What is Nintendo's "Revolutionary" weapon?
by Ajari Wilson · in General Discussion · 07/08/2005 (8:33 am) · 166 replies
I know I'm a big geek for starting this thread. Sorry if it has already been talked about. Like most of us here, I've been following the next generation systems and being an owner of all 3 consoles I have to admit that even though not much information has been told about the Nintendo Revolution, I'm not very excited about the system. (not that I'm too excited about anything "real" I've seen for the 360 or PS3 either) I hear it will be under powered compared to the 360 and the PS3. I've seen the little Metroid Prime 3 demo that looked almost exactly like the game cube version. And the Nintendo spokeperson (Regie Fills-Amie?) for that event was boasting about how "powerful" the system is."As you can see, the Revolution can more than hold it's own when it comes to graphical power". I would have been embarased to show that demo. I'm suprised he got that sentence out with a straight face. Nintendo is a stubborn company that always shoots themselves in the foot with their consoles (violence, cartridge, online, DVD, kiddie image and design, and now HDTV) but still manage to survive through Pokemon or the GBA.
"Revolution" so far means I get to play old games I've long forgotten about from an online service (I'm glad the big N is breaking new ground and changing the industry with online play. Now Microsoft and Sony need to get on the boat), I won't be playing the best looking games compared to the 360 and the PS3, and my system will most likeley look like a teched out Poptart. We have a lot to look forward to from Nintendo.
Anyway, despite my dissapointment with Nintendo and my lack of enthusiasm twards their new system, I am very eager to see this "mystery controller" they have up their sleeves. And I would like to ask you what you think or hope it will be.
This is what I hope Nintendo does to "revolutionize" the industry. The controller is obviously going to have some kind of touch screen (whoopee...) device but what I'm hoping for is some kind of VR headset. (Not like Vurtual Boy but a real VR headset) You ever wonder what happened to VR from the early 90's? Hasn't technology evolved far enough so that VR is very much a possability now? Screw HDTV and the limited pariphrial vision TV gives you in games like Halo, Burnout, and Metroid Prime. I'm tired of being hit from the sides by an enemy that I would have seen had I had the wrap around vision I do in real life. What better way to emerse yourself into the game world than to see nothing but the game and hear nothing but the game with 5.1 headphones. The screen can wrap around the inside of the headset slightly past your parephrials up, down, left, and right so you can never quite see the edge of the screen. The VR headset could also flip up when the game is paused or be flipped up manually. Having the headset wireless would probably be the best thing to do as well if it doesn't hurt costs too bad.
If the system came out for around $200 and the VR headset was $150 or less and came bundled with the system, I would pick it up over the 360 and the PS3 even if it had Nintendo 64 graphics. That alone is something I have NEVER experienced before. That would be a true revolution in games as we know them. And also may be why Nintendo is not supporting HD. But again, Nintendo is a very stubborn company that hates to evolve anything until it comes back to bite them in the ass (cartridge, online, kiddie image and design).
(Least paragraph I swear) To keep the cost down I would probably leave the 5.1 headphones optional. And leave the gameplay completley up to the controller, meaning no head movement will effect the game at all. I feel like a stupid 15 year old (not that all 15 year olds are stupid) with a "great" idea but it is fun to speculate and hope (I'm at work bored anyway). And plus I can say to the world "I KNEW IT!!!" if it is true. Well anyway, what do you guys think is this "revolutionary" device Nintendo has up their sleeves?
-Ajari-
"Revolution" so far means I get to play old games I've long forgotten about from an online service (I'm glad the big N is breaking new ground and changing the industry with online play. Now Microsoft and Sony need to get on the boat), I won't be playing the best looking games compared to the 360 and the PS3, and my system will most likeley look like a teched out Poptart. We have a lot to look forward to from Nintendo.
Anyway, despite my dissapointment with Nintendo and my lack of enthusiasm twards their new system, I am very eager to see this "mystery controller" they have up their sleeves. And I would like to ask you what you think or hope it will be.
This is what I hope Nintendo does to "revolutionize" the industry. The controller is obviously going to have some kind of touch screen (whoopee...) device but what I'm hoping for is some kind of VR headset. (Not like Vurtual Boy but a real VR headset) You ever wonder what happened to VR from the early 90's? Hasn't technology evolved far enough so that VR is very much a possability now? Screw HDTV and the limited pariphrial vision TV gives you in games like Halo, Burnout, and Metroid Prime. I'm tired of being hit from the sides by an enemy that I would have seen had I had the wrap around vision I do in real life. What better way to emerse yourself into the game world than to see nothing but the game and hear nothing but the game with 5.1 headphones. The screen can wrap around the inside of the headset slightly past your parephrials up, down, left, and right so you can never quite see the edge of the screen. The VR headset could also flip up when the game is paused or be flipped up manually. Having the headset wireless would probably be the best thing to do as well if it doesn't hurt costs too bad.
If the system came out for around $200 and the VR headset was $150 or less and came bundled with the system, I would pick it up over the 360 and the PS3 even if it had Nintendo 64 graphics. That alone is something I have NEVER experienced before. That would be a true revolution in games as we know them. And also may be why Nintendo is not supporting HD. But again, Nintendo is a very stubborn company that hates to evolve anything until it comes back to bite them in the ass (cartridge, online, kiddie image and design).
(Least paragraph I swear) To keep the cost down I would probably leave the 5.1 headphones optional. And leave the gameplay completley up to the controller, meaning no head movement will effect the game at all. I feel like a stupid 15 year old (not that all 15 year olds are stupid) with a "great" idea but it is fun to speculate and hope (I'm at work bored anyway). And plus I can say to the world "I KNEW IT!!!" if it is true. Well anyway, what do you guys think is this "revolutionary" device Nintendo has up their sleeves?
-Ajari-
#62
First, while I'm thinking about it, their switching to a common format may have something to do with their supposed interest in indie titles. Using DVD would cut down on the development costs quite a bit. Although, now that I think about it... Aren't they using a new proprietary format that is just SIMILAR to DVD?
Moving right along, profit is the ONLY thing a business needs to stay in business. Just because the Gamecube wasn't the smash success that the Gameboy was doesn't mean that they couldn't profit off of it. Frankly, you don't see one tenth as much advertising and campaigning BS out of Nintendo as you do Microsoft or Sony. They're content blowing billions on ads, overstocked machines and other such things. Nintendo on the other hand, has better advertising than the other two combined... The current largest audience of gamers literally GREW UP playing Nintendo games and systems. You can't buy that kind of recognition.
Another note on Sony and Microsofts systems: I think people are blowing Nintendo's stance WAY out of proportion. HD only covers less then %10 or the current market for televisions, for one. (Frankly, I don't see it as a very important issue in the first place.) Also, I have been seeing speculation that the systems "impressive" hardware will, as hardware does, bottleneck at the weakest component. Stacking the systems with fancy this-thats and hoo-ha's doesn't make it necessarily faster. (Especially since operating at higher resolution for HD is going to take more horsepower right out of the gate.)
Also, while Sony fans are quick to denounce Nintendo for having the "weaker" system next gen, they will argue to their graves that PS2 RE4 is every bit as good as the GC version. (To my eyes, it does look it, too. My point is, lesser hardware can sometimes do more than you expect.)
