6 Complaints About the Wii U (And Why They're Wrong)

Nintendo is discussing the Wii U lately, and the hardcore gamers are scoffing at it. They're scoffing at the rumored system specs, Nintendo's declining sales and the "gimmicky" tablet controller. You name it, they're scoffing at it.

Let's sum up what the naysayers are saying:

"The Wii U is only going to be a little more powerful than current-gen systems, so it's going to be obsolete right away. No one's going to want a system with just one tablet controller, and they're going to end up getting trounced and having to go third-party. And good riddance! Their games are great, but their hardware is garbage."

Let's go one-by-one and see if we can't defuse this.

"The Wii U is only going to be slightly more powerful than the current-gen."

First of all, we don't know how powerful the Wii U is going to be. Best estimates say that it's going to be about 1.5 times more powerful than the PS3 or 360, and the next Playstation or XBox is going to be 5-6 times more powerful than their current iterations.

However, we can ask this question: Where are games going to go next? What do they need that power for?

"You need to improve graphics!"

Why? It's not enough to see the pores on Batman's face? What more can you improve? Sure, you can get to photorealism eventually, but cranking up the power in a system gets diminishing returns.

When the Super Nintendo was around, photorealism was a dream. In the  Playstation/N64 era everything looked glitchy and ham-fisted. The PS2/XBox/Gamecube era brought us closer. Now, we're at the point where we can make realistic fire, realistic water, characters who you can tell are lying by watching their eyes, sweeping, panoramic vistas of frozen worlds, dynamically shifting sands, and more. That's with the current generation of hardware, mind you.

So what's going to be so different with a system that's six times more powerful than the PS3 and one that's merely one-and-a-half times more powerful?

You could say that it's time to turn our attention to AI, but that's not a graphics function. Besides, AI has improved to the point where it's functional enough, providing the illusion of intelligence in games. Enemies use squad tactics, flush you out with grenades, hunt you down by your last known position, use suppressing fire and attempt to flank you.

What more do we want from AI? The ability to make us an in-game mimosa? To tell us about their hopes and dreams before we drive a 7.62mm bullet through their craniums? Come on. For the vast majority of games, the AI is good enough with only incremental improvements available.

"But HD is getting more detailed, and consoles need to keep pace!"

Yes, HD technology is improving. Resolutions higher than 1080p are right around the corner, and it looks incredible.

Here's the rub: We are almost at 75% HDTV adoption across all households. As of the end of 2011, 69% of all households now own at least one HDTV. Are people who just dropped $1000 on a TV going to dump their TVs for 2K, 4K or 8K resolutions? Nintendo would be outrunning the market for 1% of all TV users, and there are still households that don't even own an HDTV yet.

In other words, a system that runs at 1080p isn't going to be obsolete any time soon, and it doesn't make any sense for them to act any differently.

"No one's going to want a system that can only use one tablet controller!"

Correct. We don't really know how many tablets that the Wii U will use, and we don't know how expensive the tablets will be if you want another one. I think Nintendo is aware of how important it is to have multiple tablets, and I'm sure they'll get that working.

However, neither of those are reasons to totally discount the tablet controller out of hand. I really should't have to break down the reasons that a tablet is going to be awesome, but allow me to just bring up one reason: Sports games.

Years ago, me and my friends would play MLB The Show. I loved it, but the problem was that it was easy for him to see which pitch I was about to throw and where. I would have to wiggle the control stick so that the ball icon would fade, and then move the control stick into the corner so that I would feel the controller rumble, which would let me know that I was approaching the edge of the strike zone. Of course, you can hear a controller rumble, so he would know that I was aiming my pitch at the edge of the strike zone and could adjust his batting with that in mind.

Let's throw the tablet in. With your own screen, you can figure out where you want the pitch to go and throw it, all without letting the batter know where it's going. Bang. Problem solved.

Draw up a basketball play on your touchscreen. Pick your football plays in Madden. Adjust the individual AI of your teammates right from the controller. Those are the possibilities for just ONE genre of games. Imagine what it can do for other genres.

Mark my words: In three years, give or take, Sony and Microsoft will come out with their own makeshift tablet solution. It's just that good of an idea.

"Nintendo's going to get killed this generation."

Why? Because they have the best idea? Because they're the first to market with something that's barely been tried in the gaming world? Or because you have a personal prejudice against what they're trying to do?

We've already discussed why tablets and smartphones aren't going to destroy gaming. We've already explained why the Wii U tablet controller is going to be completely innovative. We've already discussed that people will come to Nintendo as long as there are games to play.

Do you have any real reason why Nintendo is going to get killed aside from that? No? Good. Then that means we can tear the next complaint to shreds.

"Nintendo has to go third-party like Sega did because their hardware is awful but people still want to play their games."

This is usually included with a corollary like, "I would play Zelda if it was on the PS3," or "I would buy Mario if I could play it on my Android tablet. Take my money, Nintendo."

By comparison, Sega went third-party because they were horribly mismanaged. The Saturn was dropped by Sega almost right after launch, and the Dreamcast, while a tremendous system, was easily pirated and suffered from the poor decisions made during the Genesis/Saturn years. No part of the hardware division was 100% healthy at any point in Sega's history.

