Nintendo is an inevitable lightning rod for stormy and impassioned discussion. Across a thousand message boards its supporters rally to the Big NÂ's defense with zealous intensity and bared teeth, while its detractors, like chattering monkeys hurling feces, sit high o­n their pedestals and soil the faithful with no shortage of verbal excrement. With all the clever witticisms of a Star Wars vs. Star Trek discussion, those who participate in heated console debate often run screaming at the first hint of rational thought and swim in the kind of exaggerated hyperbole that, frankly, even makes me blush. And, with the revelation of the Nintendo DS, storm clouds gather again, the faithful have taken up arms, and the detractors are already pooping in their own hands.

I mention this pointless, seemingly perpetual, skirmish to highlight how absurd it is, and with luck distance the comments IÂ'm about to make from cliché flamebait. I have some thoughts o­n Nintendo as a whole, and their freshly announced DS system, and IÂ'd like to make them in relative peace. They may be cogent to the discussion, or they may serve o­nly to amuse me, but IÂ'm going to write them down. If you continue to read them, then you have o­nly yourself to blame if you donÂ't like it. The point is, IÂ'm not interested in indulging in either mindless loyalty or blind detraction. Like any other company Nintendo has its successes and its failures, and they can be examined analytically without resorting to calling anyone a fanboy. ItÂ's difficult, I know, but letÂ's try.

We probably owe modern console gaming entirely to NintendoÂ's success in the 1980s. ThatÂ's not a grand or exaggerated declaration; itÂ's simply an apparent truth of gaming history. It might also not be a compliment depending o­n your particular impression of modern console gaming. We make a lot of congratulatory fuss about the saturation of video gaming in todayÂ's market, taking great pride in its standing compared to something like movies, but it needs to be understood that this is the second coming of gaming, not the first. In the early 80s, during AtariÂ's irresponsible heydays, video games were every bit as locked into the social consciousness as they are now. But, for a variety of reasons, in a handful of years gaming fell dramatically from its lofty perch and seemed to have been as much a fad as the RubikÂ's Cube or parachute pants.

One of the major reasons for the fall is because hardware makers could exert no influence o­n the companies that produced games for their systems, thank you very much Activision. With no controls over the quality of games being produced, companies with no development experience and a passing interested in making fast-cash o­n the gaming fad snatched up big name franchises and flooded the market with heavily marketed but ultimately poor games. When Nintendo single-handedly resurrected console gaming with the NES, they did so by maintaining controls over what companies developed for their system, a tightly held practice that some criticize today. Matched with the first system that could mimic or exceed the level of visual complexity seen in the arcade, the promise of quality games lured gamers back into the fold.

Say what you want about what has become of Nintendo since the N64, but understand that we are talking about the company that rebuilt the entire foundation of gaming from total ruin. Without Nintendo it is highly unlikely that there would be a Playstation 2, or an Xbox, much less the Gamecube. Gaming certainly would have survived in o­ne fashion or another, but it would have been years if not decades behind where it stands now.

But, Nintendo does seem to have increasingly lost its market dominance over the past decade. No longer the industry leading developer or consoler, Nintendo has stuck admirably to a successful business model – and largely maintained a profitable franchise – though that model no longer serves them as well as it o­nce might have. But, the question has to be asked, is it NintendoÂ's desire to be number o­ne, or do they strive for quality? Does it matter whether the Xbox sells more units, or that the Playstation 2 has a larger library of games?

IÂ'd say, absolutely not. The sales statistics of any system or game over any period of time are nothing but an academic exercise for those seeking something Â"… anything to argue about. What could it possibly matter to a gamer whether Mario was or was not outsold by Halo? More importantly, and commendably, Nintendo really doesnÂ't seem to care either. They certainly want to sell their consoles, and they certainly want to sell games, and they certainly want to satisfy their shareholders, but whether Xbox outsells Nintendo in El Paso seems to be pretty irrelevant. I doubt anyone would argue that the Gamecube, for example, has a larger library of games than either of its two major competitors, but could anyone argue against the fact that Nintendo has a larger percentage of AAA titles within that library?

It must be very frustrating for Nintendo, because in many ways they are doing exactly what gamers claim they want. They are producing fewer games, but doing so to preserve high standards. Instead of a deluge of perfectly average, but ultimately forgettable games (read: Playstation 2), Nintendo has rolled out a somewhat staggered stream of games at the highest quality. From Zelda to Sunshine, from Animal Crossing to Mario Kart, from Eternal Darkness to Viewtiful Joe, there really can be no question that the Gamecube is the system to have if you want the most exclusive titles of the highest quality. And yet, thereÂ's an Xbox sitting next to my television downstairs, and even the lure of a system under $100 doesnÂ't bring me to the store.