As for Nintendo's strategy, I have to say I appreciate the sentiment %100. I will NEVER pay more than $200-250 for a system and a single game (If that!). Never. Now, I can't really afford much of anything extra, but I still think I'll be able to manage a Revolution sometime not long after launch. Not only do they get the spend-thrifty crowd, but also the Retro (Super backwards-compatability is the largest draw for me, to be honest.) and family-friendly crowds. (Once people get over questioning their sexuality every time they play a "kiddie" game, this will be a good thing.)
In my opinion, Nintendo deserves much more respect than the last couple generations have really given it. They really have innovated some of the now mandatory features in control, after all. (The PS1 controller was a SNES controller with extra shoulder buttons. The dual shock/PS2 controller ripped the rumble feature and analog stick from the N64. Again, the only Sony innovation? Adding ANOTHER analog stick, as they did with the shoulder buttons!) To be honest, I fear for console gaming should Nintendo ever throw in the towel. It won't progress anywhere in control, at least.
Anywho, I'll babble more as it comes to me. Carry on. :D
08/18/2005 (9:12 pm)
Wow, where to begin?First, while I'm thinking about it, their switching to a common format may have something to do with their supposed interest in indie titles. Using DVD would cut down on the development costs quite a bit. Although, now that I think about it... Aren't they using a new proprietary format that is just SIMILAR to DVD?
Moving right along, profit is the ONLY thing a business needs to stay in business. Just because the Gamecube wasn't the smash success that the Gameboy was doesn't mean that they couldn't profit off of it. Frankly, you don't see one tenth as much advertising and campaigning BS out of Nintendo as you do Microsoft or Sony. They're content blowing billions on ads, overstocked machines and other such things. Nintendo on the other hand, has better advertising than the other two combined... The current largest audience of gamers literally GREW UP playing Nintendo games and systems. You can't buy that kind of recognition.
Another note on Sony and Microsofts systems: I think people are blowing Nintendo's stance WAY out of proportion. HD only covers less then %10 or the current market for televisions, for one. (Frankly, I don't see it as a very important issue in the first place.) Also, I have been seeing speculation that the systems "impressive" hardware will, as hardware does, bottleneck at the weakest component. Stacking the systems with fancy this-thats and hoo-ha's doesn't make it necessarily faster. (Especially since operating at higher resolution for HD is going to take more horsepower right out of the gate.)
Also, while Sony fans are quick to denounce Nintendo for having the "weaker" system next gen, they will argue to their graves that PS2 RE4 is every bit as good as the GC version. (To my eyes, it does look it, too. My point is, lesser hardware can sometimes do more than you expect.)
As for Nintendo's strategy, I have to say I appreciate the sentiment %100. I will NEVER pay more than $200-250 for a system and a single game (If that!). Never. Now, I can't really afford much of anything extra, but I still think I'll be able to manage a Revolution sometime not long after launch. Not only do they get the spend-thrifty crowd, but also the Retro (Super backwards-compatability is the largest draw for me, to be honest.) and family-friendly crowds. (Once people get over questioning their sexuality every time they play a "kiddie" game, this will be a good thing.)
In my opinion, Nintendo deserves much more respect than the last couple generations have really given it. They really have innovated some of the now mandatory features in control, after all. (The PS1 controller was a SNES controller with extra shoulder buttons. The dual shock/PS2 controller ripped the rumble feature and analog stick from the N64. Again, the only Sony innovation? Adding ANOTHER analog stick, as they did with the shoulder buttons!) To be honest, I fear for console gaming should Nintendo ever throw in the towel. It won't progress anywhere in control, at least.
Anywho, I'll babble more as it comes to me. Carry on. :D
#63
They way I'm reading into this, you pretending the handheld market doesn't exists helps your argument, while acknowledging it does helps mine. The GBA/DS/PSP are still consoles, the fact that they're handheld means squat. With the profits and marketshare that comes into it, to treat the GC as Nintendo's sole effort is a mistake. The money they save really pushing the 'Cube and making it trendy helps them push the GBA and DS, and allow them to create the games they want. What other company could have gotten away with making one of their main licences less appealing to so many gamers? They've accepted about half of their fans disliked the cel shading in Wind Waker, yet they're continuing with it.
[/quote]I know that Xbox Live currently has over 2 million users. I guess giving people more options and more for their money isn't in Nintendo's best interest. If online gaming isn't popular enough to build into their system, then why are so many companies wasting their time making online games and why is the Revolution going to be online?[/quote]
This generation, Microsoft and to a lesser extent Sony have been telling gamers that online play is necessary, and that games without it are worse and so on and so forth. Look at the pricing for Live now, a monthly fee instead of an annual charge. I'll wager it's not kept at the same rate as it was before, now that is has the userbase already.
While online play is neat, it's hardly essential. Burnout 3 comes to mind, the reason it wasn't ported to the Cube (and what's total BS) is because of the lack of online play. I have it for my PS2, and I've not touched the online aspect once. However, by making the Rev online-ready and compatible with the DS out of the box, they grab the six million people that have bought one and letting them get online if they can't access WiFi before. Sounds to me like smart business sense.
08/19/2005 (10:15 pm)
Quote:Matt, I'm talking about Cubes in peoples homes, not GBA's and a combination of their their last 12 systems. This is a console debate remember? The GBA is great, doing well, and I see Nintendo sticking with the hand held market for as long as they are in business.
They way I'm reading into this, you pretending the handheld market doesn't exists helps your argument, while acknowledging it does helps mine. The GBA/DS/PSP are still consoles, the fact that they're handheld means squat. With the profits and marketshare that comes into it, to treat the GC as Nintendo's sole effort is a mistake. The money they save really pushing the 'Cube and making it trendy helps them push the GBA and DS, and allow them to create the games they want. What other company could have gotten away with making one of their main licences less appealing to so many gamers? They've accepted about half of their fans disliked the cel shading in Wind Waker, yet they're continuing with it.
[/quote]I know that Xbox Live currently has over 2 million users. I guess giving people more options and more for their money isn't in Nintendo's best interest. If online gaming isn't popular enough to build into their system, then why are so many companies wasting their time making online games and why is the Revolution going to be online?[/quote]
This generation, Microsoft and to a lesser extent Sony have been telling gamers that online play is necessary, and that games without it are worse and so on and so forth. Look at the pricing for Live now, a monthly fee instead of an annual charge. I'll wager it's not kept at the same rate as it was before, now that is has the userbase already.
While online play is neat, it's hardly essential. Burnout 3 comes to mind, the reason it wasn't ported to the Cube (and what's total BS) is because of the lack of online play. I have it for my PS2, and I've not touched the online aspect once. However, by making the Rev online-ready and compatible with the DS out of the box, they grab the six million people that have bought one and letting them get online if they can't access WiFi before. Sounds to me like smart business sense.
#64
The reason I'm not including the handheld market into this is because your trying to lump Game Boy sales in with the Game Cube sales as one to help your argument that Nintendo is doing well in the console race. The Game Boy is NOTHING like the Game Cube at all. They are not the same market. To say the Game Boy is the same as the Game Cube would be saying that the Game Boy was created to compete with the PS2 and Xbox. There's no comparison, there's no competition. The GBA was all on it's own after it crushed the Atari Lynx, the Sega Game Gear and Nomad, the Wonder Swan, the Neo Geo hand held, and now it's going head to head with the Sony PSP along with the help of the DS. That is the Game Boy's market, not a home console machine. Should I throw in Sony's Mini Disc player sales and TV line into the mix? TV's have something to do with games and Sony makes them so why can't I add that to our home console argument? Microsoft had great sales with Windows. Oh wouldn't you believe that the Xbox uses a version of windows. Maybe we can add that to Microsofts sales list.
