Post by: BigJim on February 08, 2006, 10:38:45 PM
Forbes Interview: Nintendo's New Look
Glad that Nintendo is getting mainstream coverage.
"Blue ocean" will be sink or swim for them, no pun intended. With all this buzzword hype, they better have some big plans. Nintendo talking about Sony and MS fighting over a finite marketshare ("Red Ocean") is ironic, though. Nintendo would love to have Sony's marketshare. And claiming to have the first wireless controllers... I can only HOPE revisionist history isn't Revolution's secret innovation.
It's sort of sad that in 15 years Nintendo hasn't been able to stop their own market from bleeding. To shun off games like FPS's and other edgy games just shows that Nintendo is still stubborn in some elementary ways and fixed in a pattern... making "their" types of games.
Might be smart, might not be. Maybe they're no longer interested in spending lots of money to make games suitable for matured genres. It's more cost effective to make new genres so that there's less to compare it to. (But then you alienate some players in the process.) Their successes have been hit and miss. With every interview that passes, Nintendo reads more like they're abandoning a ship they think is sinking, and hope they can hop on a new one... but it's only THEIR ship that's been sinking. They've yet to make the case that the pond is drying up.
Jeez, these metaphors are ridiculous.
On the other hand, Blue Ocean may be brilliant. Gamers are, afterall, only a segment of the population and Sony and MS own them hand over fist. The DS is doing well and even Atlus's Trauma Center is supposedly selling great. Can Nintendo's mindshare only go up from here, after this ho-hum generation?
Anyway, before the sarcastic "Nintendo am doomed" responses come along, their place in the market speaks for itself. I'm not saying they're doomed. I'm saying they clearly think something's wrong with the market when maybe, just maybe, they need to look in the mirror. Maybe Blue Ocean *is* the result of self-reflection. Time will tell. They talk the talk, a lot, but haven't made the case yet.
[Amazon snippet]
What is a BLUE OCEAN STRATEGY?
1. DO NOT compete in existing market space. INSTEAD you should create uncontested market space.
2. DO NOT beat the competition. INSTEAD you should make the competition irrelevant.
3. DO NOT exploit existing demand. INSTEAD you should create and capture new demand.
4. DO NOT make the value/cost trade-off. INSTEAD you should break the value/cost trade-off.
5. DO NOT align the whole system of a company's activities with its strategic choice of differentiation or low cost. INSTEAD you should align the whole system of a company's activities in pursuit of both differentiation and low cost.
Examples of strategic moves that created blue oceans of new, untapped demand:
- NetJets (fractional Jet ownership)
- Cirque du Soleil (the circus reinvented for the entertainment market)
- Starbucks (coffee as low-cost luxury for high-end consumers)
- Ebay (online auctioning)
- Sony (the Walkman - personal portable stereos)
- Cars: Japanese fuel-efficient autos (mid-70s) and Chrysler minivan (1984)
- Computers: Apple personal computer (1978) and Dell's built-to-order computers (mid-1990s).
Post by: thejeek on February 08, 2006, 11:11:19 PM
As a bit of a social experiment, I've got non-gamer friends of mine to play party game stuff after the pub - mainly Super Monkey Ball mini games - and while they'll do it drunk and appear to enjoy it (if the screaming, shouting and fits of giggles are to be believed) but they'd never admit they enjoyed it when they sober up, and they'd certainly never buy a console so they could play off their own initiative - the situation has to be engineered so it just happens for them without them having to admit they want to do it :-(
EDIT: spelling
Post by: wandering on February 09, 2006, 02:48:53 AM
Post by: thejeek on February 09, 2006, 02:57:33 AM
Anyway, it's nice to think of Nintendo starting a craze for private video game fetishism but somehow I can't see that one materializing :-)
Post by: Pale on February 09, 2006, 04:31:01 AM
We all know how tough it is going to be for Nintendo to break into the cool market, and I think it's a good idea that they don't necessarily focus all of their efforts on that. Convincing a GTA player that Nintendo isn't for kids is a lot harder than convincing your mom that she can have fun caring for a virtual puppy.
