"Nintendo Will Not Return To Profitability"

So Michael Pachter has this to say about Nintendo:

They should have, and because they didn't, the decline in Wii and DS hardware and software sales drove them into generating LOSSES. For those of you who aren't financial analysts, losses mean that the company is worth less than it was before. Nintendo stock has dropped by over 80% in the last few years, and the market has appreciated over the same period. I'm paid to advise investors, and none have made a profit owning Nintendo stock. I don't think that many will make a profit over the next few years, because I don't think Nintendo's strategy will return them to profitability.

I am not a financial analyst, and I'm not going to argue with Pachter over whether or not he's right. He has access to a lot more information than I do, although he's been saying that Nintendo's going to release a Wii HD repeatedly and hasn't been right so far.

I'm also not going to argue the point that the 3DS is doing great now after a rocky start, and that analysts' repeated calls for Nintendo to join up with smartphones is a complete waste of time, ink and breath. I'm not going to argue that the vision of a company like, say, Apple was run almost entirely off of the ideas of one man as opposed to a corporate culture like Nintendo.

I'm also not going to argue that while Nintendo is worth less now than they were two years ago, that was when Nintendo was at its absolute, once-in-a-lifetime peak, and I'm also not going to bring up the fact that  Nintendo has consistently weathered the tough times far better than other industry darlings and for far longer.

I don't believe I can argue with Pachter, especially since he tosses in this withering bon mot at the end:

If the context above infuriates you, go back to school and pay attention, then read it again ;-)

Since I do not have the time to go back to "school," where, most assuredly, Mr. Pachter learned a great deal about profit, judging from this statement:

I'm paid to advise investors, and none have made a profit owning Nintendo stock.

I understand that he means "in the last two years," or at least I would hope so. If he means what he wrote, that no investors have ever made a profit owning Nintendo stock, then it is quite possible that Mr. Pachter must go back to school.

No, I won't argue any of these points, since I am obviously not capable enough to argue any of them. So instead, I'll just sit back, enjoy my Nintendo products and accept their inevitable decline into obscurity. After all, he's a financial adviser. Surely none of them have ever been wrong.

Review: Pushmo

Developer: Intelligent Systems
Publisher: Nintendo

There is a right way and a wrong way to make a downloadable game. The wrong way is Sakura Samurai's way: Cool concept, lackluster execution. The right way? Pushmo. Cool concept, great execution, and a whole lot to do.


Pushmo is like this: They hand you a structure called a Pushmo, and you can pull blocks of the structure forward and backward in order to create steps. You use those steps to get to a predetermined point on the structure in order to rescue someone trapped in the structure. It sounds fairly complicated, but Pushmo does a fantastic job explaining exactly what needs to be done.

There are few things that make Pushmo work. One, most of the puzzles are devious. I found myself staring at puzzles blankly wondering what the heck I needed to do to get to the top. However, none of them are really impossible, just require a little bit of thinking.

Two, the difficulty curve is fantastic. They introduce concepts easily and slide them in alongside things you already know. If you've spent a while on a puzzle and can't figure it out, you can skip on to the next one, which is great.

Three, there are a ton of puzzles, and if you finish them all you can create your own with the Pushmo Studio and then share them with others using QR codes. That means that there's always plenty to do.

I'm impressed by Pushmo. Not only is it deep, but it's cute, the graphics are sharp, the music is fun and not very cloying, and it's a ton of fun. If you have a 3DS, buy Pushmo.

Final Grade: A

Review: Sakura Samurai: Art of the Sword

Developer: Nintendo
Publisher: Nintendo

Nintendo is finally making downloadable games for the eShop. It's taken them long enough, but they're finally trying something new, and good for them. It's important to show the other guys how it's done. However, Sakura Samurai: Art of the Sword isn't a good way to do so.
Sakura Samurai isn't like other, more kinetic swordfighting games. It's a game of observation and reflexes: Watch the way your opponents move, dodge their attacks and then counter with one of your own. In that sense, it's a great approximation of how swordfighting really is rather than how it's made out to be in most video games and movies.