You wanna debate the DS, and GBA VS. the PSP we can do that another day. We are debating over home consoles, not hand helds. And current and future consoles at that. I bring up past consoles to show Nintendo's 10+ year long trend of bad decision making and as an example of why they are no longer on top in the console wars. You wanna talk about Sony's fuzzy TV's to show their lack of quality or Microsofts buggy programs to show their lazyness be my guest. But when it comes to the number of sales and units in homes of the PS2 and PS3 vs. the Xbox and Xbox 360 vs. the Game Cube and Revolution, bringing in anything but a home console to the table is a completley different argument.
No company makes all bad mistakes, but only Nintendo could make this many mistakes and bone headed moves and still be in the game after all this time. Sega hasn't made half the mistakes Nintendo did and look at where they're at. The Game Boy and Pokemon has saved Nintendo from Sega's fate, that's all I'm saying. When you hear time and time again that company C isn't doing so hot in a certain market for so long, you kinda have to wonder how long they will be around in that market. Bottom line and one you can't argue with. There are more PS2's out there than Game Cubes. There are more Xboxes out there than Game Cubes, regardless of how cheap they produced the system to make a profit from day one. Now I wonder why. Don't you?
-Ajari-
08/20/2005 (12:31 am)
I have burnout 3 for Xbox and I play it online all the time. It's a lot of fun to me so different strokes for different folks. If the online feature wasn't worth it, then they would have never added it. I pay $50 once a year for my Xbox Live service. And last year I got a whole year free from a winning ticket in Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow. I play Halo 2 almost every night and am never in short of people ready to play. My friend let me borrow his copy of Kill Zone on PS2 not too long ago and there was the same ammount of people ready to get down. I've never had a problem with Need for Speed Underground 2, Crimson Skies, SC:Chaos Theory, or ESPN2k5. All these games are fun and have a lot more value than their Game Cube counterpart but for the exact same price.The reason I'm not including the handheld market into this is because your trying to lump Game Boy sales in with the Game Cube sales as one to help your argument that Nintendo is doing well in the console race. The Game Boy is NOTHING like the Game Cube at all. They are not the same market. To say the Game Boy is the same as the Game Cube would be saying that the Game Boy was created to compete with the PS2 and Xbox. There's no comparison, there's no competition. The GBA was all on it's own after it crushed the Atari Lynx, the Sega Game Gear and Nomad, the Wonder Swan, the Neo Geo hand held, and now it's going head to head with the Sony PSP along with the help of the DS. That is the Game Boy's market, not a home console machine. Should I throw in Sony's Mini Disc player sales and TV line into the mix? TV's have something to do with games and Sony makes them so why can't I add that to our home console argument? Microsoft had great sales with Windows. Oh wouldn't you believe that the Xbox uses a version of windows. Maybe we can add that to Microsofts sales list.
You wanna debate the DS, and GBA VS. the PSP we can do that another day. We are debating over home consoles, not hand helds. And current and future consoles at that. I bring up past consoles to show Nintendo's 10+ year long trend of bad decision making and as an example of why they are no longer on top in the console wars. You wanna talk about Sony's fuzzy TV's to show their lack of quality or Microsofts buggy programs to show their lazyness be my guest. But when it comes to the number of sales and units in homes of the PS2 and PS3 vs. the Xbox and Xbox 360 vs. the Game Cube and Revolution, bringing in anything but a home console to the table is a completley different argument.
No company makes all bad mistakes, but only Nintendo could make this many mistakes and bone headed moves and still be in the game after all this time. Sega hasn't made half the mistakes Nintendo did and look at where they're at. The Game Boy and Pokemon has saved Nintendo from Sega's fate, that's all I'm saying. When you hear time and time again that company C isn't doing so hot in a certain market for so long, you kinda have to wonder how long they will be around in that market. Bottom line and one you can't argue with. There are more PS2's out there than Game Cubes. There are more Xboxes out there than Game Cubes, regardless of how cheap they produced the system to make a profit from day one. Now I wonder why. Don't you?
-Ajari-
#65
I'll admit there might not be a Cube in every home, I know from personal experience, but the fact of that matter is that it makes experiencing a Cube that much more exciting! I've killed off several die-hard Sony and X-Box fanboys just by introducing them to my Cube! Among the best are Burnout 2 and SSBM, but what really takes them over is the retro-refitting rush that comes with Pac-Man Vs.! Congrats Nintendo! ;)
On the current debate, I get only thus - Nintendo is doing what they set out to do, make games. Sony is electronics, and they should stick to them, and their hype. Microsoft is either exceptionaly idealistic or, which is most likely, a monopolizing mongrel, focused better on PCs and (buggy) software (and they have green to lasso-in game devs). If the earlier was the case then MS would have made it clear easily.
I'm left with wanting games myself, which is why I will remain faithful to Nintendo (my only negative concern with them has been the Virtual Boy, which I hope can be redone in the future).
Some honest addresses:
For those who fear a twidderpation into kiddieness or similar kootie rejection - I hope you're blessed with a ton of kids, for one! Else, get over it you self absorbed ego-maniac, it's a fun game, not a badass game, so what?! We know you play them when we aren't looking anyways, and you know you'd say they were awesome games if the people you think you impress weren't around (Red Alert! - listen for sounds of men crying and egos washing away). :P
For those who are true fans of good, honest, mature gameplay - Believe me when I say it's coming! As the byte and the hertz get smaller and smaller (as MS and those cheapskate engineers slowly take their time and astound us less each year), games will get more mature themselves and we will see some truely exciting works of design fruiting for our pleasures (keep your pants on fellas).
For the ladies who just wish games would be cool instead of making you feel gay or overtly male playing them - First off, you know it's being worked on, and it has come a ways, so here's hoping it get's worked on some more... seriously though, do you expect guys to fix this?! Not to sound so negative but guys know what guys like, accurately (well, to a point). They are usually clueless to what excites members of the opposite sex outside of shopping, ponies, and their own roles (two thoughts of disgust, I know). Feedback and participation are the best you've got right now and, though I know it's not made easy, you should help out all you can (spell it out for them, too).
...Uh, yeah, games... 8D
~Crawls back under his rock~
08/20/2005 (2:09 am)
Just to add to the fire in your debate on weither you should factor in Cube/Boy sales together, I own two games which rely on both systems so you should definitly factor it in!I'll admit there might not be a Cube in every home, I know from personal experience, but the fact of that matter is that it makes experiencing a Cube that much more exciting! I've killed off several die-hard Sony and X-Box fanboys just by introducing them to my Cube! Among the best are Burnout 2 and SSBM, but what really takes them over is the retro-refitting rush that comes with Pac-Man Vs.! Congrats Nintendo! ;)
On the current debate, I get only thus - Nintendo is doing what they set out to do, make games. Sony is electronics, and they should stick to them, and their hype. Microsoft is either exceptionaly idealistic or, which is most likely, a monopolizing mongrel, focused better on PCs and (buggy) software (and they have green to lasso-in game devs). If the earlier was the case then MS would have made it clear easily.