Post by: couchmonkey on February 09, 2006, 05:25:41 AM
Competing with Microsoft and Sony in a cool contest is a losing battle. N64 had far more first-person shooters than PSX, Turok was one of the more violent games of the generation, and yet Nintendo was consistently seen as not having enough games for adults. On GameCube Nintendo had three exclusive Resident Evil games, plus two Metroids, plus MGS: Twin Snakes, plus Eternal Darkness, plus for the first two years it had most of the major third-party "M" releases too (Mortal Kombat, Hitman 2, etc.) There are more "adult" games on the other systems, but there are still a good number to choose from on GameCube, and Nintendo put quite a bit of money into getting most of those titles on the system. It still wasn't enough to attract the cool gamers, so what's Nintendo supposed to do? Pay for Grand Theft Auto, a game which goes to every other platform for free?
In spite of what I just said, I somewhat agree that Nintendo is closed-minded about mature games - it seems blind to the Western point of view that certain themes make many of Nintendo's products seem childish, and I think the company could improve on that. But I think the company's new strategy to aim for unclaimed gamers fits Nintendo well. It's a big gamble, but I think Nintendo would slowly suffocate in the existing game market even if it put all of it's resources into cooling-up it's image.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 09, 2006, 07:08:54 AM
That's pretty much what I thought the second Iwata opened his mouth and talked about how people are losing interest in gaming. My immediately reaction was "no they're getting bored with NINTENDO's games". I think it's all do to Nintendo's delusional view of themselves. They still think this is the NES days where "Nintendo" is synonymous with "videogames". They think anything that applies to Nintendo applies to the whole industry. They don't realize that it is merely them who is sinking.
I don't think Nintendo's problem is that they're uncool but basically just that they're screw-ups. The mess up routine stuff that any idiot could figure out. They didn't "get" that memory cards should, you know, be able to hold stuff. They didn't get that promising online support and then not delivering is a bad thing. They have NO IDEA how the concept of demo discs work. They can't distinguish good third party support from bad and don't seem to have any real idea of how the whole third party concept really works. They still think third parties are something to exploit and think that we want third parties working on Nintendo games. They also don't realize how childish many of their games look in North America or how important it is to have a variety of styles but that's one issue of many. And of course before they failed to realize that CDs were the way to go. They were also the ONLY company to think that which makes their oversight more damaging to their credibility. Basically people don't trust Nintendo because people don't trust companies that seem oblivious to how things work. I've always felt their solution is to stop doing stupid sh!t. Consistent competance would do wonders to their reputation. They'll start regaining market share again when people think "hey Nintendo knows what they're doing again".
MS went from having nothing to beating Nintendo in North America because they were on the ball and came across as a company that knew what they were doing. It's not just Halo or the endless spending. It was largely the fact that they didn't screw up very much and Nintendo screwed up a lot.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 09, 2006, 07:16:43 AM
With Nintendo being the one developer with the greatest profit every year? With Nintendo games taking up a majority of spots in the Top Ten in Japan every week? Hahaha, no...
Post by: Pryopizm on February 09, 2006, 07:27:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"
Nintendo is doing fine. Do they make fun games? They make fun games. Do they make super megadollar profit fun-time? Yes! Yes, they do! Is DS owning Japan and making third parties think, "I must partake in gobs of Yen!" I bet they are!
Microsoft's XBox division are "cool." They're "mature." Yet, they also made a net loss in the billions last gen, and their attempt to storm Japan with Eurocentric videogames somehow failed. Interesting strategy to say the least.
I'm only worried that Nintendo may drown from their lungs being filled with cash.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 09, 2006, 07:31:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pryopizm
I'm only worried that Nintendo may drown from their lungs being filled with cash.
"They don't realize that it is merely them who is sinking."
Sinking...into the ocean of cash!