The mechanics of Sakura Samurai are beyond reproach. The problem is that there isn't much else to do. In every new level, you'll face off against a few enemies. You kill them and some more appear. That's it. Rinse and repeat in the next level.

I mean, imagine what they could have done with this premise! What about a battle where you need to use the terrain to your advantage! Attacking downhill gives you a bonus! Rocky terrain can cause poor footing, meaning you can't dodge repeatedly or risk falling over! Use rocks and trees to your advantage and back up your opponents against them! Anything else!

On top of that, my love for this game was cut off at the knees because of one particularly annoying level. It's a really long castle where you fight about 20 enemies before arriving at the big baddie, who's twice your size with a giant sword. Threatening! Imposing! The first time you fight the battle, it looks like a total setpiece battle that you'll remember for a long time! However, if you die (and you will die repeatedly), you have to begin at the very beginning of the level, fight all 20 opponents again, then get to the big bad, who might kill you again. Then you have to fight through the level again, get to the big bad, so on and so forth.

I lost about ten times to the boss and almost gave up, but decided to press onward in the off chance that the next series of levels were somehow more entertaining. Nope. Same thing, same repeated series of levels.

I love the mechanics in Sakura Samurai. However, until they use those mechanics in a game that does more than just rehashes them over and over, I can't recommend this game.

Final Grade: D+

Adventures With Digital Distribution

As of right now, there are only two digital distributors worth dealing with: Good Old Games and Steam. The interesting thing is that both of these distributors are based on one guiding principle: Trust.
For example, Good Old Games lets you download the full files of whatever game you've purchased. There's nothing stopping you from putting that file on your torrent site of choice and letting others enjoy the sweet nectar of your purchase, and yet, you rarely see GOG files ending up on torrent sites.

Why is this? First, the games are so darn cheap that they're almost impulse buys. Second, they make the games easy to buy. Third, and most importantly, they don't treat the customer like a criminal. There's no limit on how many times you can download the game, no crazy online activation schemes to go through. That takes away the moral justification that people (myself included) have for pirating.

It's one thing to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but if the person you're stealing from is the nicest guy in town, it just makes you look like a jerk.

While Steam has to bow to the whims of the game industry's heavy hitters, it's also surprisingly flexible in the way it allows you to install the Steam client on different computers, and it also doesn't place any restrictions on how many times you can download the game. As we've discussed before, Steam succeeds for very good reasons.

Why do I bring this up? I'll tell you: Two bad experiences, one right after the other, with digital distribution. One demonstrates a misunderstanding of what digital distribution is supposed to accomplish, and one demonstrates the problem with the smaller providers as the industry grows and changes.

My first experience came from Batman: Arkham City. I first began playing the game via a pirated copy, since, while I had heard good things, I wasn't sure if it was a game I wanted to plunk down cold, hard cash for. I played it and enjoyed it immensely. When it came on sale at Impulse for $25, I immediately jumped at it to support the developer.

Impulse was previously owned by Stardock, who used the service to send out their own games. They couldn't make a go of the platform, and ended up selling it to Gamestop. Compared to Steam, it's lacking in features. There are no achievements, no community features, nothing. It's a pure delivery platform, nothing more and nothing less.

When I start the pirated copy, it waits on an initial loading screen for about fifteen seconds and then moves on to the actual game. When I start the legit copy that I paid for with cash money, it doesn't start for two minutes. This is because they're using DRM in the background to verify that I really paid for the copy that I paid for.

Bear in mind that this process is completely useless, since it's been bypassed handily in the pirated copy, and you can see where the issue lies. The whole point of digital distribution is to minimize piracy and used game sales, but when you layer DRM on top of the downloaded copy, it's completely destroying the point.

Not only that, but a ridiculous install limit was placed on the downloaded copy of Arkham City. I can only install the game five times before it runs out. If I decide to wipe my computer? That's an install. If I have to uninstall/reinstall the game? That's an install. I'm being penalized for purchasing the game instead of pirating it. The pirates have provided a better customer experience than the companies that are supposed to provide it. That's sick.

