Got A Wii U Today

I got the Wii U Deluxe edition with New Super Mario Bros. Wii U. Yes, I'm weak. So sue me.

Why Is There No Pokemon MMO?

Pokemon is a very popular series, but most people will admit that it definitely needs a refresh of some sort to keep it going on into the future. The most prominent idea floated around is that Nintendo needs to make some sort of Pokemon MMO (massively multiplayer online game).

In fact, most people who follow gaming closely will express bewilderment that Nintendo hasn't already done so. After all, it's an idea that’s just out there, waiting for the picking. People are clamoring for it. It's the next logical step. Why has Nintendo done nothing about it? What's wrong with them? They don't like money, or what?

There's one major reason that Nintendo hasn't made a game like that, and it actually gives us some hope for a future Pokemon MMO.

Anyone who plays MMOs knows that before your game starts, it checks major files with the server and patches the game. This is a constant process on the part of the developer because there are always new exploits and hacks that damage the game and make it unstable for other players. An unpatchable MMO would be anarchy, a lawless wasteland that would leave players disenfranchised and the MMO makers completely vulnerable to attacks.

Maple Story was a popular MMO, and they made a version for the DS. However, it was entirely single-player with very few multiplayer features. How come? There was a huge problem: The DS didn't have the capability of upgrading firmware, much less installing patches into games. That made it a prime target for hackers, who were able to run almost any DS ROM off of a flashcart and very nearly kill third-party support for the DS. Imagine what that sort of environment would have done to a Pokemon MMO.

The Wii had the capability of upgrading the firmware, but not to install patches. That led to major problems. For example, Metroid: Other M had a show-stopping bug that could trap players in one room, and the only way to fix it was to send your save file in an SD card to Nintendo for them to fix it and send it back. GoldenEye for the Wii had persistent multiplayer that quickly got hacked. Imagine what sort of environment that would have been for a Pokemon MMO.

The good news is that the 3DS accepts patches. They've already tested this with Mario Kart 7 by closing off an exploit in one of the races. If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would guess that Nintendo purposely left the exploit in until after launch so they could test out the patching system.

Either way, that’s a good sign. Now that Nintendo has games out there that accept patches and can stay abreast of the crazy things that hackers are going to try to do, there’s a really good chance that they’ll bring a Pokemon MMO to fruition, either on the 3DS or the Wii U. At the very least, we have more hope now than in the past.

Full Games on the eShop

Nintendo has started offering more full retail games on the eShop. On Thursday, they added Ocarina of Time 3D, Super Mario 3D Land, Star Fox 64 3D and Mario Kart 7 to their eShop offerings. They're all being sold for $39.99 apiece.

I'm not sure this pricing is going to work. I would absolutely love to have these games installed on my 3DS so that I could change between them without having to change out cartridges, but that's kind of pricey.

I know that this is what they're selling these games for via regular retail channels, but let's be real: The additional packaging, fabrication and shipping of the games adds extra overhead, which pushes the price higher. For the eShop, the only cost that Nintendo needs to pay is the server infrastructure, which is considerably less than physical shipping. For that reason, Nintendo should sell these games for far less on the eShop than in stores.

Now, I know this is coming from the guy who bought New Super Mario Bros. 2 via the eShop, but I really, really hope that Nintendo does something about those prices. It would be nice if they followed in the footsteps of Steam and do some specials deals during the holiday season, for example.

That, however, could be a double-edged sword. For example, I don't buy many games from services like Steam or GOG without them actually being on sale. I can't bring myself to pay full price for something I know that they're going to drop the price on.

Still, it would be nice if Nintendo would throw eShop users a bone. I know they want to move a large portion of their users to digital distribution. Lowering the prices would be a nice way to start.

Wii U Details Released!

All right, here's the skinny from Nintendo on the Wii U launch.

• The Wii U will be released on November 18th in two bundles: One for $299 and one for $349.

The $299 bundle is the "basic" model. It's white, has the GamePad, HDMI cable and AC adapter. The $349 bundle is the "deluxe" model. It's black, has the GamePad, charging cradle, HDMI cable, AC adapter and a copy of NintendoLand.