I'm left with wanting games myself, which is why I will remain faithful to Nintendo (my only negative concern with them has been the Virtual Boy, which I hope can be redone in the future).
Some honest addresses:
For those who fear a twidderpation into kiddieness or similar kootie rejection - I hope you're blessed with a ton of kids, for one! Else, get over it you self absorbed ego-maniac, it's a fun game, not a badass game, so what?! We know you play them when we aren't looking anyways, and you know you'd say they were awesome games if the people you think you impress weren't around (Red Alert! - listen for sounds of men crying and egos washing away). :P
For those who are true fans of good, honest, mature gameplay - Believe me when I say it's coming! As the byte and the hertz get smaller and smaller (as MS and those cheapskate engineers slowly take their time and astound us less each year), games will get more mature themselves and we will see some truely exciting works of design fruiting for our pleasures (keep your pants on fellas).
For the ladies who just wish games would be cool instead of making you feel gay or overtly male playing them - First off, you know it's being worked on, and it has come a ways, so here's hoping it get's worked on some more... seriously though, do you expect guys to fix this?! Not to sound so negative but guys know what guys like, accurately (well, to a point). They are usually clueless to what excites members of the opposite sex outside of shopping, ponies, and their own roles (two thoughts of disgust, I know). Feedback and participation are the best you've got right now and, though I know it's not made easy, you should help out all you can (spell it out for them, too).
...Uh, yeah, games... 8D
~Crawls back under his rock~
#66
The first result was not only what we chose, but respectful as well, they were testing the waters. They made that abundantly clear when MK2 arrived on SNES, surpassing the Sega version. But again, it's what the customers wanted. Don't forget Japan pays it's homage to wisdom and respect, which is the other reason why such displays of violence weren't ideal for games then. You can't disrespect them for that.
08/20/2005 (2:37 am)
I'm sorry, Ajari, but this couldn't go without -Quote:
@Joe remember back in the day when Mortal Kombat first came out for SNES and Nintendo didn't want violence in it so they dumbed down all the fatalities while the Genesis version got all the good stuff but lesser graphics? Nintendo was very strong on their opinions when it came to violence back then. That was the first of the big oops they have made that I can remember. You see the end result.
The first result was not only what we chose, but respectful as well, they were testing the waters. They made that abundantly clear when MK2 arrived on SNES, surpassing the Sega version. But again, it's what the customers wanted. Don't forget Japan pays it's homage to wisdom and respect, which is the other reason why such displays of violence weren't ideal for games then. You can't disrespect them for that.
#67
Market share is not everything.
In fact, it is far from it. To bring up my point again, Apple has the absolute minority when it comes to market share. Are they losing the home computer war? Far from it.
Remember, Nintendo had 90% of the market, they could only go down from there. Down they went, with the N64, but the 'Cube turned that around and they're sitting at a better position than they were before. It was a one-man race, now it's not. They have the least consoles by a few hundred thousand, so what? Once Zelda comes out again they'll pip the X-Box at the post and end up a solid number two. But who cares? Honestly, Nintendo led the game for so long, and now they're coming third and still turning more profit than their competitors.
Again, if they're losing this race, why do they have money? Why are they still in business? Bad decisions, as you put it? According to you, Microsoft and Sony must have made better decisions, yet they're losing money faster than nearly all other companies earn it. They have a larger market share, but at a huge cost. And now the next generation is around, all that work they put in to market penetration is almost void. Sure, X-Box owners will get a 360 and PS2 owners a PS3, but if they didn't have the current console they probably would have bought the same anyway. They have their market, which is reaching it's limits. Sales for all consoles are right down, and Nintendo are taking the iniative and expanding for the next gen.
You mentioned the Gameboy and Pokemon saved Nintendo. Well, Halo saved the X-Box and GTA the PS2. Zelda and Metroid kicked plenty of life into the GameCube. For Nintendo to still be in the game, they have some degree (I'd hope) of business sense. You can sit there, as you are, and say that they're making bad decisions and so on, but if the GameCube was truly such a money-sink as you seem to think they'd have dropped it.
As for bad decisions, well, I've heard catridges instead of CDs for the N64, and, uh, the Virtual Boy. In the same time, they pulled out analogue sticks, rumble controllers and more top-class games than any other developer. Do you honestly think that this trend dried up in one generation? I don't.
08/20/2005 (4:03 am)
Again, Ajari, you bring up this 'console race'. I shall now point out, quite clearly:Market share is not everything.
In fact, it is far from it. To bring up my point again, Apple has the absolute minority when it comes to market share. Are they losing the home computer war? Far from it.
Remember, Nintendo had 90% of the market, they could only go down from there. Down they went, with the N64, but the 'Cube turned that around and they're sitting at a better position than they were before. It was a one-man race, now it's not. They have the least consoles by a few hundred thousand, so what? Once Zelda comes out again they'll pip the X-Box at the post and end up a solid number two. But who cares? Honestly, Nintendo led the game for so long, and now they're coming third and still turning more profit than their competitors.
Again, if they're losing this race, why do they have money? Why are they still in business? Bad decisions, as you put it? According to you, Microsoft and Sony must have made better decisions, yet they're losing money faster than nearly all other companies earn it. They have a larger market share, but at a huge cost. And now the next generation is around, all that work they put in to market penetration is almost void. Sure, X-Box owners will get a 360 and PS2 owners a PS3, but if they didn't have the current console they probably would have bought the same anyway. They have their market, which is reaching it's limits. Sales for all consoles are right down, and Nintendo are taking the iniative and expanding for the next gen.
You mentioned the Gameboy and Pokemon saved Nintendo. Well, Halo saved the X-Box and GTA the PS2. Zelda and Metroid kicked plenty of life into the GameCube. For Nintendo to still be in the game, they have some degree (I'd hope) of business sense. You can sit there, as you are, and say that they're making bad decisions and so on, but if the GameCube was truly such a money-sink as you seem to think they'd have dropped it.
As for bad decisions, well, I've heard catridges instead of CDs for the N64, and, uh, the Virtual Boy. In the same time, they pulled out analogue sticks, rumble controllers and more top-class games than any other developer. Do you honestly think that this trend dried up in one generation? I don't.
