Twimfy posted on Jul 14 2003 said:
Calm down people, I think what evil dragon meant was that Nintendo have a record of producing a strong genre diversity to ensure success
Thanks, that exactly what I meant.
Sega had success with Sonic, Nintendo with Mario, both good platformers.
Sega had success with Phantasy Star, Nintendo with Square RPGs.
After that, Sony had success with Square RPGs. Without Square, the PSX wouldn't be what it is today.
The Dreamcast had some good games... but I didn't really like Sonic anymore on that system (as most people, I guess), and Phantasy Star Online was good, but the "online" did scare most people away (at that time).
Now the Dreamcast barely is alive, although it's a real good system and was ahead of its time.
You can be sure that you get a new Zelda and a new Mario when a new Nintendo machine comes out - and, hell, I don't like Nintendo, too, but they have a really good Qualitiy Assurance and the Mario games are all innovative and of high quality (didn't like the new Zelda for GC, though... good start, but boring after 12 hours)
Another point is the mascot... Sonic and Mario are some good-to-remember and one-of-a-kind characters.
Most people love either Sonic or Mario (or both).
Super Plusha is a good game, but the bear could be any bear, so it will never become as famous as Sonic or Mario.
So GP32 needs some HIGH QUALITY games and one really nice, beloved and one-of-a-kind character which represents the GP32 and is the main character in a great game.
BTW: The reason why the GBA sold better than the PS2 is, in my opinion: The PS2 is more expensive and a system for older persons (15 +), who have to get the money for themselves somehow. The GBA is a system mainly for children (4 +) who say "Mummy! Daddy! I want that GBA!", and as it isn't such expensive, most parents sooner or later buy that thing...