So is that too much for a console at launch? It's certainly Nintendo's most expensive launch yet. Let's look at previous launches. (All amounts are in US dollars.)

Console	Year	Price At Launch
NES	1985	$199
SNES	1991	$199
N64	1996	$199
Gamecube	2002	$199
Wii	2006	$249

That's been a rather sudden increase. It would appear that this is a horribly overpriced machine, and therefore it's doomed to fail and Microsoft retroactively wins the last generation, right?

Not so fast. Let's adjust these prices for inflation (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/) and take another look

Console	Year	Price At Launch	Adjusted for Inflation
NES	1985	$199	$425.82
SNES	1991	$199	$336.41
N64	1996	$199	$292.02
Gamecube	2002	$199	$258.86
Wii	2006	$249	$284.10

So when we look at it that way, the Wii U launch price looks downright reasonable, especially when you consider the tablet controller that comes with.

• Nintendo is launching TVii.

Tvii is a free service that interacts with YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, your DVR and live TV, helps you recommend other shows, enables you to catch clips and share them on Facebook, and displays information on your GamePad, like stats for live sports. That service is going to be free for either Basic or Deluxe users.

I really like this. Nintendo has been hesitant to jump in with TV services, but as we've seen with Nintendo, they don't really do something unless they're sure they can pull it off. Here's hoping this works out.

• The games, of course, are the most important thing.

Nintendo has great third-party support for launch, with games like Black Ops 2 coming out. However, what worries me is the lack of strong first-party games at launch. I play Nintendo systems because I like Nintendo's games. I could care less about most third-party games, and I could care even less about Call of Duty games. Yet, Nintendo is offering New Super Mario Bros. Wii U and NintendoLand and that's really it. It gives me chilly flashbacks to the 3DS launch.

We'll see how everything shakes out, but I hope that Nintendo isn't setting themselves up for a 3DS-level crisis out of the gate.

_____________

More news is probably going to trickle out as time goes by, but as of right now, everything looks great. I probably won't be getting a Wii U because of my soon-to-be-born rugrat, but it looks like Nintendo has almost everything set up for a successful launch.

So I Guess There Aren't Too Many Mario Games

I've been concerned recently about there being too many Mario games. Too many games in a series too quickly can dilute a brand, and I certainly don't want that to happen to Mario.

Iwata said something today to try and put our minds at ease, saying that the "New Super Mario Bros." series will only appear once on each system. It makes sense and its a good idea.

The question is this: Have we been thinking about Mario games all wrong? Are they supposed to be a once-in-a-while treat or a steady stream?

Let's figure it out. Between 1985 and 1996, there were ten games in the Mario series spread out over the NES, Game Boy and Super Nintendo, culminating in 1996's Super Mario 64.

Between 1996 and 2006, there was a grand total of one: Super Mario Sunshine. Then, since 2006, there have been a steady stream of Mario games. Once the Wii U game is released, we'll be sitting at seven.

Here's the kicker: What were Nintendo's most financially successful years? Between 1985 and 1996, they became a gaming juggernaut. Between 1996 and 2006, they almost collapsed. Most recently, they've piled up money at an absurd rate.

There are a lot of variables at play here: Market conditions, competition and a myriad of others. Yet, there is a very clear demarcation when Nintendo doesn't make Mario games. When they don't, things go poorly.

So, can you blame Nintendo for wanting to make more Mario games? I guess I can't, although it would be nice if there was a happy medium between "no games ever" or "way too many."

Nintendo @ E3 2012: The 3DS Software Showcase, Or How To Disappoint an Audience Without Really Trying

Nintendo did their 3DS presentation yesterday, demonstrating upcoming games for the handheld. If you watched the comments alongside the stream last night, the comments were overwhelmingly negative.

"Show us something new!" "Where's Zelda?" "This is boring!" "We already know about these games!"

I too, left the presentation a little cold. I was really hoping for something new. When they cut to Reggie Fils-Amie at the end, I was hoping for some big reveal, and instead he just told the presenter that he did a great job. I was incredibly disappointed as I walked away.

However, as I chewed it over, though, I realized something: We're incredibly spoiled.