#68
@Ajari: You complain about Nintendo because they don't copy what the competitors are doing (i.e. using CDs, online play, violence, etc.) But that's the beauty of Nintendo. They're out to invent their own stuff. Sure its not going to win them tons of market share. But if Nintendo doesn't do it nobody will. MS and Sony have done a nice job at proving they can't think outside the box. Their idea of next gen is better graphics, more online play, and better AI. So your mad because Nintendo doesn't want to follow them? I for one will be greatful if the revelotion is well priced because it doesn't bow to the god of graphics. All they have to do is build some fun new twist into the system and it'll be fun and new. MS is stuck in the computer market. The 360 is little more than a hardware upgrade. For now that's good enough for its fans. Give it a few more console generations and MS will be scrambling to copy Nintendo, again. I'm just glad Nintendo's got the guts to do their own thing. That stubborn attitude that you keep complaining about is what keeps Nintendo unique. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to play Pikmen 2. :)
-Peter
08/20/2005 (10:17 am)
You make a good point, Matt. As long as Nintendo is making a profit they don't really care if they have a majority of market share. If they consistantly turn a profit they can't be beaten. Sure MS has more share right now, but what are they planning on offering people in twenty years? Better graphics? How much of that can people take before they want a new game? Nintendo will probably have some crazy stuff out in twenty years and no doubt MS will be forced to follow.@Ajari: You complain about Nintendo because they don't copy what the competitors are doing (i.e. using CDs, online play, violence, etc.) But that's the beauty of Nintendo. They're out to invent their own stuff. Sure its not going to win them tons of market share. But if Nintendo doesn't do it nobody will. MS and Sony have done a nice job at proving they can't think outside the box. Their idea of next gen is better graphics, more online play, and better AI. So your mad because Nintendo doesn't want to follow them? I for one will be greatful if the revelotion is well priced because it doesn't bow to the god of graphics. All they have to do is build some fun new twist into the system and it'll be fun and new. MS is stuck in the computer market. The 360 is little more than a hardware upgrade. For now that's good enough for its fans. Give it a few more console generations and MS will be scrambling to copy Nintendo, again. I'm just glad Nintendo's got the guts to do their own thing. That stubborn attitude that you keep complaining about is what keeps Nintendo unique. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to play Pikmen 2. :)
-Peter
#69
Meh.
08/20/2005 (11:23 am)
The Gamecube has, by far, clocked the most number of hours I've had on all three major consoles right now. So they went with mini discs instead of DVDs. So they decided not to go online. So they have an underpowered system compared to MS and Sony. The number of hours I've clocked playing Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime, Mario Sunshine, Super Monkey Ball, Super Smash Bros, and WindWaker (not to mention replaying OoT countless times) individually can outnumber the number of hours clocked in games on each of the other two consoles. Combined (with the notable exceptions of the GTA games and Katamari Damacy). None of the above are graphical powerhouses (with the exception of MP), but all have something in common. They're FUN. Nintendo's willing to take risks. They're willing to make games that may not push the graphical envelope, but honestly, I'd rather play a not-so-hot looking game that's fun and innovative, than, say, Doom3. *cough*Meh.
#70
08/20/2005 (12:49 pm)
Their biggest weapon that they have revealed so far is that you will be able to play all their old school games (possibbly for free which would to me make the most sense). Also Nintendo is finally moving to the on-line world which is huge. I think it would be great to play Super Smash Brothers online, mario cart, any FPS that might come along. Im sure they have some other cards up their sleaves but they are keeping very quiet.
#71
I have about 40 games on my living room bookshelf right now for all 3 consoles and 4 for the GBA (only about 4 are Game Cube games but that's not my point). I bought my Xbox for $200 three years ago and I recently bought a new PS2 because my old one was a launch PS2 and pretty much gone. My new PS2 was $150. My Game Cube I bought used for $60. The point I'm trying to make is all the games I've purchased, about 35 of them are for Xbox and PS2. If in fact they sold their systems at a loss, they have more than made back the money they have lost selling their systems to me. When they make those reports saying Sony is "this ammount of money" in the hole on their PS2, I believe they are talking about the actual systems sales that made up for the initial loss. But the games have basically paid for the systems and then some for a long time past launch.
Fact: (and I've said this before I'm sorry) There are more PS2's than Game Cubes in homes. There are more Xboxes than Game Cubes in homes. Both of those companies have more developers and publishers developing games on their systems (not combined, but seperatley) than on Nintendo's Game Cube. There are more games on each system (not combined, but seperatley) than there are on the Nintendo Game Cube. If that's the case, who do you figure is making the most money with their home consoles? Nintendo may be making money ( a hell of a lot more than any of us here) but it's still gotta be chump change compared to Gran Theft Auto: San Andreas and Halo 2 sales. You don't think Sony and MS made profit from any of that money? I 've never seen anybody lining up in front of a Game Stop at 12am for a copy of Pikimini 2. I've heard Halo 2 sold the most in history though. I'm not saying Nintendo themselves need to start making games of this type, but they definatley need more companies on their squad making more games and that's where systems in people homes comes into play so that companies will be willing to take the risk to create more titles for them. You may be happy with "Nintendo's" line up, but RE4 has proven to the world that people like veriety and choice of games with their consoles. They need 3rd party support. Part of the reason I got a Cube was because of RE4. Since then I've gone putting money into their company that they would have never gotten had it not been for that one great title. Nintendo cannot suport a whole system on their own. And having a low market share pretty much ensures games like RE4 will be far and few between (just like on the Cube), and they will be on their own.
-Ajari-
08/21/2005 (6:22 am)
Well I don't know. Bigger market share means more games to be sold on the systems which means more cmpanies are willing to work with you. Macs are just damn expensive. I'm sure there are more copies of Windows XP out there than there are the latest version of the latest Mac OS. It should mean more money for Microsoft right? Sony and Microsoft may have sold their game systems at a loss but they more than made up for it in software sales right? I'm pretty sure that was the plan all along. So if you think about it, the systems have paid for themselves in software sales right? Plus when I worked at Sony we did constant cost downs on the systems after they launched to keep profit margin as close to the + as possible. By now I'm sure Sony is making a good profit off of each PS2 sold. I can't imagine a company supporting a product that brings in nothing for 5 years straight, and then plans to bring out a 3rd product that's even more expensive to produce. Trust me, Sony and MS are making money off of their systems. Just maybe not as directly as Nintendo is. I have about 40 games on my living room bookshelf right now for all 3 consoles and 4 for the GBA (only about 4 are Game Cube games but that's not my point). I bought my Xbox for $200 three years ago and I recently bought a new PS2 because my old one was a launch PS2 and pretty much gone. My new PS2 was $150. My Game Cube I bought used for $60. The point I'm trying to make is all the games I've purchased, about 35 of them are for Xbox and PS2. If in fact they sold their systems at a loss, they have more than made back the money they have lost selling their systems to me. When they make those reports saying Sony is "this ammount of money" in the hole on their PS2, I believe they are talking about the actual systems sales that made up for the initial loss. But the games have basically paid for the systems and then some for a long time past launch.
Fact: (and I've said this before I'm sorry) There are more PS2's than Game Cubes in homes. There are more Xboxes than Game Cubes in homes. Both of those companies have more developers and publishers developing games on their systems (not combined, but seperatley) than on Nintendo's Game Cube. There are more games on each system (not combined, but seperatley) than there are on the Nintendo Game Cube. If that's the case, who do you figure is making the most money with their home consoles? Nintendo may be making money ( a hell of a lot more than any of us here) but it's still gotta be chump change compared to Gran Theft Auto: San Andreas and Halo 2 sales. You don't think Sony and MS made profit from any of that money? I 've never seen anybody lining up in front of a Game Stop at 12am for a copy of Pikimini 2. I've heard Halo 2 sold the most in history though. I'm not saying Nintendo themselves need to start making games of this type, but they definatley need more companies on their squad making more games and that's where systems in people homes comes into play so that companies will be willing to take the risk to create more titles for them. You may be happy with "Nintendo's" line up, but RE4 has proven to the world that people like veriety and choice of games with their consoles. They need 3rd party support. Part of the reason I got a Cube was because of RE4. Since then I've gone putting money into their company that they would have never gotten had it not been for that one great title. Nintendo cannot suport a whole system on their own. And having a low market share pretty much ensures games like RE4 will be far and few between (just like on the Cube), and they will be on their own.
