PS3 sucks, XBox 360 sucks, Revolution sucks

[A Black Falcon]

You missed the bigger point. It's that the GC is lacking a large selection in several genres. There just isn't enough to pick and choose from. Sure, there is a standout title or two to represent each genre but that just isn't enough if you want to appeal to the masses and their different (often times, questionable) tastes.

I didn't miss that point, I disagreed about its importance... if you have options you can choose, you shouldn't be too unhappy about others you don't have... but anyway, the lack of all those games that are on the other consoles isn't the cause of lack of support for Nintendo, they're a symptom of it. The games come with the marketshare and the sales, after all... of course, reversing that trend is hard, but still, they are a symptom, not a cause.

No, they shouldn't change the way they make games. They should focus on keeping their fanbase satisfied, but broaden it with new development houses that don't think exactly like they do. Silicon Knights is a perfect example of a development house they should have kept around. From what I understand, they left because Nintendo wanted them to go the same route of making smaller, less complicated games. SK wanted to go the epic route. What's wrong with having both? Wouldn't people enjoy being able to choose from a quick pick up and play or a grand epic adventure?

Yeah, they definitely needed to make a bigger effort with the second parties... I don't understand why they dropped them all, but it certainly hasn't done any good for Nintendo. Losing Left Field, Rare, and Silicon Knights sure won't help anything... not to mention Factor 5, which was third party exclusive and now is developing for PS3... yeah, they expanded their first parties with NST's continuing growth and the development of Retro, but still... they needed those companies, to provide more games to attract Western gamers, but they didn't hold on to them.

However, I can see why they left: Nintendo has a course, and wants to stick to that, and that isn't really compatible with SK's cinematic focus or Factor 5's graphics-first one... it's too bad, and Nintendo should have tried harder, but from their perspective it probably just didn't seem like it'd be worth the effort. But when combined with everything else it does help promote that perception that they care about us a whole lot less than they care about Japanese consumers... which is too bad, because America is the world's biggest market, Europe's is growing, and Japan's is not.

Apparently you don't understand that I just don't care for it. I don't like sitting at a computer desk; I'd rather sit on the floor or couch in my living room.

The location played isn't important, the game itsself is...

LOL. I suppose that depends how deep and customizable you want your MMORPG. Phantasy Star and Final Fantasy XI are perfect examples of MMORPGs that work on the console.

Like you, I don't care for them.

PSO is not an MMORPG. It's an online RPG, but it has no persistent world and is not massively multiplayer, so it's not an MMORPG. Like how Diablo II or Guild Wars are popular online RPGs that are not MMORPGs (though those ones, unlike PSO, don't have monthly fees...). FFXI is, though, and it's a very typical one from what I've heard... MMORPGs are interesting. It's a whole genre designed not about fun-per-hour but about how many months they can drag out the play experience so that they can keep getting your money from you... not that they aren't addictive and fun, from what I've seen (from some WoW betas mainly, but also a few Ryzom tests; I also tried free Anarchy Online, but that one interested me much less...), but that that game design is kind of annoying... still, if I had the money (that is, to spend that much on just one game) I'd get WoW.