Listen: We're getting two new Mario games, one of which is an RPG that looks very promising and another a side-scrolling Mario game. We're getting Kingdom Hearts, Castlevania, Scribblenauts, Luigi's Mansion, and Lego Batman 2.

Yet we're still whining! Why is that?

It's actually pretty simple: When you announce a separate presentation to showcase your software, there are certain expectations. I tuned in expecting to hear an announcement of a new game, not a rehash of what was already announced, and I suspect a lot of other people felt the same way. It's only natural to have that sort of reaction. After all, that's what companies do at E3, and Nintendo made a point of setting aside extra time to show off their software. It felt a little misleading.

That doesn't mean that it was a bad presentation. After all, I know a lot more about Paper Mario than I did before, and New Super Mario Bros. 2 makes a little more sense to me now (but just a little). But we all expected a little something extra, frankly.

I think that's why Nintendo made a brief announcement after the show that Fire Emblem: Awakening was making it to Western shores. They must have picked up on the hostility and decided to drop that little nugget to defuse it.

But to be perfectly honest, what more could we really ask from the 3DS in the coming months? There are going to be more than enough games to play for a while of all different types. We really shouldn't be whining as much as we are.

Are We Approaching Mario Oversaturation?

A long time ago, I had an article entitled "A Warning For Activision" wherein I said that Activision was going back to the well far too often for their franchises and drew some comparisons with Sega. I made the same argument with Mega Man too, expressing concern that Capcom was destroying the Blue Bomber with multiple trips to the well.

Now I find myself taking Nintendo to task for the same thing: Too many Mario games!

In the Mega Man article, I pointed out that Nintendo had been extremely careful with Mario during his 27-year lifespan, releasing only 16 games up until this point:

4 - NES (Mario Bros, Super Mario Bros 1-3)
3 - Game Boy (Super Mario Land 1-3)
2 - SNES (Super Mario World, Yoshi's Island)
1 - N64 (Super Mario 64)
1 - Gamecube (Super Mario Sunshine)
1 - DS (New Super Mario Bros.)
3 - Wii (Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, New Super Mario Bros. Wii)
1 - 3DS (Super Mario 3D Land)

But something funny has happened in the last six years. Since Nintendo hit the jackpot with New Super Mario Bros. in 2006, they've been on an absolute tear with new Mario games. Here's what we'll see released since 2006 through to the end of this year:

1 - DS (New Super Mario Bros.)
3 - Wii (Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, New Super Mario Bros. Wii)
2 - 3DS (Super Mario 3D Land, New Super Mario Bros. 2)
1 - Wii U (New Super Mario Bros. Mii)

That works out to more than a game a year. That's too much Mario.

New Super Mario Bros. was an amazing success, undoubtedly. Speaking from personal experience, I can say that when I first played it, I knew I needed a DS that instant. It had been so long since I played a new Mario game that I was positively famished for it.

Each game since then has brought something new to the table, whether it's crazy gravity hijinks, the inclusion of 3D, multiplayer or just tightened gameplay. New Super Mario Bros. Mii is going to bring more collaboration, I suppose.

However, I can't for the life of me figure out what New Super Mario Bros. 2 is supposed to bring to the table. I know that digital distribution is going to be a big part of it, but if that's the only reason it's seeing release, it just seems like a shameless money grab more than some substantial upgrade.

I guess we'll find out on August 19th.

Nintendo @ E3 2012: Snap Judgments

After seeing the hardware demonstration from Nintendo, here are some quick takes on it.


1) Nintendo did everything they needed to in the hardware portion of their conference.

The problem among most gamers was "How will the tablet work well with games? Am I going to have to swing it around?" Those questions have been answered. The Wii U has been demonstrated clearly and openly, so it should totally make sense now.

2) You can use two tablet controllers.

Finally, the question everyone wanted answered has been answered. Frankly, if it would have been one tablet, I would have been mad.

3) Still no price or release date.

Sigh.

4) Will Nintendo filter comments on New Super Mario Bros U?

If I'm playing New Super Mario Bros U and I see comments pop up about the game, will I see profanity? Crudely drawn penises using ASCII text? Or will Nintendo filter those for content? Sounds like a huge job for them.