Compare this to Nintendo. They've had rousing success after rousing success. The Gamecube, while a poor seller, still made a profit. Their handheld division has raked in cash for over two decades. The Wii is one of the most successful consoles ever.

So they're not going third-party. Ever. Last year, they had a record loss, the highest loss they've ever had. They would have to lose money at that record rate for ten years straight in order to burn through all their cash. That's highly unlikely.

Nintendo's hardware is also not "awful." We've explained why. Nintendo doesn't outrun the market, it creates the market. They make solid machines that work and work and work. People still fire up their Super Nintendo systems 20 years after launch. You can throw a GameCube against a wall, turn it on and play Wind Waker.

Compare this with Sony and Microsoft. Bear in mind, I love the PS2 and PS3. I harbor no ill will toward them. But let's look at a list of technical problems with Sony's machines:

• PS2:
  Disk read errors
  A weird architecture that forced developers to offload instructions to the PS1 processor and practically rewrite all of their games
  Redesigns that destroyed system features, like the hard drive required for Final Fantasy XI
• PS3:
  The removal of downwards compatibility
  The removal of OtherOS
  The insane initial cost of the system
  The PSN hack
  The crazy architecture that makes it difficult for developers, even good ones like Valve

Now let's look at Microsoft's machines:

• XBox:
  An enormous controller that looked ridiculous and was hard to use
  Power bricks that could start on fire or cause electrical shock
• 360:
  Red-ring-of-death errors that would destroy your machine

And what about Nintendo's machines?

• NES:
  Pins that could get bent and lose contact with the games
• SNES:
  Umm
• N64:
  Hold on, one sec
• Gamecube:
  Come on you guys, let me think
• Game Boy:
  Oh! Blurry screen.
• Game Boy Advance:
  Dark screen. But they fixed that.
• DS:
  There was, um...
• Wii:
  OK, seriously you guys
• 3DS:
  Will you at least stop for a second so I can think

By any objective measure, Nintendo's hardware is rock-solid. Their technical specifications are right in line with what people want at that time, and they've proven time and again that they know what they're doing.

So, yeah, Nintendo's going to be OK. Their current systems are just fine, and the Wii U is going to be successful. Anyone who says otherwise is burying their head in the sand.

Junior Seau and the End of the NFL As We Know It

Junior Seau, former 10-time All Pro linebacker for the San Diego Chargers, died yesterday of a gunshot wound to the chest. Police are investigating it as a suicide.

We don't have enough information to determine if this was similar to the death of Dave Duerson, the former All-Pro safety who shot himself in the chest so that science could examine his brain for CTE, but the similarities are, at least on the surface, a little eerie. After all, most people who commit suicide try and shoot themselves in the head. The chest is an odd target, especially with a pistol.

What will we find when Seau’s autopsy is made public? Will we find evidence of CTE, the same as with Duerson? Either way, the toll that the NFL takes on its players is getting to the point where it simply cannot be ignored.

This reminds me of pro wrestling, in a way. Remember recently when Chris Benoit, a guy who everyone said was a class act and model citizen, suddenly murdered his family and committed suicide? When they did an autopsy, they found the brain of an 80-year-old. I mean, take a look at this page and see how many pro wrestlers died at a young age and of what: Heart attack, drug overdose, suicide, heart attack, drug overdose, and on and on.

The thing is that football is supposed to be more professional than pro wrestling. It's supposed to be somehow more sophisticated and balletic, even though deep down we know it isn't. We know that these are seriously strong men who are colliding into each other at full force with the intent to "pop" or "send a message" to the ball carrier.

Yet, at the same time, we want to kid ourselves that the game can somehow be made "safer." Roger Goodell will hand out suspensions for bounty programs and fines for "bad apples" like James Harrison and we'll keep trying to tell ourselves that concussion awareness, better training and an improved focus on player safety can fix these problems for good.

However, looking around at the game as it stands, can you see it lasting for much longer?

Think of it like this: Let's say that from here on out, all new players are totally safe from concussions and CTE. Wonderful!

However, what about players who played in the 60's? 70's? 80's? 90's? 00's? They're still around, and they're going to have problems for the rest of their lives. Even if all current players are safe, we’re still going to be hearing about concussions and concussion-related symptoms for at least the next twenty to thirty years, if not longer.

There are some cases where baseball, basketball or soccer players die young. Ken Caminiti died at 42, Len Bias died at 21 and Fabrice Muamba very nearly died on the pitch a few months ago. However, Caminiti was an admitted steroid user, Bias took cocaine, and Muamba had an unknown heart condition. There are extenuating circumstances in these instances. By and large, players who finish up their careers in other sports go on to have long lives with their wits intact. Former baseball and basketball players have their wits about them enough that they can own teams and run them successfully. Are there any football players who played in the trenches that can say the same?

So the question becomes: Are parents going to want to let their children play a game where some of its notable stars have their lives destroyed afterwards? Why would you play a game where you have no future after you're done playing, especially when there's so much more money to be made in baseball, basketball and soccer?

It doesn’t matter what football does at this point. It doesn’t matter if they wrap the players in bubble wrap, put bumpers on the sidelines and cover the field in down pillows. It doesn’t matter if they change to one-hand touch or outlaw any form of contact other than hearty handshakes. The damage has already been done.