My second experience came from Civilization 4. I purchased the game via Direct2Drive a while back, and their system was pretty simple: Download the game, enter the product key and it'll go through a brief online activation. That's all. Since they gave me the capability of storing the files on my computer, it's only fair that I be forced to use a one-time online activation.

I've saved those files on my computer for a few years now, on the off chance that I'll want to reinstall the game. A week ago, I caught the bug again, so I started those setup files. The install went swimmingly, and I opened up Civ 4. It started to run the activation and then stopped with an error saying it couldn't connect to the server.

So why wouldn't it work? I went to Direct2Drive's site and found that it had been purchased by GameFly. I couldn't find any help forthcoming on GameFly's site about why Civ 4 wouldn't connect, but I have a clue. GameFly has a beta client software they would like me to download. I'm assuming that this is their new distribution model for their games, and what I would have to do if I wanted to play Civ 4.


Once again, I went to a torrent site, downloaded a Civ 4 .iso, installed it and was playing shortly after the download finished. No hoops, no muss, no fuss.

Since digital distribution is still in its infancy with only Steam being an established provider, purchasing from any other company can be a crapshoot. Will the company still be in their current form a year later? Two years later? Will any activation methods still work? Of course, the companies don't care because they have your money already.

As we've mentioned, Good Old Games steps around this. If Good Old Games were to go out of business tomorrow, every game that I have purchased through them would still work. Yes, they already have your money, but they still provide you with the followthrough that makes their business work.

And don't even get me started on the one time I tried downloading Age of Empires 3 from the Games for Windows Live client. Ugh.

This is what's driving me crazy. Most digital distribution providers are providing an experience inferior to what the pirates offer, and they're charging us money for the privilege! I've learned my lesson: When it comes to digital distribution, stick with the companies that trust you as the consumer, since most of them don't. Give them your money in appreciation of the great work they do, and maybe some of the other ones will get the hint eventually.

Downwards Compatible's End Of Year 2011 Game-Stravaganza

"The only End of Year Awards that wait until after the year is over."

This year was a disappointing one here at Down-C. Since we usually play in the Nintendo sandbox, there wasn't much going on. The 3DS started slowly. The Wii barely had any releases. The DS is on its last legs. Some of these games ended up as year-end greats only by default.
Still, there were some genuinely good games released this year, and it’s time to give them their due.

Most Disappointing Game:

Kirby: Return to Dreamland

Kirby games are great because they're usually pretty unpredictable. You may not always like the direction they go, but you can't fault them for trying.

Return to Dreamland, sadly, was entirely predictable and didn't feel like it was trying. The levels were bland. The new powers were dull. Heck, even the screen-filling superpowers got boring after a while. How they managed to pull that off I'll never know.

Nicest Thing Of The Year

Humble Bundles

The Humble Indie Bundle is a group of games that you can pay whatever you want for. They used to only do this every once in a great while, and this year they decided to do, like, 20 of them in a row.

If you participated in the Humble Bundles, that meant that you picked up games like Braid, Super Meat Boy, Cave Story+, NightSky, The Binding of Isaac, Shank, And Yet It Moves, Machinarium, and tons of others for a really low price. That's awesome, and I hope they do some more just like that in the new year.

Best Game I Played This Year That Wasn't Released This Year, But Whatever (Tie)

VVVVVV

Look, if you haven't played VVVVVV, I don't know what to tell you. It's cheap, only about $5. It's hard, but not unfair. It's short and the music is tremendous. Play it. I won't ask again.

Uncharted 2

Before I got a PS3, I was completely content not to play games in HD. Even after having the PS3 for a bit, I was still fine with it. It was only until after I played Uncharted 2 that I saw exactly what HD gaming could accomplish, and there's no turning back now.