-Ajari-
#72
Well man I look at it like this. If Nintendo is happy being last in the home console race then good for them. But I'm sure that's not where they wanna be and their going about it all wrong if they plan to come out with a much weaker system than the competition. You don't have to copy but you do have to evolve. The Resident Evil series started on a Sony system remember? That's not a "Nintendo" type of game, but sales reports will prove that that is one of the types of games people want. Getting RE4 exclusive on their system was a very smart move. They hooked me with it. That's something they would have never done with Kirby Air Race. Adult American gamers want more mature games along with their "E" rated ones. And like I said, Nintendo cannot support a whole system on their own. Peter mentioned nobody but Nintendo can think outside the box. Well just about the only thing Nintendo is innovative about is their controllers. I've been playing Zelda, Mario, and Metroid remakes since I was 12 years old. Just because a game has cute characters doesn't make it any more innovative or fun than Crimson Skies or Grand Theft Auto. I can name a bunch of innovative titles on all three systems but I bet you the PS2 and Xbox have more innovative titles than the Game Cube for the simple fact that there are more games on the PS2 and Xbox. (man I need to make these posts smaller and stop repeating my points :) Now I'm off to play Mario Cart: Double Dash.
-Ajari-
08/21/2005 (6:23 am)
Stupid rant continued.....Well man I look at it like this. If Nintendo is happy being last in the home console race then good for them. But I'm sure that's not where they wanna be and their going about it all wrong if they plan to come out with a much weaker system than the competition. You don't have to copy but you do have to evolve. The Resident Evil series started on a Sony system remember? That's not a "Nintendo" type of game, but sales reports will prove that that is one of the types of games people want. Getting RE4 exclusive on their system was a very smart move. They hooked me with it. That's something they would have never done with Kirby Air Race. Adult American gamers want more mature games along with their "E" rated ones. And like I said, Nintendo cannot support a whole system on their own. Peter mentioned nobody but Nintendo can think outside the box. Well just about the only thing Nintendo is innovative about is their controllers. I've been playing Zelda, Mario, and Metroid remakes since I was 12 years old. Just because a game has cute characters doesn't make it any more innovative or fun than Crimson Skies or Grand Theft Auto. I can name a bunch of innovative titles on all three systems but I bet you the PS2 and Xbox have more innovative titles than the Game Cube for the simple fact that there are more games on the PS2 and Xbox. (man I need to make these posts smaller and stop repeating my points :) Now I'm off to play Mario Cart: Double Dash.
-Ajari-
#73
XBox has VERY few innovative games(imho) even though it's number 2, of course it trailed GC in terms of sales for the first few years of it's life.
The PS2 has quite a few, with varying levels of success, even more than the Cube does, including Namco's brilliant Katamari Damacy. Part of that is obviously the HUGE installed base of PS2's which dwarfs both GC and XBox numbers by quite a large margin.
As far as innovative games for the Cube... There have been several. Pikmin may not have sold as well as Halo 2(overhyped to no end), but it WAS more innovative. They DO rely too much on their old characters, though. It's like 'hey, lets make a new game' and then the marketing department comes in and says 'we like the idea, but lets put Mario in it to increase sales'.
I feel they've done more innovation on the handheld side than on the Cube though. The DS alone has had many examples in less than a year.
08/21/2005 (6:57 am)
Actually, Microsoft has yet to turn a profit on the XBox division, EVEN with game sales factored in(except for the ONE quarter last year when Halo 2 was released), they're hoping to change that with the 360 though.XBox has VERY few innovative games(imho) even though it's number 2, of course it trailed GC in terms of sales for the first few years of it's life.
The PS2 has quite a few, with varying levels of success, even more than the Cube does, including Namco's brilliant Katamari Damacy. Part of that is obviously the HUGE installed base of PS2's which dwarfs both GC and XBox numbers by quite a large margin.
As far as innovative games for the Cube... There have been several. Pikmin may not have sold as well as Halo 2(overhyped to no end), but it WAS more innovative. They DO rely too much on their old characters, though. It's like 'hey, lets make a new game' and then the marketing department comes in and says 'we like the idea, but lets put Mario in it to increase sales'.
I feel they've done more innovation on the handheld side than on the Cube though. The DS alone has had many examples in less than a year.
#74
As for third party support, there may be far more titles on the PS2 and X-Box but most of them are terribile. Utter crap. Honestly, some of the worst software around. The 'cube isn't void of that sort of game, either, thankfully there's less of it. People may not have lined up for Pikmin 2, but you damn well better be sure people will want the new Zelda come 2006. Nintendo don't rely on third parties under contract, unlike Microsoft, to produce their games. Microsoft tend to stifle great companies (Rare) or put great companies on the road of endless sequels (Bungie). Nintendo have ended contracts with both Factor 5 and Silicon Knights at the request of the developers, something which I'm sure Microsoft would almost never do. That's pretty strong proof they care more about the health of the industry than grabbing the most money from it.
RE started on Sony, true. Final Fantasy started on Nintendo and now it's one of the biggest draws for the PS2. What's you're point there? Apart from a brand name and maybe one game director or so, there's very little that's similar between RE1 and RE4, or FF1 and FFX. Again, you bring American gamers into the argument like they're the only ones that matter. Here's a sudden news flash: They're not. You'll probably find most adult gamers above the age of 25 are over their visceral violence phase, and are into games for the fun.
GTA innovative? The last three installments have been almost identical from a gameplay perspective. Crimson Skies? An action flight-based game, hardly any innovation there. Regardless, I never brought innovative software into it, writing innovative software in this age is nigh impossible. Hardware, though, is an entire other matter and that's where Nintendo shine.
08/21/2005 (7:00 am)
You're missing the point. Even with all the sales of Halo 2 and GTA and all that, most of the money goes to the publisher, less to the developer and pretty much bottom rung is the console maker. Even with these factors in, Sony and Microsoft are not earning money from their consoles. You can't dispute this, you can choose not to believe it but that doesn't change the fact that it's not true.As for third party support, there may be far more titles on the PS2 and X-Box but most of them are terribile. Utter crap. Honestly, some of the worst software around. The 'cube isn't void of that sort of game, either, thankfully there's less of it. People may not have lined up for Pikmin 2, but you damn well better be sure people will want the new Zelda come 2006. Nintendo don't rely on third parties under contract, unlike Microsoft, to produce their games. Microsoft tend to stifle great companies (Rare) or put great companies on the road of endless sequels (Bungie). Nintendo have ended contracts with both Factor 5 and Silicon Knights at the request of the developers, something which I'm sure Microsoft would almost never do. That's pretty strong proof they care more about the health of the industry than grabbing the most money from it.
RE started on Sony, true. Final Fantasy started on Nintendo and now it's one of the biggest draws for the PS2. What's you're point there? Apart from a brand name and maybe one game director or so, there's very little that's similar between RE1 and RE4, or FF1 and FFX. Again, you bring American gamers into the argument like they're the only ones that matter. Here's a sudden news flash: They're not. You'll probably find most adult gamers above the age of 25 are over their visceral violence phase, and are into games for the fun.
GTA innovative? The last three installments have been almost identical from a gameplay perspective. Crimson Skies? An action flight-based game, hardly any innovation there. Regardless, I never brought innovative software into it, writing innovative software in this age is nigh impossible. Hardware, though, is an entire other matter and that's where Nintendo shine.