I don’t agree with Gregg Easterbrook, writer of Tuesday Morning Quarterback, on much anymore. However, I will agree with him on this point: There is no axiom that states that football must remain popular, and sadly, I think we're looking at the last ten great years of football. The pipeline will be empty of great players, and people will move to different sports.

I certainly don’t feel comfortable watching it anymore myself. It’s kind of like watching dogfighting: The dogs have implicit trust in their owners to treat them right, and the owners abuse that trust by putting them in dangerous situations. Football players for years have been misled about the extent of damage that the game can cause, and players such as Jamal Anderson and Don Majkowski are suing the NFL over it.

Consider the case of Jamal Anderson. In 1998 he carried the ball for a then-record 410 times and caught 27 passes during the regular season. I want you to add it up: At least 437 times in a span of 17 weeks he was hit hard in an attempt to bring him down, and then another 80 times during the playoffs. That’s not counting broken tackles, blitz pickups, or any other contact he may have sustained. If Anderson only broke 5 tackles a game (which is an underestimation) and picked up the blitz once per game (also an underestimation), it’s not inconceivable that Anderson was hit 631 times, give or take, within a span of five months of his life. That’s not including practices.

Yet Anderson kept playing. Why? Because he didn’t want to let his teammates down, didn’t want to let the fans down and didn’t want to let his coaches down. At no point did anyone step in and say, “Look, Jamal is great, but we’re hurting him. He needs to rest this week. If he wants to play, let’s make sure he’s aware of the risks before he plays.”

“That’s absurd,” you may say. “He’s a football player. That’s how they play. It’s what they do. They leave it all on the field.”

It’s true, every player knows that football destroys your body. They’re glad to do it. It’s a sport of glory and honor, where your teammates are your brothers and your family. You’re war buddies, getting injured together, getting into scrapes together, and doing everything you can to win the battle. Every player knows the toll that the sport will take on your knees, hips, shoulders, and back. They know that it cripples the players that play it, but they expect that after it’s all over they can move on and use the one part of their body that hasn’t been damaged: Their brain.

As far back as 1994, the NFL was conducting research into the problems with concussions. At the time, they said that there were no problems. All was copacetic, concussions had no long-term effects, and players could keep on bashing their brains in against other players with no consequences. The science was found to be faulty and the doctors discredited. Yet, the NFL did nothing. They didn’t warn players of the danger and pooh-poohed the risks to coaches and the media.

Now we turn to the case of Junior Seau. Over 19 years, he notched 1,849 tackles, or a little under 100 per year. However, on every single play, a defensive player either hits or gets hit, sometimes repeatedly. On every snap of the ball, he gave his all as he pummeled his opponent, and some of those hits landed on his head. He didn’t complain, he just kept hitting. After all, why would he stop? If he stopped, the ballcarrier would get away. He trusted that this coaches, teammates and the league itself would look out for his best interests.

A year after his playing career was finished, Seau, a man who by most accounts was a decent man, well-liked, honest and humble, was arrested for domestic violence, then ran his car off a cliff. Then, two years later, he shot himself in the chest, finally ending his life. Someone should have looked out for his mind while he was sacrificing his body for the sport. No one did.

5 Complaints About the Wii (And Why They're Wrong)

Today we're deconstructing the criticism of the Wii. We've defended the Wii in the past, but we'll do it again because a lot of this bears repeating. Here's a sample conglomerate of all the current Wii criticism:

"The Wii was the most underpowered system, and since Nintendo wimped out on system specs all they got were the casual users. Now that the casuals have all moved to smartphones and tablets, no one is buying their system and no hardcore gamers will ever buy Nintendo products again because Nintendo embraced the casuals."

Let's go through these criticisms one by one.

"The Wii was too underpowered!"

In comparison with the XBox 360 and the Playstation 3, the Wii was definitely underpowered. That is a correct statement on face value, but no one stops and asks why the Wii was underpowered in the first place. It wasn't underpowered because Nintendo was stupid or wanted to turn its back on the casuals. It was underpowered because it just plain made sense at the time.

HDTV adoption took a while. A recently as 2010, only half of all households had HDTVs. No matter how amazing your videogame system's graphics are, it's going to look like garbage on an SDTV. Why would Nintendo go crazy and spend so much money on something that 50% of all people aren't going to see?

That's another factor that gets forgotten: Money. The cost to make an HD system was prohibitive when Nintendo launched the Wii, as evidenced by the PS3's high price point of $599. Microsoft sold the 360 for far less, but lost money on it for years. Nintendo had no desire to lose money, and they've always avoiding doing so on their hardware. For that reason, they didn't follow in lockstep with the rest of the console makers.

It was the right call, too. Nintendo turned in record profits year after year while Sony's gaming devision floundered and is in serious danger. Microsoft lost a bit of money of the 360, but they have enough to spare that it wasn't a big deal.

"Well, why didn't they release an HD version a few years ago?"

Why would they? Once again, only half of all TVs were HD. Just because Michael Pachter of Wedbush Morgan says to do something doesn't mean you should.