The problem, it seems to me, is that Nintendo is so stubborn in being what it wants, that it misses what sells systems. If the Gamecube, like the N64 before it, proves anything, itÂ's that games alone wonÂ't move the console off the shelf. ThatÂ's a hard pill for gamers to swallow, because it proves something incredibly shallow about the gaming community, primarily that weÂ're suckers for hype and want the safety of the boringly familiar. Why does the Xbox outsell the Gamecube, partly because of heavy marketing, but probably more because it uses a standard format, has an active library of o­nline titles, and most depressingly, it just has more games. Are they better games? By percentage, certainly not, but weÂ're impressionable consumers burned in the past by systems that floundered with mediocre libraries, and at the checkout counter we seem to believe that volume equals success.

But, that canÂ't be the whole story. Which leads me to an inevitable place, a place that drives Nintendo fanatics absolutely nutty.  ItÂ's such a cliché that I hate to even bring it up. But, itÂ's not a completely undeserved perspective, and it simply must be considered. LetÂ's look at it by its elements; Mario Sunshine, Zelda, Animal Crossing, and even Mario Kart, don't just formulate Nintendo's gaming core, but all share a similar style of presentation, and for whatever reason it seems to be associated with a younger audience. Yes, Eternal Darkness is a fantastic, dark, brooding adult game, and yes the remakes of Resident Evil certainly appeal to an older crowd, but they are a minority among the brightly lit, cheerful, and cartoony worlds populated with madcap plumbers and non-threatening adversaries.

Is it fair to characterize Nintendo as a developer focused on younger audiences?  I donÂ't know. ThereÂ's certainly an argument to be made either way, but the unavoidable fact is that Nintendo has been labeled with that perception, and at the counter that makes a difference. ItÂ's not so easily dismissed, as some of the more bitter supporters might infer, as soulless consumerism thatÂ's more interested in the image of maturity than playing fun games. It really has more to do with a style of preference, and the levels of complexity both in gameplay and in narrative that tend to be expressed better in the more adult titles. The reason I donÂ't have a Nintendo, for example, is not simply because IÂ've lost my soul and forgotten what itÂ's like to have fun. ItÂ's because I have no interest in collecting shines with my madcap nozzle wielding plumber across a 3d platform realm. And, clearly, IÂ'm not alone.

So the Nintendo DS (Dual Screen) is announced from a Nintendo that, for whatever reason, seems to be losing ground in the console market – though, the importance of that fact remains ambiguous – and is clearly interested in maintaining its position with handheld gaming.  With it come questions, complaints, support, and a great tumult of opinion of widely varying quality. Is the DS supposed to replace the GameBoy Advance? Why would anyone need 2 screens? What kind of games will take advantage of the DS? Why this, and why now? Does the renewed focus o­n handheld spell an end, or at least a shift from, traditional consoles? And so o­n.

Nintendo quite consciously is treading dangerous ground with its experiment. It's hard not to question the decision making process that leads to a product which Nintendo openly admits is likely to be met with wide skepticism. Good for Nintendo in their efforts to push the market forward, but why not do it in a way that fixes an existing problem instead of fabricating a gimmick with questionable application. This is not NintendoÂ's first foray into solving problems no o­ne needed fixing, and their previous attempts have yielded poor results.  And yet, haven't they proven before that their disinterest in market trends can, when applied correctly, be o­ne of their strongest attributes? 

What is troubling to me is that in announcing the Dual Screen format, Nintendo itself didnÂ't even seem to understand what purpose it would serve. They couldnÂ't give a concrete example where that second screen would be indispensable in a gaming environment. Sure, you could have a quick look at your inventory, or a map, or even a different perspective o­n your character, but thatÂ's just reinventing the wheel, and maybe not even reinventing it as well. Developers have long since found a variety of elegant ways to integrate those features into a single screen. CouldnÂ't the power and space used to provide what must be considered an superfluous second screen have been better used to increase the systemÂ's performance, provide for o­nline play, or even just to make room for a larger single screen?

The question is this, is Nintendo trying to be different just for the sake of being different? Is this the kind of technology that will inspire developers, or will it instead actually be a gimmicky hurdle that gets in the way of both development and gameplay?

IÂ'm not trying to prejudge NintendoÂ's system, particularly when there are no images of the system itself, no announcement of games that will take advantage of the technology, and no hands o­n reports. All we have to talk about right now is the concept, and thatÂ's an awfully vaporous thing to make a particularly big deal about. IÂ'm personally looking forward to getting a first hand feel for the DS at this yearÂ's E3, as promised by NintendoÂ's announcement, as well as seeing what two screens can do better than o­ne. But, I canÂ't imagine that more than the most ardent Nintendo loyalist can be too happy about the announcement, which seems o­n cursory glance so consciously disconnected.

Whether the DS is a revolution in gaming styles, or a desperate gimmick to generate new sales remains to be seen. IÂ'd expect the gaming community to cheerfully engage in great volumes of vitriolic banter o­n the subject, but what IÂ'm beginning to sense is that the DS may prove to be a pivotal system for Nintendo.

- Elysium