Talk:Nintendo hard · Paulipedia

Comments

WP:NOTFORUM and blatant lies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Frankly this article is an embarrassing collection of trivia and unrelated shenanigans. It was general trend in the industry in the late 1980s, and should be covered in the article on video games in the 80s. The title itself is a neologism that was coined years later (note the lack of contemporary sources using the term), and many of the sources here don't even use the term at all; they describe a game as "hard", and are for the NES, but it's pure WP:SYNTH to then use this label on them. oknazevad (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC) ↑ Agreed. This wasn't a term. Let's not make it a term. It's like Nintendo's the only "retrogaming" company already to some, and the rest of the industry never quite existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.39.161.213 (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Further agreed; 'Nintendo hard' was a briefly faddish term ten or so years ago that misrepresents and misattributes a visible-in-hindsight trend of the 1980s. This page should have stayed deleted. — 74.102.77.55 (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Why was the article brought back? I agree it should have stayed deleted. Jotamide (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC) A 2005 article with this name was deleted, not the current one, so maybe the 2005 article would've not been eligible. No sources in 2005 were known to use the phrase, so obviously it was assumed to be a non-notable topic back then. However, with the improvements made in internet research in the 2010s and 2020s and the rise of online gaming websites, as well as general-topic press covering video games more often to widen their reader-base, several WP:RS that are the basis of notability policy used the phrase, and even when they didn't, the subject of the high difficulty of third-generation consoles (mostly of the NES, which explains the word "Nintendo" being in the phrase), was still discussed, which is what really matters here. Oknazevad was blatantly lying, or talking about another article, when they claimed there was a "lack of contemporary sources using the term". In this 2016 version that they, allegedly, read when he made this comment, the "Nintendo hard" phrase is in the title of five out of fifteen references, published from 2011 to 2015, a third of all the citations, not counting the other sources that discussed and mentioned the phrase below the title. That is abso-fucking-lutely not a lack of coverage. TL;DR: It's a notable topic. An entire fucking book would not have been devoted to the subject with the term as the name if it wasn't notable. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 20:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM and blatant lies

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Frankly this article is an embarrassing collection of trivia and unrelated shenanigans. It was general trend in the industry in the late 1980s, and should be covered in the article on video games in the 80s. The title itself is a neologism that was coined years later (note the lack of contemporary sources using the term), and many of the sources here don't even use the term at all; they describe a game as "hard", and are for the NES, but it's pure WP:SYNTH to then use this label on them. oknazevad (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

↑ Agreed. This wasn't a term. Let's not make it a term. It's like Nintendo's the only "retrogaming" company already to some, and the rest of the industry never quite existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.39.161.213 (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Further agreed; 'Nintendo hard' was a briefly faddish term ten or so years ago that misrepresents and misattributes a visible-in-hindsight trend of the 1980s. This page should have stayed deleted. — 74.102.77.55 (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Why was the article brought back? I agree it should have stayed deleted. Jotamide (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

A 2005 article with this name was deleted, not the current one, so maybe the 2005 article would've not been eligible. No sources in 2005 were known to use the phrase, so obviously it was assumed to be a non-notable topic back then. However, with the improvements made in internet research in the 2010s and 2020s and the rise of online gaming websites, as well as general-topic press covering video games more often to widen their reader-base, several WP:RS that are the basis of notability policy used the phrase, and even when they didn't, the subject of the high difficulty of third-generation consoles (mostly of the NES, which explains the word "Nintendo" being in the phrase), was still discussed, which is what really matters here. Oknazevad was blatantly lying, or talking about another article, when they claimed there was a "lack of contemporary sources using the term". In this 2016 version that they, allegedly, read when he made this comment, the "Nintendo hard" phrase is in the title of five out of fifteen references, published from 2011 to 2015, a third of all the citations, not counting the other sources that discussed and mentioned the phrase below the title. That is abso-fucking-lutely not a lack of coverage. TL;DR: It's a notable topic. An entire fucking book would not have been devoted to the subject with the term as the name if it wasn't notable. HUMANXANTHRO (Given the same state of integrity) 20:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge or Delete 2

I feel this article, falling outside of notability, would best be serviced by a subproject, Wiktionary or perhaps Wikibooks. It was a faddish neologism that wasn't even particularly accurate to the to the matter of game difficulty per design, and feels as a term, somewhat of the mindset of, "Everything is a Nintendo".

Perhaps, if this is to be placed on Wikipedia, a better place would be shunted into a subheading of Game balance.

"An entire book" is meaningless, given the rise of vanity publishing houses and what absolute tripe people will happily read; consider the Airport novel or the works of Ernest Kline, the latter of which is nothing more than a tongue bath given to nostalgia in written word.

Wikipedia isn't TVtropes. The editors are actually well behaved, and the moderation isn't a single disenfranchised 40 year old.~2026-37890-70 (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge discussions are not on talk pages any more, so this sort of discussion is moot unless you start an AfD discussion to merge the page. Though if you believe it's actually non-notable, you are better off starting a deletion discussion instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)