Besides, the Wii has succeeded precisely because it's simple. Us techies may understand the difference between a PS3 60GB unit with downwards compatibility and a PS3 Slim with a 160GB hard drive, but most people have no clue. While other systems came in a variety of flavors, the Wii has always been just the Wii.

That's helpful for consumers, and throwing a Wii-HD into the mix creates more hassles and confusion, something Nintendo is explicitly trying to avoid.

"All of this shows that Nintendo only wants casual gamers!"

Casual gamers is such a perjorative term and I hate it, but whatever.

The most successful tech companies in the world have become successful because they've expanded their reach beyond the niche that was already aware of them. To name a few:

• Microsoft escaped from the business-software ghetto and became a juggernaut of immense proportions by marketing Windows 95 to home users.

• Facebook escaped the college-only social network scene and made billions by making Facebook easy to use for all users.

• Apple escaped certain death by marketing their products to an audience that didn't know they wanted an iPod until they bought one.

And so on. Nintendo actively sought "casual gamers" because that's what a good business does: They found a need and filled it.

Along the way, Nintendo released games that showed that they hadn't forgotten the hardcore crowd: Punch-Out, Xenoblade Chronicles, Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, Zelda: Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword, and on and on.

People have always been complaining that Nintendo is a "kiddie" company or leaves the hardcore gamers alone, and I think Nintendo couldn't give a crap. The purpose of a business is to make money, and Nintendo has a big pile of money they can point to that says they're doing the right thing.

"The casuals have moved away from Nintendo, though. Nintendo posted their biggest loss ever. That proves that the Wii was a bad choice for them."

When has any videogame system ever sold like gangbusters right up until the moment that it was replaced? Every system suffers a tail-off period before it's replaced.

Did the Wii tail off faster than Nintendo hoped? Yes. I will agree that Nintendo may have waited about a year too long to replace the Wii with something else, because six-year-old technology isn't the kind of thing that brings all the boys to the yard.

That doesn't mean that all users have moved to smartphones and tablets, though. Like we said when explaining why the 3DS is fine, they're replacing their PCs with smartphones and tablets, not their videogame systems. The market is still there, waiting patiently to be awoken.

"No hardcore gamers will ever buy another Nintendo product again after the way they were treated by the Wii."

Bull.

Gamers are fickle. They go where the games are. They have no brand loyalty in the long-term. If gamers had brand loyalty, the Playstation would never have succeeded and Sega would be making the Dreamcast 2 now.

If the Wii U is cool and the games are fun, the hardcore will come back. Then they'll start whining about Nintendo again and promise to never buy another Nintendo system, then turn around and buy another Nintendo product when they have something cool again. It's inevitable.

And how will the Wii U turn out? We'll answer that in the next article.

New Super Mario Bros. 2 + Nintendo + Digital Distribution = What Exactly?

I've been wanting to weigh in on Nintendo's recent decision to start doing digital distribution starting with New Super Mario Bros. 2. Short answer: I like it, with a caveat.


Despite what it may appear, I don't actually hate digital distribution. I have tons of articles where I praise Steam and GOG to the rafters. Digital distribution is both convenient and means that you don't have to change out physical media constantly. Steam and GOG both add an extra tick in the "Pros" section by including frequent sales into the mix.

Most companies want the switch because of the dastardly scourge of used-game sales, and because they have far more control over the price once the game is being sold. After all, if the only copies of Game X sell for $50, that means that everyone who wants it has to buy it for $50! Cue "We're In The Money!"

However, that's not good for consumers, and if Nintendo goes that route, it's going to be a mess. So here's what I truly hope Nintendo has done: I hope against hope that Nintendo has looked at the bad examples of the PSPGo, Origin and others and the good examples of Steam and GOG and emulated the good examples more closely.

For example, I'm sure Nintendo plans on selling New Super Mario Bros. 2 at retail for $40. Are they going to sell it on the eShop for $40, or are they going to sell it for $30 or less? After all, by selling it direct to consumers, they're cutting out manufacturing of the cases and cartridges, as well as shipping. While servers aren't cheap, they already have the underlying setup for the eShop in place. Asking for Nintendo to sell New Super Mario Bros. 2 for less than retail isn't far-fetched.

That's really the only concern I have. As far as transferring games from one unit to another, I'm sure they'll have that functionality in place the same as they did with the DSi to 3DS transfers.

Now, it's conceivable that Nintendo could totally botch this. They could sell New Super Mario Bros. 2 for $40 in the eShop, the servers could be unable to handle the deluge of requests and Nintendo could be wholly lacking in support after the fact. It doesn't seem like a likely scenario, but if this doomsday scene comes to pass I reserve the right to change my opinion.

5 Complaints About the 3DS (And Why They're Wrong)

Nintendo's having a rough time of it right now, that's for sure. They've posted their highest losses ever, the Wii is weakening, and while the 3DS is selling well it's still not making money for them. It's doom and gloom time!

Well, it's settled. Let's all write off Nintendo now and forever more. After all, the 3DS is garbage because a few people on the internet don't like 3D, the Wii has always been for kids and people who don't know anything a bout videogames, and the Wii U isn't going to be any good because it's underpowered and gimmicky.

We've spent a long time on this blog debunking Nintendo-related predictions, and most of the time we've been right. There's a reason we're called "Downwards Compatible" here: Because we take a long view of things rather than making blanket predictions based on quickly-shifting market trends.