5) Scribblenauts Unlimited is a great idea for the Wii U.

Scribblenauts is the kind of game that would be great for collaboration, and the Wii U is just the perfect place for it. The tablet controller will make it easy to use too. Maybe we'll see a Drawn to Life too.

6) The "theme park" game is so-so.

It's called NintendoLand, and I'm not so sure about it. Maybe once more people try it out they'll be able to say if it's any good.

That's all for now.

It's E3 Time! How Will Nintendo Do?

E3 is upon us, and it's like Christmas in June for gamers. For Nintendo fans, we have extra reason to be excited.

Nintendo is slowly pulling back the curtain on the Wii U, and what's out there so far looks interesting. Nintendo is primed to have a great E3 if we get answers to a few pressing questions.

• What will Nintendo price the Wii U at?

If it's priced at $399, it's going to be in trouble. If it's $299, that's great, but will it be enough for Nintendo to turn a profit?

• What's Retro working on?

Retro is apparently working on a big new project for the Wii U. There were rumors of it being a StarFox/Metroid mashup, but those seem to be quashed. So what are they doing over there?

• What games will the Wii U launch with?

Will it be an awful launch library like the 3DS? That nearly killed the 3DS in the cradle, and Nintendo can't afford another near-miss like that.

Hey, speaking of the 3DS:

• What games are on the horizon?

We know that Smash Bros. and New Super Mario Bros. 2 are certain, but what else is on the way? A new Zelda? A new Pokemon (besides Black & White 2)? A totally new IP?

• What's up with the redesign?

There are rumors about a 3DS redesign. It's not a smaller version, but a bigger one, like the DSiXL. Um... why? Anything else this thing does, or is it just bigger? Because if it's just bigger, that's weird.

• What's happening to the Wii and DS?

They're obviously going to send the Wii and DS to the big spike pit in the sky, but are Xenoblade Chronicles and The Last Story set to be the last great games for the Wii? Is Pokemon Black & White 2 set to be the DS' last hurrah, or is there more coming?

How Nintendo does this E3 will depend entirely on the answers to these questions. For my money, here are my answers:

1. $299
2. StarFox for Wii U
3. A LOT, including Pikmin 3 and New Super Mario Bros. Mii
4. A new Zelda and a new Metroid, as well as a new IP
5. It's stupid
6. One more big game for the DS, nothing more for the Wii

We'll see if I'm right in a few days.

A New Goal

There were a lot of crap games for the NES. We remember all of the good ones: Zelda, Mario, Mega Man, and the like. We don't remember a lot of the crappy ones, and there were a lot of crappy ones. All told, the NES had about 700+ games released for it, so there's bound to junk in there.

And I'm going to play them all.

I don't mean that I'm going to play them all in a "Mwa-ha-ha, I will play all of you puny games!" I mean, I am going to play every NES game ever made, from A-Z, and report back.

Here are the rules:

• I will use emulators and ROMs. If you have any ethical quandaries about emulators and ROMs, then you find me a working NES and every single game ever made, even Bible Adventures, and then we'll talk.
• Every game will be played for 20 minutes, no more, no less. This is because I'm not going to sit and play a horribly crappy game for hours on end, and rare is the NES game that slowly reveals its mysteries over hours of play. If an NES game sucks, you know it sucks right off the bat, honestly.
• The games will be graded by three grades: Ugh, Meh, and Yay. Those should be self-explanatory.

We'll be making articles of these, hopefully one every week.

"But what makes you think that this feature will last? You started doing the GOG.com Replay and stopped!"

Yes, that's true. That's because GOG games are very substantial. In order to make an honest-to-God review of each game, it's a tremendous time commitment. I don't have that kind of time. With these? Heck, I can knock out ten in a day if I have an afternoon to myself.

The first two games will be 10-Yard Fight and 1942. I'll have an article up at some point.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

Ranking Nintendo's Systems: Part 9

We continue our look at Nintendo's best and worst systems. Click to read part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7 and part 8.

