, which means gaming had to be redefined once more. Nintendo almost perfectly did this jump.
But you're still wrong that graphics superiority makes better products. Its been proven time and time again that graphic superiority doesn't lead to more sells. The Genesis had better graphics than the SNES, and the SNES beat it. The N64 had better graphics than the PSX, and PSX beat it. The Gamecube and XBox had better graphics than the PS2, and the PS2 beat them both. Better graphics doesn't mean better games, nor does it mean higher sales. Nintendo knew this when the Gamecube flopped, so they went a completely different route.
Popular
Back to top

0