So to that end, we're going to take each of the systems and debunk the main complaints that most comment sections and analysts have about them. Today, we're debunking the doom-and-gloom predictions for the 3DS. Here are the misconceptions about the 3DS in a nutshell:

"No one likes 3D, so it's therefore doomed to fail. It's underpowered with bad battery life, and tablets and smartphones have better games now."

There's only one thing in this litany of complaints that's remotely true: The poor battery life. Six hours for a handheld is kind of crappy. However, those six hours assume that you're playing in 3D with full brightness. Turn down the 3D and your battery life improves. QED.

"3D is a gimmick. It gives people headaches so no one wants the 3DS."

I've been playing videogames for a really long time, almost thirty years. My one complaint about the transition from 2D to 3D is the inability to maneuver in 3D space with any level of exactitude. Jumping in 3D is a chore, because you can never quite see where you're going to end up. All it took was one game to convince me that 3D was going to resurrect the platformer: Rayman 3D. After that, I had no doubt that the 3DS was going to be a big deal.

I cannot tell you how big of a deal this is for platformers and action-adventure games. Being able to clearly see depth without any artificial indicators is a tremendous accomplishment. It's not a gimmick, it's a huge step forward.

The headaches aren't actually a big deal, either. As long as you hold the 3DS steady, seeing the 3D isn't difficult. That's not that hard to do, since I imagine most people aren't shaking their arms like a Quaker while they're playing their 3DS. The only time it may become a problem is in the car, on a bus or an airplane. In that case, turning down the 3D solves the issue.

The whole "3D causes headaches" rumor came from the poor implementation of 3D back in the 1950's. 3D movies in those days demanded perfect synchronization of the films, and if it was off by a microsecond, it created headaches and nausea. Since 3D was adopted by B-movie schlocksters who only cared about the money, they didn't bother getting it right, just getting the money.

Today, 3D is much better, but bad 3D still causes problems. If a 3D movie isn't done right, it can still creates headaches and nausea as your brain can't handle it. That's why it's a good thing that the 3D that the 3DS uses is good 3D that doesn't cause headaches unless you're doing it wrong.

"But you're in the minority on that opinion!"

Nintendo has sold more 3DS units at this point in the system's life cycle than they sold DS units at the same point. Clearly, I'm not alone on viewing the 3D in a positive light.

The only reason it appears that Nintendo is struggling with the 3DS is because of the steep price drop, which ate into their profits. It was, admittedly, a bad decision to release the system so expensively when the tech wasn't quite there yet, but Nintendo really had no other choice at the time.

Was Nintendo going to sit on the 3DS until manufacturing costs dropped to the point where they could sell the system at a profit for $169? That would mean that Nintendo would have to wait until about 2013 to launch the successor to the DS unless they wanted to make a DS2 in the interim, which would muddy the waters further for DS owners. Besides, the 3DS was clearly the right way to go, since, once again, it's opened up a whole new dimension (pun not intended) in gaming.

Besides, what was the real flashpoint for the sales of the DS? Many systems sold right after the launch of New Super Mario Bros. Personally speaking, it's what convinced me to get a DS. Combined with the Brain Age series of games, it sent DS sales into the ionosphere.

Well, Nintendo is launching New Super Mario Bros. 2 and a new Brain Age game, and it's already launched Super Mario 3D Land and Mario Kart 7. I think they'll be OK.

"But the 3DS is underpowered compared to the Vita!"

When has the power of any given handheld ever been the defining factor in its success? The Game Gear was technically superior to the Game Boy, and it got trounced. The PSP was technically superior to the DS in every way, yet the DS buried it. Graphics have never been important in a handheld, and they've actually been more of a detriment than anything else.

In a console system, you can put more powerful graphics into a system with the only limiting factor being the system's final manufacturing cost. With a handheld, you have to take into account the final manufacturing cost as well as the battery life. The more powerful the system, the less the battery life will be. Striking that balance is key.

Nintendo has historically known how to strike that balance. For the 3DS, they made a slight miscalculation with the manufacturing cost. Sony made a major miscalculation, making the Vita a tremendous piece of hardware with great graphics, absolutely no battery life and too high of a manufacturing cost.

So in this case, the 3DS' relative power as compared to the Vita is actually a benefit rather than a drawback to its long-term success.

"Tablets and smartphones are eating up the 3DS' market!"

When presenting this argument, analysts will point to the many millions of iPhones, iPads and Android devices being sold and compare it to the relatively small amount of 3DS units sold. It certainly looks like an insurmountable number. However, we need to stop and think about a few things before anointing smartphones and tablets as the new handhelds.

1) Gaming on smartphones and tablets is not that impressive by design.

Most of the games revolve around simple controls: Tap, swipe or press this at the appropriate time. When they try and take a complex game like Grand Theft Auto III and squeeze it into a tablet, it's a disaster. It can't be done. Even one of the most technically adept games for iOS, Infinity Blade, is a series of swipes, nothing more.

That's because you can't do much more than that on a tablet. At best, you have to use controls that use two fingers, and at worst, you have to adapt your control scheme to one finger. Sure, the tablet manufacturer may be able to include a gamepad, but now you're reducing the portability of the unit and putting it right back at square one.