Super NES

History: The NES was a juggernaut, but toward the end of its lifespan it was vulnerable. New games were barely trickling out, and other hardware bypassed it. Sega's MegaDrive, or Genesis, marketed itself as the cooler alternative to Nintendo's fuddy-duddy NES, and they quickly started to take over in Europe.

What would Nintendo do? They couldn't stick with the NES forever, no matter how successful it was.

1991 saw the release of the Super Nintendo. Whereas the Sega Genesis could display 512 colors, the Super Nintendo could display 32,768. The Genesis had 136 KB of total memory, while the Super NES had 256 KB. The Genesis' audio had six channels, and the Super Nintendo had 8. This led to some of the richest sound and graphics of the generation.

Results: Nintendo won the battle once again, selling almost 50 million units compared to the MegaDrive/Genesis' 25 million.

That's not the only reason the Super NES was Nintendo's best system, though. In the past,
developers had used the NES as an experimental ground, learning what worked and what didn't in games. Now that they had several years of design under their belts and had made their mistakes, they were able to create masterpieces that still hold up remarkably well today.

With the Super NES, we were finally able to see what games could do, and it was glorious.

What Went Right: Nintendo was at the height of their powers during the Super NES years. They opened up with Super Mario World and never let up, with SimCity, F-Zero, Pilotwings, Zelda: A Link to the Past and Super Mario Kart coming one right after the other.

Third parties also made the Super Nintendo great. Street Fighter II, Super Castlevania IV, Contra 3, Secret of Mana and others launched almost immediately, with many, many more great games to follow. Even middling offerings showed promise, like The Lost Vikings and Joe & Mac.

Of special note were the offerings by Square. RPGs were popular in Japan, but were still very primitive during the NES years, with lackluster stories and little characterization. In essence, they were level-up simulators, with little depth. It wasn't until the Super Nintendo era that RPGs finally came in to their own, and Square was at the forefront of this new movement. Finally they could tell honest-to-goodness stories, and with the shackles off, games like Final Fantasy VI, Chrono Trigger and others could spin amazing stories with deep characterization and amazing music that sticks in your head for years.

The graphics were also unparalled. When Donkey Kong Country was released, there was shock that such a detailed game was being released on a 16-bit system. It was that sort of thing that led Sega down the path of addons as they desperately tried to keep up with Nintendo, but they simply couldn't. The Super Nintendo, with transparent layers and seamless colors, just plain outclassed Sega's Genesis in every way.

The hardware was also solid. Super Nintendo consoles still work 20 years later, no matter what abuse they've dealt with. The gamepads hold up remarkably well, too, due to their ergonomic feel and having just enough buttons so as not to overwhelm new players.

We haven't even gotten to the murderer's row released by Nintendo in the system's waning days, with two excellent Donkey Kong Country games, a sequel/prequel to Super Mario World, Kirby Super Star, Super Mario RPG, and a raft of other games exploding onto the scene right before the system gave way to the Nintendo 64.

Plus, it had Super Metroid, only one of the best games of all time. Seriously, just about any game you're looking for was on the Super Nintendo.

What Went Wrong: There was no rating system in place during these years, which became a problem with the release of Mortal Kombat. Nintendo didn't want to release a violent game like Mortal Kombat with no rating or warning, since games were still primarily purchased by parents for children. To that end, all blood in the game was replaced with "sweat" and fatalities were removed. Sega came up with their own rating system, relieving them of responsibility. They released Mortal Kombat virtually intact with the inclusion of a "blood code" to unlock every fatality.

That sealed the deal for Nintendo's status as a "kiddie" company. As the advertising tagline went, Sega did what Nintendidn't, and that's an accusation that's dogged Nintendo for years. Even in 2010, it was major news when Nintendo released Zangeki no Reginleiv in Japan, since it was a game with honest-to-goodness blood.

Never mind that Nintendo had perfectly good reasons for not releasing Mortal Kombat intact, and when a rating system was adopted shortly thereafter, Nintendo indeed allowed Acclaim to release Mortal Kombat II whole. Nope, Nintendo is a kiddie company, and forever it shall stay in the eyes of many gamers.

