Given the nature of the video game industry at the present time, I realize that this blog and every opinion/suggestion brought up here are months, if not years, late. Nevertheless, I feel that I need to post this. I recall that the maxim goes "Better safe than sorry".

If the focus of this blog wasn't evident, I divert your attention to the title. What ever happened to that time where video game companies actually checked the qualities of their products and in some cases, actually showed their approval with ornate certification marks?

For those who don't remember the 3rd Generation of video games (i.e. the beginning of what we now know as the modern video game industry), or were born after it, were too apathetic to care, etc., it was back in 1985 when Nintendo crossed over from its humble origins as a playing cards-producing company and entered the realm of video games with the release of the NES. Considering that the industry had just suffered a particularly nasty crash two years prior due to a gross amount of low-caliber games (anyone mind digging up those buried copies of E.T. for the Atari 2600 in New Mexico?), consumers understandably were doubtful of the console. Therefore, Nintendo encouraged publishers to create high-quality games for the NES and in most cases, limited the amount of titles they could release to five per year.

It was during this time that the Nintendo Seal of Quality, a large, black and gold circular starburst, made its debut on the cover on games for the system with the following message: "This seal is your assurance that Nintendo has approved and guaranteed the quality of this product."

Nintendo's plan must have worked, for in the span of a few years, the NES had become immensely popular, from both a commercial and critical standpoint.

The Nintendo Seal of Quality would be altered in 1988 with the words "approved and guaranteed" being changed to "evaluated and approved". With the exception of this and the Seal adopting a more recognizable gold and white hue, this emblem would remain unchanged until the year 2003.

In that year, the words "of Quality" were dropped and text now read as follows: "The official seal is your assurance that this product is licensed or manufactured by Nintendo. Always look for this seal when buying video game systems, accessories, games, and related products."

It should be blatantly noted that a product that is marketed as official does not equate to a product that is of (at the very least) decent quality. For a more secular analogy, an official in (American) football doesn't automatically have to be good at his job (although he should), hence the reason why you'll see them get so much flak for bad calls during a game. It's the same thing in this case.

Honestly, I don't really see why Nintendo changed its stance on quality versus quantity. Perhaps, it was due to Nintendo struggling against the family-friendly image it had cultivated as well as trying to prevent a lack of third-party support (as was most evident during the GameCube's run, wherein the console's profits came almost solely from first and second-party support; the GameCube would end in dead last with approximately 22 million units sold, slightly behind the Xbox's 24 million and light-years away from the PS2's staggering 138 million). Only the higher ups at the Big N truly know for sure. What I do know is that now, such circumstances shouldn't be preventing Nintendo from checking the quality of its products since it is currently outselling its competitors on both the home and portable fronts.

Specifically, just because the Wii and DS cater to a more universal crowd (children and adults, casuals and hardcore gamers, etc.) doesn't mean that its software library should be full of redundant, gimmicky, bland, or just plain awful games. For example, Carnival Games for the Wii, despite generally poor reception, broke the 1.5 million mark, putting it ahead of titles such as Metroid Prime 3: Corruption and the Wii version of Resident Evil 4. Logically, this seems backwards; Carnival Games (which already has a spin-off title released and a true sequel on the way) strikes me as a watered-down Mario Party (a series which suffers from sequelitis) while Metroid Prime 3 and RE4 were much better received.

Nintendo is still seen as a far-cry from its 8, 16, and 32-bit days (try typing in "Nintendo Wii is a joke" or "Nintendo Wii is a kiddie console" at Google), a heated debate that you may have seen brought up at forums here (or at GameFAQs) many, many times. Reintroducing the real Nintendo Seal might actually help Nintendo; publishers who are trying to ride the wave that is the success of the Wii and DS would actually be nudged to produce quality titles and Nintendo could reaffirm its status as a contender instead of being scoffed at by people who think that Mario and Kirby are the lamest things this side of... well... E.T. the video game.

Also, I want to make it clear that in lieu of the last few paragraphs, this blog can be applied to all video game developers. As far as I know, neither Sony nor Microsoft even have a formalized process of checking games in the vein of Nintendo's. Plus, every console has had its fair share of stinkers (yes, not even the Nintendo Seal could prevent some of the most outlandish wastes of brainpower and money from slipping through). Shaq Fu, a game notoriously hailed as the worst fighter ever, made its way onto the SNES, Sega Genesis, and Game Boy (among other systems) at a time when both Sega and Nintendo had their own seals of quality. Ninjabread Man (whose status as a scourge of the earth should have been easily seen from its ridiculous pun of a title) was on both the PS2 and Wii. The original Xbox had Kabuki Warriors and Drake of the 99 Dragons. Ping Pals for the DS was just a sad rehash of the portable's built-in PictoChat app. Spawn the Eternal (PS1) was god-awful. Lair (PS3), despite being created by the genius behind the Star Wars: Rogue Squadron series, didn't exactly garner positive attention. Bomberman: Act Zero for the 360 doesn't even merit a comment. The mediocre, multiplatform Shadow the Hedgehog almost made me reconsider my status as a Sonic fan. There are countless more half-baked (or worse) games based on licenses with good potential. And do I even need to mention Superman 64?!

Long story short, it's not a necessity for video game companies to start using seals of quality (I highly doubt that there will be another video game crash), but it would definitely help. I see it as a win-win situation. Developers wouldn't waste money making games that would ultimately backfire and explode in their faces (because they'd be working on crafting titles that would be meaningful andnot shovelware), while consumers (that'd be us) would be able to enjoy what video games are meant to be: entertaining and exceptionally well-done mediums of art (yes, video games are a form of art, but that's one argument that should be saved for another time).

I mean, would you honestly want to mar your gaming experience playing something along the lines of Bubsy 3D when you could be enjoying the vastly superior Super Mario 64 instead?