That doesn't mean that there's still not a lot of people who crave the type of simple gaming that tablets and smartphones. But were those people who crave this type of gaming dropping upwards of $140 for the DS and $30 for each game? Not really. They were the ones who were playing hours of Solitaire and Freecell on their computers or who fell in love with SkiFree and Microsoft Pinball. And what happened to those people anyway?

2) The PC market is dwindling.

People need computers, but they don't want to be tied to their homes anymore. Some are removing their old Windows XP boxes and replacing them with other devices that do email, Facebook, and Youtube. What are they replacing them with?

Smartphones and tablets.

Think of this as the XBox-to-PC migration in the early-2000s. Multiplayer gaming was always the domain of PC games, and when Live launched on the XBox, it cannibalized the PC audience and led to huge growth in XBox gaming, putting PC gaming on the ropes until a viable multiplayer solution arrived in the form of Steam. The audience never went away, it just migrated and moved around a bit.

That's what's happening with the PC market. It's not going away, just shifting. All you have to do is look at the layout of Best Buy or Walmart's computer section, and you'll see the seismic shift right there. PCs are diminishing. Tablets are emerging. With that, the way people buy applications is changing, and 99-cent apps with simple system requirements are easier to buy than $50 boxes with byzantine system requirements.

"Yeah, but I only can carry one gaming device in my pocket, and it's going to be my phone, not a 3DS!"

Oh! Well, that changes everything. I mean, when the DS was popular, that means you didn't carry a cell phone in your pocket then?

No?

Well, then, when you were young, you must have shoved a Game Boy in your pocket, even though the Game Boy was one inch thick, three inches wide and six inches long, right?

No? Well, when did this become a problem then?

The fact of the matter is that most people aren't carrying around multiple devices with them, and they never have. If they've wanted to bring a gaming machine with them, they find a way. This is one of the stupidest reasons to believe that the 3DS will fail, and it's been borne out by the fact that the 3DS' sales have improved over the DS' sales at the same time in its lifespan.

Next article: Why the naysayers are wrong about the Wii... almost.

Football and Sample Size

Football is starting to grate on my nerves for a few reasons. The ongoing concussion problems and the way it destroys player's bodies is one of them, but another has to do with one of the fundamentals of football itself: Sample size.

In statistical studies, results can be skewed by selecting a sample size that's too small. Let's use Skittles as an example.

In a typical bag of Skittles, there are five flavors: Strawberry, orange, lemon, lime and grape. They are in equal proportion to each other when they're made.

If I grab five Skittles at random, will I have five Skittles each of a different color? Maybe not. I might have two grape, one strawberry, one lime and one lemon. I might have three orange, one grape and one lemon. I might have four lime and one strawberry.

In this case, bad statistical analysis would be to take that miniscule sample size and conclude that the entire batch of Skittles is skewed in that direction. It would be to say, "I only have four lime and one strawberry in this group of five. That means that 80% of all Skittles are lime, 20% are strawberry, and there are no other flavors in this bag."

In football, there are only 16 games played during the year. Is that enough time to determine which are the best teams? How much statistical variance is there that we're not seeing?

We can't really figure that out using football itself. From year to year, the teams change so much that trying to extrapolate long-term data using several seasons worth of games would be absolutely ridiculous and pointless. However, we could try figuring this out using another sport: Baseball.

Every Major League Baseball team plays 162 games per year, which means that statistical anomalies are shaken out by the end of the year. A team that has a strong start with weak personnel will fade down the stretch, and a team that has a weak start but a strong team will come on toward the end.

But what happens when we shorten the season to 16 games, like football has?

First, click here to see 2011's final standings. We remember how the season shook out: The Cardinals and the Rangers met in the postseason and the Cardinals won. However, if we shorten the season to just 16 games, the same as football does, what sort of records do we have?

Since teams play at different times, we rolled back the clock to April 18th, 2011 to see what each team's record was, then adjusted the date to make sure we got the proper amount of games for each team. If the date was adjusted, we noted the adjusted date next to the team name. We are not adjusting the standings by division tiebreakers, just by percentage.

American League

EAST

NY Yankees (4/20) 10-6 .625
Toronto 7-9 .438
Tampa Bay 7-9 .438
Baltimore (4/19) 7-9 .438
Boston (4/19) 5-11 .313

CENTRAL

Cleveland 12-4 .750
Kansas City 10-6 .625
Detroit (4/17) 7-9 .438
Chicago Sox 7-9 .438
Minnesota 6-10 .375

WEST
Texas 11-5 .688
LA Angels 10-6 .625
Oakland 8-8 .500
Seattle (4/17) 5-11 .313

National League

EAST
Philadelphia (4/19) 10-6 .625
Florida (4/20) 10-6 .625
Washington (4/20)* 8-8 .533
Atlanta (4/17) 7-9 .438
NY Mets 5-11 .313

CENTRAL
Cincinnati 9-7 .563
Milwaukee 8-8 .500
Chicago Cubs 8-8 .500
Pittsburgh 8-8 .500
St. Louis 8-8 .500
Houston 5-11 .313

WEST
Colorado 12-4 .750
San Francisco 9-7 .563
Arizona 8-8 .500
LA Dodgers 7-9 .438
San Diego 7-9 .438

* Doubleheader played on 4/20.