The Super Nintendo's processor also wasn't quite as past as the Sega Genesis, clocking in at 3 Mhz instead of the Genesis' 7 Mhz. That affected sports games, primarily, meaning that faster sports games were on the Genesis. This hurt the SNES at the time, but in retrospect the only sports game anyone seems to remember is NHL '94, while the rest have become a blur.

Lessons Learned: Once again, Nintendo had it pounded into their head that their advantage lay not in the hardware they produced, but in the games they created. If they continued to release quality games at a good clip, no one could stop them.

However, they also got too big for their britches. As stated in the article about the Nintendo 64, instead of teaming up with Sony for the next step in gaming, they assumed they knew more than anyone else about consoles. They kept their heads firmly planted up their butts until it was almost too late.

Fortunately for all of us, Nintendo has realized their mistakes of the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube years, and the future appears bright. Here's to 100 more years, Nintendo.

Ranking Nintendo's Systems: Part 8

We continue our look at Nintendo's best and worst systems. Click to read part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6 and part 7.


NES

History: Console gaming was on the ropes in 1985. The console crash of 1983 had almost taken out gaming as we know it. It was so bad that retailers didn't want to stock videogame systems anymore, lest they be stuck with inventory they couldn't move and couldn't send back due to the company folding.

Into this breach walked Nintendo. While we may look back at Nintendo's run of success in the last thirty years and view it as inevitable, it's hard to forget that there was no guarantee that they would be able to pull off a console. Nintendo had never made a home console, cutting its teeth on arcade machines and Game & Watch handhelds.

Would Nintendo be able to make a successful game console in a time when retailers didn't like them, consumers were sick of them, and the country was in a recession?

Results: The NES was an instant success, selling 60 million units. It revived the fortunes of the video game industry, released several classic video games, and became a staple of households all over.

They did this by basically tricking stores into selling it. Remember, after the crash of 1983, no one wanted to stock video game systems. Nintendo called their system the "Nintendo Entertainment System," downplaying its video game roots. The console was a "Control Deck," and the game pad was a "Control Pad." It shipped with a toy robot, so it would be confused for a toy.

The ploy worked as people bought the system for its toy roots, then realized that it was a pretty awesome video game system too. For many (including this writer) the NES was the first system they ever played.

What Went Right: Nintendo launched with one of the best launch games of all time in Super Mario Bros. Reading interviews about the making of Super Mario Bros., it's amazing to see how much thought was actually put in to things we take for granted. Nintendo knew they weren't just making an introduction to the NES, but also to video games as well.

Nintendo laid down the pattern for multiple franchises during this period with games like like The Legend of Zelda, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, Kirby's Adventure and Tetris. Once the NES became popular, other companies leaped into the fray and started pushing out games like Mega Man 1-5 (we won't talk about Mega Man 6), Metal Gear, Tecmo Bowl, Bases Loaded, Blades of Steel, Castlevania, Contra, Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior (released as Dragon Quest in Japan) and on and on.

Nintendo also pioneered the control pad. Most previous systems used wonky joysticks that could break, and some used weird remotes that needed plastic overlays over the keys. Nintendo laid down the template for the Control Pad that almost every single controller has followed.

While some houses might have had an Atari or a system like it, video game systems weren't a need until the NES. The NES made video games a part of the culture. It didn't take long until every video game system became a "Nintendo" to moms and clueless grandparents. The console industry revved up in 1985 and never looked back.

What Went Wrong: Look, let's be honest. We all love the NES. We do. We have fond memories of blowing on cartridges and renting games from the local video store, and the first time we played Super Mario Bros. We were entranced.

But it's time to face the facts: A lot of these games were only good because we didn't know any better.

We were mostly dumb kids who had never picked up a controller, so we would play literally any game just because it was a game. Kids are stupid like that, and game companies took advantage of that fact, pumping out poorly-made licensed games by the truckload.

Not only that, but a lot of the "great" games are horribly primitive by modern standards. Now, I know that's like judging cave paintings by the standards of the Renaissance, but we need to be honest here. For example, Final Fantasy is a boring grind-fest. It's monotonous battle after monotonous battle. Same with Dragon Quest. Metroid isn't very good. Ditto Kid Icarus. Metal Gear is laughably primitive ("I FEEL ASLEEP!").