It's not just the graphics, although those are nice. It's the facial expressions, the detail of the world, the way that things look lived in, everything. It also got me through a painful recovery time after having my tonsils out, so thanks, Nathan Drake! That extra horsepower that the PS3 delivers accomplishes some amazing things, and it reminds me that we're really in a Golden Age for gaming.

Worst Thing Of The Year

3DS Launch

Let's release a new handheld with a high price and no games and missing half of the promised features! Then let's drop the price by a third! Then let's give free NES and GBA games to the people who bought the system! Make sure they're our crappiest NES games, though! Let's also not tell anyone when we're going to release those GBA games until the moment they're released! Let's delay Kid Icarus, the game that we essentially announced the 3DS with, until after the holiday season!

I like the 3DS. I really do. It turned quickly from a debacle of a system into a must-have with the addition of Mario Kart 7 and Super Mario 3D Land, as well as the phenomenal eShop. But it's shocking how poorly Nintendo almost completely bungled the launch.

Announcement of the Year

Wii U

When Sony and Microsoft inevitably release their next system, we can bet that it's going to be expensive, incredibly powerful and very similar to what they've already released. And why not? While motion controls made a huge splash at the beginning of the last generation, the waves have died down somewhat, so it makes sense that the major companies provide more of the same.

Nintendo can always be counted on to do something completely out of left field. Whether it's releasing a handheld with a touchscreen, a video game system powered almost entirely by motion controls or a 3D handheld, they've never marched to the same beat as everyone else.

The Wii U looks interesting. Note that I didn't say "promising," just "interesting." I'm interested to see what they plan to do, and if it turns out all right, I'll probably pick one up. It's just cool that Nintendo tries new things when other companies don't.

3DS Game of the Year

Mario Kart 7

I liked Super Mario 3D Land. It was really, really fun. However, I'm pretty sure I'm going to get more long-term enjoyment out of Mario Kart 7, and it might turn out to be the game that's the 3DS' main system seller.

Like I mentioned in my review, it all depends on how much you like Mario Kart. If you don't like Mario Kart, Mario Kart 7 won't win you over. If you like Mario Kart, then there's far more to do than there ever was before.

Game That I'm Sure I'd Love If I Had Time To Play It

Zelda: Skyward Sword

I've played about two hours of Skyward Sword. It's good. I like it. It's just that Xenoblade Chronicles is so good that I can't put it down long enough to play Skyward Sword. My gaming time on the TV is limited since the TV is usually held captive by women. Some day I'll figure out a way around that.

In the meantime, Skyward Sword is on my to-play list, I swear.

Game of the Year That I Played and You Probably Didn't
(Ha Ha Ha)

Xenoblade Chronicles

This game is probably going on my shortlist of favorite games of all time. I've spent 60 hours in its world and I'm still not close to seeing everything it has to offer. The plot is interesting, the locale is fascinating, practically everything about this game is incredible.

Fortunately for the gaming public here in the States, it's coming out in a few months as a Gamestop exclusive. I'm almost tempted to delete my save files and just wait for the US release just so I can do this all over again.

Almost.

Nintendo's Bad Year

Nintendo released its financial results for the year. It doesn't look good. Some quick hits:

• They had a net loss of 600 million dollars.
• They had originally planned to sell 15 million 3DS units during this season. They sold 11 million.
• They expected to sell 10 million Wiis. They sold about 9 million.

The glass-half-empty people say this: This is their first loss in 30 years, and it happened after they released their crappiest handheld ever, then cut the price almost in half. The Wii is weak and no one wants to make games for it. It's time for Nintendo to go third-party.

The glass-half-full people say this: This is their first loss in 30 years, so they have a long time of being profitable behind them. The 3DS is rebounding after a sluggish start, and while the Wii has seen better days it's still sold 95 million units overall. Plus, they have a new console coming out in 2012, so Nintendo will be fine.

So what's the truth? It's a little closer to the latter than the former. Nintendo screwed up during the launch of the 3DS. No one denies this.

The Wii is also poised for an awful year. There are only two games of note that are coming out in NTSC territories: Rhythm Heaven Fever and Xenoblade Chronicles. People still buy the things, though, and new users have quite a few games to pick from.