According to the 16-game standings, four teams would be tied for the worst record in the league: Boston, Seattle, the Mets and Houston. The actual lowest records, in descending order, were Baltimore, Seattle, Minnesota and Houston.

According to the 16-game standings, there would be three teams with the highest records in the league: Cleveland, Colorado and Texas with five other teams tied at a 10-6 record (Yankees, Kansas City, Anaheim, Philadelpha and Florida). The actual top four teams with the highest records, in descending order, were Philadelphia, the Yankees, Texas and Milwaukee.

By using the 16-game schedule, your division champions in the AL would be the Yankees, Cleveland and Texas with the Royals and Angels battling it out for the wild card. The NL would be Philadelpha, Cincinnati and Colorado with Florida getting the Wild Card.

The real division champions? The Yankees, Detroit and Texas with Tampa getting the wild card in the AL, and Philadelphia, Milwaukee and Arizona with St. Louis in the wild card in the NL.

So, is the 2011 16-game schedule way, way off? There is quite a bit of variance. While a few of the really good teams would still be good under this drastically shorted schedule, over half of the true playoff teams would have been excluded under the 16-game schedule.

How significant is the variance? On average, in 2011, a 16-game schedule would have produced a variance of 93.56 percentage points. That's an entire win and a half in football terms. That may not sound like much, but one or two wins would have changed the entire playoff picture. The eventual Super Bowl winners, the Giants, may have missed the playoffs altogether. The Broncos may not have made the playoffs, the Titans may have, the Cowboys, Eagles, Bears or Cardinals may have made it while the Falcons and Lions may not have, and so on.

But we don't want to make the same statistical mistake by cherry picking one season, and calling this a wrap. Let's go to the 2010 MLB season and do the same thing. The true final standings are right here, and here are the 16-game standings (Taken from April 23, 2010 unless otherwise noted):

American League

EAST
Tampa Bay (4/22) 12-4 .750
NY Yankees 11-5 .688
Toronto (4/22) 9-7 .563
Boston (4/22) 6-10 .375
Baltimore (4/22) 2-14 .125

CENTRAL
Minnesota (4/22) 11-5 .688
Detroit (4/22) 9-7 .529
Cleveland 7-9 .438
Kansas City 6-10 .375
Chicago Sox (4/22) 5-11 .313

WEST
Oakland (4/21) 9-7 .563
Seattle (4/22) 9-7 .563
LA Angels (4/21) 8-8 .500
Texas 7-9 .438

National League

EAST
Philadelphia 10-6 .625
Florida 9-7 .563
Washington (4/22) 8-8 .500
Atlanta 8-8 .500
NY Mets (4/22) 7-9 .438

CENTRAL
St. Louis 10-6 .625
Milwaukee 8-8 .500
Pittsburgh 7-9 .438
Chicago Cubs (4/22) 6-10 .438
Cincinnati (4/22) 7-9 .438
Houston 6-10 .375

WEST
San Diego 10-6 .625
San Francisco 9-7 .563
Colorado 8-8 .500
Arizona 7-9 .438
LA Dodgers 7-9 .438

There's not as much variance in the top teams here. The top four teams in the real schedule are Phildelphia, Tampa Bay, The Yankees, and Minnesota. The top four teams in the 16-game schedule are Tampa Bay, the Yankees, Minnesota and a logjam between three different teams, including Philadelphia.

The bottom teams in the real schedule are Pittsburgh, Seattle, Baltimore and Arizona. In the 16-game schedule, the bottom teams are Baltimore, the White Sox, Houston, and a tie with Kansas City and Boston.

The division champions are slightly different here. The real division champions in the AL were Tampa, Minnesota and Texas with the Yankees getting the wild card. The NL was represented by Philadelpha, San Francisco and Cincinnati, with Atlanta getting the wild card.

The 16-game schedule has a minimal effect on the AL, just changing out Texas for Oakland. Just like 2011, though, the effect is more pronounced in the NL. The NL would have been represented by Philly, St. Louis, San Diego, and the wild card going to either Florida or San Francisco.

So, what's the big deal? The results were mostly the same with just a few quirks. Doesn't sound like much, but what's the variance? Try 81.73 percentage points per team, which equates to one win again.

What about 2009? Here are the final standings, and here's the 16-game schedule.

American League

EAST
Toronto 11-5 .688
Boston 10-6 .625
NY Yankees 9-7 .563
Baltimore 8-8 .500
Tampa Bay 8-8 .500

CENTRAL
Kansas City 9-7 .563
Chicago Sox 8-8 .500
Detroit 8-8 .500
Minnesota 7-9 .438
Cleveland 6-10 .375

WEST
Seattle 10-6 .625
Texas 7-9 .438
LA Angels 6-10 .375
Oakland 6-10 .375

National League

EAST
Florida 11-5 .688
Atlanta 8-8 .500
Philadelphia 8-8 .500
NY Mets 7-9 .438
Washington 3-13 .188

CENTRAL

St. Louis 11-5 .688
Pittsburgh 9-7 .563
Cincinnati 9-7 .563
Chicago Cubs 8-8    .500
Milwaukee 7-9 .438
Houston 6-10 .375

WEST
LA Dodgers 11-5 .688
San Diego 10-6 .625
San Francisco 8-8 .467
Arizona 6-10 .375
Colorado 5-11 .313

What’s the variance? 98.53 percentage points. That’s a win, once again.