There are several games that still hold up. Mario 3 works, as well as almost all of the Mega Man series. Tecmo Bowl holds up too. Of course, Super Mario Bros. is still one of the best gateway games of all time.

Still, if we're totally frank, we only liked the NES because it's inextricably linked to a time and place, memories of giant tube TVs, shag carpeting, sleepovers with your friends, poring over strategy guides, arguments on the playground about doing the hair-pull kick in Double Dragon, waiting for that issue of Nintendo Power to come in the mail, having your mom turn off the system so that you'll "go outside and get fresh air," and getting completely lost in a virtual world for the first time ever and realizing that you'd like to do this for the rest of your life.

Nintendo also had issues with the 72-pin connectors in the NES. How the cartridge system works is like this: A cartridge gets inserted into the connector. The pins on either side of the 72-pin connector separate slightly to allow the game in. When a game with a slightly larger size gets pushed in to the connector, that widens them ever so slightly, making it harder for them to snap back in place.

So which game had a slightly wider size? Only one of the most popular games for the system, Super Mario Bros. 2. That, in turn, led to the infamous "blinking NES syndrome," where your screen would blink blue and black instead of playing a game. And, no, no amount of blowing on the cartridge could help you.

Lessons Learned: First all, Nintendo found out that people would be playing their systems for a long, long time. To that end, future systems had to be durable, more durable than the NES. Every system that Nintendo released after the NES pretty much works as well today as it did when it launched. I've used a Super NES that I had to clean dried cat vomit off of, and it still powered up like a champ.

Most importantly, though, Nintendo's advantage during the NES years didn't come from superior hardware or sound. It came because Nintendo understood what people wanted to play. Their games were just plain better than everyone else's, and that's what made Nintendo into the juggernaut that they became.

They took that to heart. No matter how good your hardware is, it needs good games or else it won't sell. In the years since, Nintendo has hammered that home, which is what's made them the best and most consistent gaming company in the last 25 years.

Ranking Nintendo's Systems: Part 7

We continue our look at Nintendo's best and worst systems. Click to read part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 and part 6.

Nintendo DS

History: All gamers wanted was a Game Boy Advance with better graphics.

That was the general consensus after the Nintendo DS was announced in 2004. Nintendo was shooting themselves in the foot bylaunching a system that wasn't as powerful as the upcoming Sony PSP. Besides, with two screens and a touchscreen, it looked absolutely ridiculous.

Nintendo even backed off carefully from the system, stating that it would be a "third pillar," not something that would entirely eclipse the Game Boy Advance. The internet responded with "Yeah, right," and continued deriding the DS for having a weird shape, for being underpowered, and for using a touchscreen, which no one ever asked for in the first place.

Results: The DS series was Nintendo's most successful system ever, pound for pound. From its launch in 2004, 149 million units have been sold. That's over 21 million units per year.

To put that in perspective, the Game Boy series, including the Advance, sold 199 million units from the launch of the original model in 1989 to the end of the Advance line in 2005, at a rate of 16 million units per year, give or take.

In fact, the touchscreen idea worked so well that it became the de facto standard for all handheld devices, including iOS and Android devices. Even the newest Sony portable will include one. Clearly, Nintendo knew what they were doing.

What Went Right: Nintendo knew there was a huge market out there for handheld gaming after seeing how quickly the market had grown since the launch of the Game Boy. The one market that hadn't been touched, though, were non-gamers.

It seemed silly. If someone doesn't like to play video games, why would you try and and sell them video games? However, Nintendo instead asked the question, "If someone doesn't like to play video games, why don't they?" After researching the question carefully, they released games like Brain Age, which went on to sell over 17 million units worldwide, and Nintendogs, which sold over 21 million copies worldwide.

Nintendo also laid down the template for how to make an engaging touchscreen game with Kirby: Canvas Curse, then launched Mario Kart DS and New Super Mario Bros. and made the DS a must-have.