Nintendo's outlook for fiscal year 2012 may be ugly, is what we're trying to say. Does that mean that Nintendo's screwed? Well, no. A loss is bad, but this is after the end of 30 years of profit. Nintendo's got money squirreled away in spades.

The knee-jerk reaction with news like this is always to jump to worst-case scenarios or rush to defend Nintendo. Look, Nintendo doesn't need your pity, scorn or any other emotion. They'll be fine. They've been around for about 100 years, doing their own thing. One bad year isn't going to bring the whole company down.

Review: Batman: Arkham City

Developer: Rocksteady
Publisher: Warner Bros. Interactive

Arkham Asylum was the best superhero game ever. The only other one that came close is the original Spider-Man game for the PS1. I'm pretty confident in this assessment, and a lot of other people agree with me.
What made Arkham Asylum so great was that you felt like Batman. You could take anyone on in a fight. Stealth was challenging, but if you screwed it up it was easy to escape or retreat. The story was fantastic. It had a tremendous sense of place, as Arkham Asylum felt like a fully-realized location. The Scarecrow's insanity sequences were amazing.

That's not to say there weren't a few flaws. The Killer Croc sequence was stupid. Most of the boss fights were repetitive. Still, it was a much better Batman game than we could have hoped for beyond our wildest dreams.

Now we have Arkham City, detailing another terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day in the life of the Caped Crusader. Rocksteady's taken the ideas behind Arkham Asylum and cranked them up to 11. We know the underlying game mechanics should be good because they're lifted from Arkham Asylum, but is Arkham City as a whole worth playing or just more of the same?

Arkham City is definitely not as tight as the original Arkham Asylum. While the first game was a propulsive "get from point A to point B" affair, Arkham City can be completed at your own pace. The shift to an open world means that you'll find yourself skipping along the rooftops, get distracted by a ringing telephone, blow up a canister of Titan formula, rescue a political prisoner, then remember that you have to get back to the main storyline. If you like open worlds, this is a dream come true. If you prefer a tightly-wound storyline over a large world, like myself, it's merely OK.

Arkham City is also a bit more gruesome than the first game. There's murder, double-crossings and more than a few opponents impaled on swords, though, of course, not by Batman. If that's not your thing, consider yourself warned. I liked the darkness of this game, as it felt like the stakes were much higher that the original.

Rocksteady also deserves extra credit for throwing in so many different villains and not making the game feel overstuffed or stupid. All of the characters have their place, not just being there for the sake of being there. There's even a surprise encounter that I won't spoil that's one of the most impressive things I've ever seen in a game.

With all that said, Arkham City struggles a bit in comparison to the original, precisely because of expectations. We didn't expect Asylum to be great, and it was. Therefore, City has big shoes to fill, and it mostly does. It excises some questionable moments that were in the first game and replaces them with better ones. It manages to mostly meet its lofty expectations.

You'll note that I say "mostly." Those who've played Asylum remember that the Scarecrow sequences were absolute standouts, reminding everyone about Batman's tragic past while deepening the character and putting some real narrative heft into the proceedings. There's nothing quite so amazing in this title. Sure, there are some sequences that are pretty cool, but nothing as emotionally affecting as the original.

The sense of place that was so firmly fixed in the original also isn't quite as present in Arkham City. While I can vividly tell you about the grounds of Arkham Asylum, I can't give you specifics about City. There was a steel mill? I think I saw a Ferris wheel at one point. A big tower, which was cool. Don't get me wrong, the city is impressive, but not quite as detailed as Arkham Asylum's world.

It also begs the question, "Where do they go from here?" We've done Arkham Asylum, now Arkham City. Arkham State? Arkham Country? The mind boggles.

Either way, if you liked Arkham Asylum and want more hot, hot Batman action, Arkham City is great. It combines the best of Asylum and the best of open-world gaming, and despite a few minor missteps, is well worth your time.

Final Grade: B+