A few more copies? I thought I remember the GC version outselling the Xbox and the PS2 combined. That should tell you something. Adding characters such as link have become very profitable. Whats the problem?

Not sure it was quite that extreme, but my argument wasn't really that it was a bad business decision. Just that it does nothing for me. Like if you look at a game like mario kart, the addition of the nintendo stable of characters adds a huge amount to that game and not just in terms of presentation and graphical flair. Items like tortoise shells and mushrooms are significant game play elements (admittedly they don't necessarily behave in exactly the same way as the original mario games).

Now link in SC2 just does nothing for me. I guess the SC games have never been known for their story but you can't tell me that Link fits into the SC story in any meaningful way. And yes, I feel the same way about heihachi, spawn, and the spartan character in DOA4. Of course it wouldn't stop me buying a particular game but it definitely wouldn't provide any additional incentive to buy said game.

Look, obviously there are lots of people out there whose buying decisions are affected by the inclusion of certain characters. If you, as a game company, knew this, wouldn't you utilize this fact? Who's to blame here, really?

Who cares as long as people get to play games that they want to play.

I see what you mean but I'd have to disagree with it being a bad business decision. Business wise, they added "Adult Link" at a time when the gaming world was whining about the Cartoon graphics in the Wind Waker. People complained (god only knows why, WW graphics are amazing), but Nintendo was listening. There were tons of people wanting to play as the realistic link and this was a nice little bonus from Nintendo to their fans in the meantime while it was too early for them to reveal Twilight Princess. And it worked, the Gamecube version outsold both the PS2 and Xbox versions (by leaps and bounds).

Yeah that's what I was saying, that my argument wasn't that it was a bad business decision, just that it (and smiliar tie-ins) does not appeal to me (for reasons stated above).

That's perfectly reasonable.

I love the tie ins myself, and enjoyed the hell out of Link in SC2. I still used Mitsurugi most of the time, but Link was definitely my second favorite. Always been a huge zelda fan, and he fit the game well and added some wrinkles by having projectile attacks with the bow, bomb and boomerang.

Mario=Quality

Nintendo doesn't put it's flagship character on crap and people know it. I can't think of any "Mario" game product that was universally believed by everybody to be crap - except the movie of course.

It's been said, but I'll pile on...

When Nintendo puts Mario in the title of a game (Golf, Tennis, Kart, etc.), I (as a casual gamer/consumer) consider it an absolute guarantee that the game is a high quality and fun game. No more shopping/researching required. It is a seal of approval from a company whos seal I trust based on a long history of consistency.

There are plenty of good competing titles on the consoles, but this is especially true on the GBA. In the past few weeks, I've purchased both Mario Tennis and Golf for my son's GBA, and both are very good games.