Sometimes Sony strikes me as absolutely pathetic!

Reserved for modern gaming discussions.
BanjoPickles1
Posts: 1321
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Sometimes Sony strikes me as absolutely pathetic!

Postby BanjoPickles1 » March 3rd, 2009, 3:30 pm

Actually, the main point of the Seal of Quality meant that the developer paid Nintendo the going rate, and then the game was put through tests that made sure that the game didn't contain any objectionable material(cursing, religious references, blood and gore, etc.). I do think you're right, to an extent, Oltobaz. The seal was really flimsy, though. How many bloody games, or games with cursing, actually got through? The infamous head-explosion in Bionic Commando, or Jaquio laying in a pretty deep pool of his own blood in Ninja Gaiden II, etc.

But I do think that quality had alot to do with it. Look at some of the nes's most broken games. Can anybody name any licensed games that are anywhere near as broken as, say, Action 52, the games made by Color Dreams/Wisdom Tree, etc.? The seal always caused a great deal of confusion for me.

Adamant1
Posts: 2088
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Sometimes Sony strikes me as absolutely pathetic!

Postby Adamant1 » March 3rd, 2009, 4:37 pm

[QUOTE=Oltobaz]Check your facts: this seal ensures reliability, AS WELL as quality. Just look into it
through Wikipedia, and you'll see. Sheesh...
[/QUOTE]

Wow, that article is full of crap. Come on, it even references ET as the kind of low-quality game the seal was supposedly designed to prevent, even though ET was a first-party game from Atari themselves (not to mention a huge seller).

The overload of "citation needed" tags in that "it means games are good" paragraph should clue you in.

[QUOTE=BanjoPickles]Actually, the main point of the Seal of Quality meant that the developer paid Nintendo the going rate, and then the game was put through tests that made sure that the game didn't contain any objectionable material[/QUOTE]

That's true as well. Nintendo wanted to uphold a family-friendly name, and as such had a long list of "things that could not appear in an officially recognized video game". People were supposed to get a quality product that didn't include anything objectionable as long as the seal was found on the game.

[QUOTE=BanjoPickles]But I do think that quality had alot to do with it. Look at some of the nes's most broken games. Can anybody name any licensed games that are anywhere near as broken as, say, Action 52, the games made by Color Dreams/Wisdom Tree, etc.? The seal always caused a great deal of confusion for me. [/QUOTE]

While it's true that Nintendo had a certain level of quality control related to playability (and wouldn't have let something like Action 52 through the cracks), that's quite far from Oltobaz' supposed claims about how Nintendo implies that anything without the seal is crap. It has nothing to do with overconfidence, that's just people reading too much into the wording.

Oltobaz1
Posts: 1605
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Sometimes Sony strikes me as absolutely pathetic!

Postby Oltobaz1 » March 3rd, 2009, 4:38 pm

Yeah, that's the point. It was merely another marketing tool, and a clever one, at that.

Oltobaz1
Posts: 1605
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Sometimes Sony strikes me as absolutely pathetic!

Postby Oltobaz1 » March 4th, 2009, 3:16 pm


While it's true that Nintendo had a certain level of quality control related to playability (and wouldn't have let something like Action 52 through the cracks), that's quite far from Oltobaz' supposed claims about how Nintendo implies that anything without the seal is crap. It has nothing to do with overconfidence, that's just people reading too much into the wording.
[/QUOTE]


Thank you for acknowledging this seal was supposed to ensure quality. If you keep that in mind, and notice how they advise you always to look for it when buying video game products and so on, you'll understand it has everything to do with overconfidence. Oh, and my claim that Nintendo implied that anything without the seal was crap was obviously a caricature, I wish you'd see that. This seal was and still is a marketing stance, and part of its purpose was to convey the idea Nintendo licensed games were good, while the others were not.

In closing, should you need more convincing as far as Nintendo being no slouch in the "arrogance" department, I'll just mention the drastic requirements third party devs had to meet back in the NES era in order to get a license, while Nintendo would get HUGE benefits. It's not like I'm blaming them, perfect way to do business if you ask me. Neither am I blaming Sony, or Microsoft for that matter. Like I said before, they're all out there making money, and may or may not LOOK arrogant at some point, as far as communication and marketing go. It hardly even matters.
I


Return to “Modern Gaming”