#75
With a bigger fan base, comes a bigger chance of both crap and great games.
My point? Sony realized 10 years ago what Nintendo just figured out.
Rare just sucks now. I don't think that has anything to do with Microsoft. They are still making the same games they used to for the most part (Conker, Perfect Dark) but their time in the sun is over. I heard most of the N64 era staff left so there you go. As for Bungie and Halo. Are you kidding me? The biggest game in history and I'm not suppossed to create about 10 sequels for it? That's just crazy talk right there.
Well yeah, if I was stuck on Nintendo's system I would try like hell to terminate our exclusive relationship too. Your not making any money on Nintendo's system if only 10 people own the system and then only 2 actually buys your game. On top of that, Nintendo announcing that their Revolution system will be weaker than the competition at E3 probably had Factor 5 and Silicone Knights like "Oh hell nah! Dude we gotta get the f*ck out of this contract pronto!" They were probably getting fed up from poor sales compared to what they could have had on a system with a wider user base, and that was just the last straw.
I mention American gamers because I am one. I don't know whats going on in Australia, Europe, or Africa so I don't speak on it. But I imagine besides a few rugby and soccer games you guys play the same stuff we do. Jaoanese gamers like roomate simulators and that's just too strange for me so I have no idea what's going on over there either. I can't relate, so I don't speak on it.
I consider Metroid a more adult game. There's no blood to be found unless you count green alien blood from time to time. This new Zelda: Princess something looks to be more of an adult themed game. It has a little blood but I'm sure it'll come out rated "T". Splinter Cell has no blood or gore and it's rated "M". Actually this Zelda has more blood in it than Splinter Cell. My point is it doesn't have to be Mortal Kombat to be considered an adult game.
-Ajari-
08/21/2005 (3:48 pm)
Quote:As for third party support, there may be far more titles on the PS2 and X-Box but most of them are terribile. Utter crap. Honestly, some of the worst software around. The 'cube isn't void of that sort of game, either, thankfully there's less of it.
With a bigger fan base, comes a bigger chance of both crap and great games.
Quote:RE started on Sony, true. Final Fantasy started on Nintendo and now it's one of the biggest draws for the PS2. What's you're point there?
My point? Sony realized 10 years ago what Nintendo just figured out.
Quote:Microsoft tend to stifle great companies (Rare) or put great companies on the road of endless sequels (Bungie).
Rare just sucks now. I don't think that has anything to do with Microsoft. They are still making the same games they used to for the most part (Conker, Perfect Dark) but their time in the sun is over. I heard most of the N64 era staff left so there you go. As for Bungie and Halo. Are you kidding me? The biggest game in history and I'm not suppossed to create about 10 sequels for it? That's just crazy talk right there.
Quote:Nintendo have ended contracts with both Factor 5 and Silicon Knights at the request of the developers, something which I'm sure Microsoft would almost never do.
Well yeah, if I was stuck on Nintendo's system I would try like hell to terminate our exclusive relationship too. Your not making any money on Nintendo's system if only 10 people own the system and then only 2 actually buys your game. On top of that, Nintendo announcing that their Revolution system will be weaker than the competition at E3 probably had Factor 5 and Silicone Knights like "Oh hell nah! Dude we gotta get the f*ck out of this contract pronto!" They were probably getting fed up from poor sales compared to what they could have had on a system with a wider user base, and that was just the last straw.
Quote:Again, you bring American gamers into the argument like they're the only ones that matter. Here's a sudden news flash: They're not.
I mention American gamers because I am one. I don't know whats going on in Australia, Europe, or Africa so I don't speak on it. But I imagine besides a few rugby and soccer games you guys play the same stuff we do. Jaoanese gamers like roomate simulators and that's just too strange for me so I have no idea what's going on over there either. I can't relate, so I don't speak on it.
Quote:You'll probably find most adult gamers above the age of 25 are over their visceral violence phase, and are into games for the fun.
I consider Metroid a more adult game. There's no blood to be found unless you count green alien blood from time to time. This new Zelda: Princess something looks to be more of an adult themed game. It has a little blood but I'm sure it'll come out rated "T". Splinter Cell has no blood or gore and it's rated "M". Actually this Zelda has more blood in it than Splinter Cell. My point is it doesn't have to be Mortal Kombat to be considered an adult game.
-Ajari-
#76
Ok Nintendo's controllers are always innovative and great. I know this. But their systems never are. They are always behind in some aspect (again, cartridge, online, mini discs, hard drive). There's no denying that CD is better than cartridge, the ability to have online is better than no online (even if you don't use it the option is there should you change your mind), DVD's are better than mini discs, and having a hard drive is better than using memory cards. And going back to controllers, they never have enough games to really do the controller justice anyway. I see Nintendo as a testing ground for everybody when it comes to controllers. Nintendo creates, everybody bites, and only then is it that the controller scheme is brought out for the mass consumer through Sony's machines. Sucks I know. Miyamoto mentioned this at E3 (about everybody copying their controllers). That's why they aren't talking right now. The PS3 is still too far away.
GTA is just plain fun any way you look at it. There is so much freedom and stuff to do. Rockstar actually took the time to create a new story, characters, and world with every new game, one that's always bigger than the last. I can't say the same for Nintendo. Mario Kart:DD is the exact same thing that it was on SNES and N64 but with better graphics of course. I still had fun playing it with my girlfriend though. Wait that's not a fair comparison. Mario Sunshine. No, how about Zelda.
GTA would have been impossible on the Game Cubes mini disk. The world loads seamlessly and is always constant. Rockstar said they filled the DVD to it's full capacity. Switching mini discs in the middle of GTA to go to a new area would have been out of the question. Whenever you have a system that can't do something that another one can, you lose potential money. Nintendo is telling the consumer to settle for less. To be limited and be happy with it. You don't need this and you don't need that. Like I said before, had Nintendo stayed on top and been the only game in town, we'd maybe just now be getting a 32 bit system in 2006 instead of the Xbox 360 and PS3. I'm sure if they could Rockstar would have tried to port GTA on the Cube if they felt it was worth it. But it's impossible. When the reportedly weaker Revolution comes out, what are companies who want to port their games from the PS3 and 360 to the Revolution suppossed to do? Will it be worth re-bulding the game from the ground up for a weaker system like they are doing RE4 for PS2, but only with a smaller fan base?
And you mentioned Crimson Skies as being just a flight sim. I've never played anything like it on the Xbox. And the only other games I've played that are kind of simmilar are Star Fox for N64 and Sky Gunner for PS2. How is it not as innovative as Pikimini? *@Joshua*: In Pikimini you command a troop of "soldiers" to do stuff and destroy things. Do you think Nintendo could have gotten that idea from a game like War Craft? Say it ain't so...
-Ajari-
08/21/2005 (3:49 pm)
Continued....Quote:writing innovative software in this age is nigh impossible. Hardware, though, is an entire other matter and that's where Nintendo shine.