Let's try 2008. Here's the 16-game schedule, and compare this with the real standings.

American League

EAST
Boston 9-7 .563
Baltimore 9-7 .563
NY Yankees 9-7 .563
Toronto 8-8 .500
Tampa Bay 7-9 .438

CENTRAL
Chicago Sox 10-6 .625
Kansas City 9-7 .563
Minnesota 7-9 .438
Cleveland 6-10 .375
Detroit 5-11 .313

WEST
LA Angels 9-7 .563
Oakland 9-7 .563
Seattle 8-8 .500
Texas 7-9 .438

National League

EAST
NY Mets 10-6 .625
Florida 9-7 .563
Philadelphia 8-8 .500
Atlanta 7-9 .438
Washington 4-12 .250

CENTRAL
St. Louis 11-5 .688
Milwaukee 10-6 .625
Chicago Cubs 10-6 .625
Pittsburgh 7-9 .438
Cincinnati 7-9 .438
Houston 6-10 .375

WEST
Arizona 12-4 .750
San Diego 8-8 .500
Colorado 8-8 .467
LA Dodgers 7-9 .438
San Francisco 6-10 .375

The variance here is 83.9 percentage points. Again, a full win.

We'll stop here, because I think we get the point: Every year, because of football's short schedule, there's a possibility that a team either has one MORE or one LESS win than they deserve.

So why does all of this matter? Football isn't the same as baseball after all, and who cares if your team has one more win or one more loss?

Well, if you're having a historically great season, it might not matter. If your team goes 15-1 or 14-2, that doesn't change the fact that it was a great season. If your team is historically bad, it doesn't really matter. What's the difference between 4-12 or 3-13?

However, it does matter if you're a fan of any number of teams that go 7-9, 8-8, 9-7 or 10-6 during the season. A little bit of good luck, and your team is in the playoffs with a punter's chance at a Super Bowl. A little bit of bad luck and your team misses the playoffs and maybe your coach who really wasn't that bad gets fired.

Maybe your team is better than the record shows. Maybe they just need some time to gel and work together, but over the span of just 16 games, they don't have the opportunity.

"So are you suggesting that they lengthen the season?" Absolutely not. How can you, when you have athletes whose bodies are destroyed, like Jim McMahon:

McMahon now says his brain doesn’t work well.

“Short term memory is not good,” McMahon said. “I won’t remember a hell of a lot about this interview in 10 minutes.”

Take Kyle Turley, who said:

You start on your own five-yard line, and drive all the way down the field—fifteen, eighteen plays in a row sometimes. Every play: collision, collision, collision. By the time you get to the other end of the field, you're seeing spots. You feel like you are going to black out. Literally, these white explosions—boom, boom, boom—lights getting dimmer and brighter, dimmer and brighter.

What about poor Dave Duerson, who shot himself in the chest so he could have his brain examined? No, you can't lengthen the season. That's the nature of football.

Therein lies the problem. You can't get the good teams to shake out statistically when the way to do is to lengthen the season, which you can't do for player safety, and if the best teams aren't in the playoffs, then what's the point?

You may argue, “But the best team doesn’t win the Super Bowl every year! I mean, some of these years, the wild card team won, or the supposed ‘best’ team lost in the first round of the playoffs!” This is true, but once again, we’re dealing with a very small sample size. Even in baseball, during a seven-game series, almost every team has a chance versus any other team.

This study is not concerned with who wins in the playoffs, because that's prone to variance. When a team gets to the playoffs, anything can happen, and countless pro football teams haven't been able to get to the playoffs precisely because there's an underlying problem with the game itself that can't be fixed under any circumstances.

Review: Super Mario Land

Developer: Nintendo
Publisher: Nintendo

Super Mario Land is a weird, weird game. Let's run down a list of reasons why.

• The sprites are super-tiny.
• Mario is in a place called Sarasaland.
• Bowser isn't in the game. In his place is an alien named Tatanga.
• You're rescuing Daisy, not Princess Peach.
• There is no Mario music whatsoever.
• You don't shoot fireballs, you shoot superballs that collect coins for you.
• Some levels turn into a side-scrolling shooter where Mario uses a submarine or airplane.
• There are enemies that look somewhat like Mario enemies, but all of them are just slightly... off, like the "Koopa Troopas" that explode after you step on them.
• There are enemies that look like moai statues with arms that run really fast.
• Just when the game starts getting interesting, it ends.

All of this combines to make a game that's kind of like Mario, but not quite. If you didn't see Mario in the title or see Mario's tiny, tiny sprite, you would assume it was some sort of Mario knockoff. Nintendo agrees, because neither Sarasaland nor Tatanga have made further appearances in anything Nintendo made.

On the Virtual Console, Super Mario Land is a trifle. It's not as deep as any of the other Mario games and really brings nothing to the table. It's an OK way to kill an hour or two, but really doesn't deserve to be in the same breath as some of the other Mario Land games.

Final Grade: D+