Since the DS sold like crazy to non-gamers and gamers alike, other companies decided that it was now safe to create games for the system as well. That led to some of the best third-party support for a handheld ever. RPGs, a normally disregarded category among handhelds, called the DS their home. There were wildly ambitious RPGs, like the space opera Infinite Space. There were real-time strategy RPGs, like Knights in the Nightmare. There were puzzle RPGs, action RPGs, platformer RPGs, Rogue-like RPGs, any type of RPG you could ask for.

The DS ended up, all told, with one of the deepest libraries of any handheld gaming system, and frankly, one of the deepest libraries of any system ever. We're going to be seeing articles unpacking the many pleasures of the DS for years to come.

After a well-received redesign brought about the DS Lite, Nintendo made even more money. Battery life for the DS Lite was as good or better as the GBA. The screen was bigger and brighter. While Sony's supposedly superior PSP faltered and became a niche product, the DS continued to establish itself as the premier destination for all handheld gaming.

What Went Wrong: The original DS and the DS Lite were both painfully easy to pirate, and Nintendo had no way to stop it. They couldn't release a firmware update to combat the piracy, since the DS and Lite didn't have that capability. Developers put in code that would make pirated games lock up, but the pirates always found a way around it.

That almost killed the DS' library for a time. Developers got really concerned that their games weren't going to sell, and for good reason. That led some to take their talents to iOS and Android devices, others to create more complex lockout systems to try and disable pirated games.

Nintendo launched the DSi in an attempt to combat the growing problem of piracy and also to make an "App Store" of sorts for the DS. In both fields, they failed. The flashcarts continued being made, although this time for the DSi. DSiWare never took off due to a poorly organized online store and lackluster selections. (Who wants a Mario calculator? Anyone?)

Lessons Learned: Nintendo took to heart several of the criticisms of the DS. For one, they made piracy much more difficult with regular firmware updates that add substantial upgrades to the system.

For instance, one new update allows developers access to more system resources. Imagine if you've been building a flashcart for the old firmware. Now this new update comes along, which means that you may have to start all over from scratch in order to pirate any recent games. I'm sure that those who make flashcarts will find a way, but it's going to be a tough row to hoe.

Nintendo also learned from some of their mistakes with DSiWare. The new eShop for the 3DS is easier to use, allows people to rate games (along with showing how many ratings there are for any given game), has demos, decent games, and more.

However, Nintendo seemed to have forgotten a few lessons as well during the launch of the 3DS. It was priced too high. There were virtually no games to play. Still, in recent months they've recuperated and brought the 3DS closer to the principles laid down by the Game Boy Advance and DS.

One Problem With Super Mario 3D Land

I'm pretty much done with Super Mario 3D Land. I have 297 Star Coins, I've gold-flagged most of the courses and have three stars by my save file. All in all, a pretty good effort.

So where does Super Mario 3D Land sit in comparison to other Mario games? Well, 3D Land is a combination of two things: Some of the best pure mechanics in a Mario game and some of the worst flow in a Mario game.

Each level by itself is a discrete accomplishment. Every level is incredibly fun, with depth and charm out the wazoo, along with great mechanics and tons of fun. The 3D effect makes it one of the best platformers ever from a pure gameplay standpoint.

However, the difference is that previous games had levels that felt like parts of a whole, as if all the levels in the game occupied the same universe. Even Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, with their wild, out-there locations felt like they all inhabited the same general areas, as if there was a common theme tying the levels together.

Super Mario 3D Land, by comparison, feels like a collection of levels with the only uniting factor being that they happen to be in 3D. It's almost like a Nintendo "best-of" compilation.

There's very little flow from level to level, especially in the Special Worlds. A snow world sits alongside one of Bowser's castles, alongside a desert level, alongside a level of blocks floating in midair. There's no feel that these levels are part of a larger world, since they really aren't. They're just levels without a theme.

I want to stress that this is not to be viewed as a harsh criticism by any means. Super Mario 3D Land is still one of the best handheld games ever made, perfect for playing in short bursts and yet deep enough to play for marathons. It's the best demonstration yet that the 3DS can provide something completely new and unique, and that gaming shouldn't be relegated to the 99-cent App Store bin.

Still, that lack of cohesiveness prevents Super Mario 3D Land from reaching some of the lofty heights of previous entries in the Mario universe, like Super Mario Galaxy. It's still pretty great, though.