Ok Nintendo's controllers are always innovative and great. I know this. But their systems never are. They are always behind in some aspect (again, cartridge, online, mini discs, hard drive). There's no denying that CD is better than cartridge, the ability to have online is better than no online (even if you don't use it the option is there should you change your mind), DVD's are better than mini discs, and having a hard drive is better than using memory cards. And going back to controllers, they never have enough games to really do the controller justice anyway. I see Nintendo as a testing ground for everybody when it comes to controllers. Nintendo creates, everybody bites, and only then is it that the controller scheme is brought out for the mass consumer through Sony's machines. Sucks I know. Miyamoto mentioned this at E3 (about everybody copying their controllers). That's why they aren't talking right now. The PS3 is still too far away.
Quote:GTA innovative? The last three installments have been almost identical from a gameplay perspective. Crimson Skies? An action flight-based game, hardly any innovation there.
GTA is just plain fun any way you look at it. There is so much freedom and stuff to do. Rockstar actually took the time to create a new story, characters, and world with every new game, one that's always bigger than the last. I can't say the same for Nintendo. Mario Kart:DD is the exact same thing that it was on SNES and N64 but with better graphics of course. I still had fun playing it with my girlfriend though. Wait that's not a fair comparison. Mario Sunshine. No, how about Zelda.
GTA would have been impossible on the Game Cubes mini disk. The world loads seamlessly and is always constant. Rockstar said they filled the DVD to it's full capacity. Switching mini discs in the middle of GTA to go to a new area would have been out of the question. Whenever you have a system that can't do something that another one can, you lose potential money. Nintendo is telling the consumer to settle for less. To be limited and be happy with it. You don't need this and you don't need that. Like I said before, had Nintendo stayed on top and been the only game in town, we'd maybe just now be getting a 32 bit system in 2006 instead of the Xbox 360 and PS3. I'm sure if they could Rockstar would have tried to port GTA on the Cube if they felt it was worth it. But it's impossible. When the reportedly weaker Revolution comes out, what are companies who want to port their games from the PS3 and 360 to the Revolution suppossed to do? Will it be worth re-bulding the game from the ground up for a weaker system like they are doing RE4 for PS2, but only with a smaller fan base?
And you mentioned Crimson Skies as being just a flight sim. I've never played anything like it on the Xbox. And the only other games I've played that are kind of simmilar are Star Fox for N64 and Sky Gunner for PS2. How is it not as innovative as Pikimini? *@Joshua*: In Pikimini you command a troop of "soldiers" to do stuff and destroy things. Do you think Nintendo could have gotten that idea from a game like War Craft? Say it ain't so...
-Ajari-
#77
I never said GTA wasn't fun, either. I said it was much the same in it's last three incarnations, I should know, I've completed them all. However, you said Metroid was an 'adult' game. Earlier, you mentioned Nintendo should stop aiming at kids and target the adult audience. I'd have figured with the likes of Geist, Metroid Prime and Eternal Darkness as Nintendo licenses they'd have that more or less covered, hm?
Anyways, this debate has degenerated into a slag-fest, and I'm not taking it any further. I've spoken my peace, you've done the same, so someone else chip in for a while :P
08/22/2005 (6:31 am)
Have you even played Pikmin? Seriously. Just because it falls into the genre of RTS doesn't mean it's not innovative. As for Crimson Skies, it's much like Rogue Squadron. As for Factor 5 and Silicon Knights, they didn't abandon the GameCube, they terminated their exclusive contracts to develop for other systems as well as Nintendo systems, and this was long before the Revolution was announced.I never said GTA wasn't fun, either. I said it was much the same in it's last three incarnations, I should know, I've completed them all. However, you said Metroid was an 'adult' game. Earlier, you mentioned Nintendo should stop aiming at kids and target the adult audience. I'd have figured with the likes of Geist, Metroid Prime and Eternal Darkness as Nintendo licenses they'd have that more or less covered, hm?
Anyways, this debate has degenerated into a slag-fest, and I'm not taking it any further. I've spoken my peace, you've done the same, so someone else chip in for a while :P
#78
-Ajari-
Edit: WTF is Nintendogs and how is that fun? Is it even a game?
08/22/2005 (11:19 am)
Yeah I rented Pikimin 2 a few weeks ago. It was fun. Well take a look at the console and controller design and tell me who it's aimed at. Two words, Fisher Price. Love the cute little handel by the way. Yeah I was gonna stop debating a few posts ago but there's no harm in having some pointless fun to pass the time. If we were debating about something important like the war or illegals getting drivers licenses then it wouldn't have been fun. Those issues hit too close to home. But when your debating about Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft, who really gives a damn. (and if you really did get upset by what I've been saying about Nintendo then you need to get a girl and a life) It's just fun for me to speak my mind and let the droves of N-fan boys attack. Did you guys catch when Carlos Mencia destroyed a Nintendo 64? Good stuff. I never figured it would take me almost 10 years to get some kind of entertainment out of the N64. Just kidding. It's all good fun you guys.-Ajari-
Edit: WTF is Nintendogs and how is that fun? Is it even a game?
#79
As for Halo 2... yes it set records. I even own a copy and I don't have an Xbox. Anyway my brother and I played it and we were saddly disapointed. The first Halo was great! Good plot. But I never finished it. I had no idea what was going on in the second game. It was dark and the rooms were repititive. I kept running into walls. Halo 2 sold so well because of the first Halo. The third one won't set records.
-Peter
08/22/2005 (2:15 pm)
Actually I don't know a little kid alive who likes Pikimin 2. They can't understand it. To slow, like gardening. My 30 year old brother in law (who was in the Marines for 7 years) bought a game cube just for that game. My sister plays Animal Crossing on it almost every day, but other than that they probably won't buy anything else anytime soon. They'll never go into a game store or website and get poled to find out which system they own. If Nintendo wasn't making consoles they wouldn't go buy an Xbox. They would just not play any games. Its people like this, who aren't even consided in the market, that Nintedo is trying to reach. That's why they're trying to keep the price of the new system low. Who do you think is going to buy Nintendogs? As far as you're conserned no one, right? Wrong. My sister, my wife, maybe even my Mom. They're not in the market but they're going to make Nintendo a lot of money. And Nintendogs probably didn't take half the money to delvelope as most games do. As for Halo 2... yes it set records. I even own a copy and I don't have an Xbox. Anyway my brother and I played it and we were saddly disapointed. The first Halo was great! Good plot. But I never finished it. I had no idea what was going on in the second game. It was dark and the rooms were repititive. I kept running into walls. Halo 2 sold so well because of the first Halo. The third one won't set records.
-Peter
#80
When it comes down to consoles, it's really more a matter of preference. All issues about power and technology aside, Playstation seems to be more single-player oriented, Gamecube/N64 for multiplayer, and Xbox for online (at least, this is my perspective on them).
To me, the power and technology of a console system or game engine doesn't mean anything unless they've actually got what's really important for any game: the fun factor. If a game isn't fun, any advanced technology is pointless to most.
08/22/2005 (5:53 pm)
I'm a big Smash Bros fan; more than likely, I might buy a Gamecube just for Melee. =P I also happen to be a big RPG fan, so I'm big on the Playstations (considering it's got Final Fantasy and a large assortment of other RPGs).When it comes down to consoles, it's really more a matter of preference. All issues about power and technology aside, Playstation seems to be more single-player oriented, Gamecube/N64 for multiplayer, and Xbox for online (at least, this is my perspective on them).
To me, the power and technology of a console system or game engine doesn't mean anything unless they've actually got what's really important for any game: the fun factor. If a game isn't fun, any advanced technology is pointless to most.
Torque Owner Jeremy Alessi