Post by: Ian Sane on February 09, 2006, 07:54:36 AM
No company that has their market share consistently shrinking by a significant margin is healthy. Sure Nintendo profits now but how long will that last when less people buy their consoles every time and thus less people buy their games? Nothing on the Cube sold as well as the top N64 games. On the N64 practically every major game was a million seller. On the Cube very few games are million sellers. The sheer fact that Nintendo is doing something this drastic suggests that despite profits even they think something is wrong. Otherwise they would just keep with the status quo. They realize there's a problem and they're trying to fix it. I just happen to think they don't have a very good plan for fixing this problem.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 09, 2006, 07:58:37 AM
And it's this new plan that HAS been getting Ninty all this profit, try again, Ian...
Sup Brain Training, which probably took a 10K budget MAX, has sold more than a million already...
Post by: Pryopizm on February 09, 2006, 08:03:34 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 09, 2006, 08:05:32 AM
I didn't buy many games last year because as a Cube owner there just wasn't much to buy. The interest was there, I just didn't have much to pick from.
Post by: ThePerm on February 09, 2006, 08:06:16 AM
we on this board are the hardcore Nintendo fan, but what happened to t he casual Nintendo fan?
Post by: BigJim on February 09, 2006, 08:37:13 AM
Quote
With Nintendo being the one developer with the greatest profit every year? With Nintendo games taking up a majority of spots in the Top Ten in Japan every week? Hahaha, no...
Their pond of console customers is drying up regardless. Of course when you have fewer titles to choose from, more sales per game will occur. And referring specifically to Nintendo's own games ignores the other half of the issue. Most developers that don't make Nintendo-style games don't even bother to make GameCube games. How much profit have those developers made? Check out those blistering sales. They're way up at the top of the charts too, right? Right?
Quote
Microsoft's XBox division are "cool." They're "mature." Yet, they also made a net loss in the billions last gen, and their attempt to storm Japan with Eurocentric videogames somehow failed. Interesting strategy to say the least.
Come again? Is there a direct correlation between "cool" and red ink? This money-in-the-bank thing comes up constantly, but the picture isn't as rosey when you remove portable sales and look at console sales, which Nintendo tries not to do in their financials, IIRC. You don't have to lose a billion a year to be "cool." There's no direct correlation and that defense is pointless.
Nintendo's not cool. But NINTENDO IS RICH! Nintendo loses half their marketshare every generation. But NINTENDO IS RICH! Nintendo ignores mature gamers. But NINTENDO IS RICH!
Being an apologist accomplishes nothing for them if the market pattern of the last 15 years continues for the next 5. Would the "Nintendo am rich!" defenders be LOLLZOR'ing at Nintendo with their modest console profit and 10% marketshare? Not me. I want them to work their way back to the top.
There are lots of basic things Nintendo could do to improve their situation other than drop the rescue boat in the hope that there's a "blue ocean" to fall into to take them to a promise land. As someone else mentioned, at least they HAVE a strategy. But I'm not going to be an apologist and defend their errors of the past. There are still lots of GAMERS with certain tastes, and Nintendo's profits won't somehow make Nintendogs and Brain Training any more enjoyable to them.
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on February 09, 2006, 09:41:39 AM
Nintendo is profitable only because of the portable market, the DS and the GBA. If we looked at profitability only of the Cube, I don't doubt that we'd see much smaller margins, if any at all. Not so long ago Iwata was blaming slow GC sales for lower profit.
So don't say that market share or image don't matter to the bottom line; when push comes to shove, they do.
Meanwhile, as fans, we should not have to care about profitability - if it doesn't bring in a diverse base of games than we love, than what of it? If we are stuck with Nintendo's games, and are missing out on a ton of other cool stuff that's only on other consoles, if Nintendo is going to continue to refuse to use their over $3bn. war chest to net exclusives, if they refuse to than what reason is there for gamers (as opposed to non-gamers) to stick with them, or to pick them and not Microsoft and Sony? So that we'll be forced to buy a Memory Card 59, and then told that third party developers are lazy for not being economical with memory(just to point out one example of how Nintendo fills out the bottom line just a bit more by screwing over their fanbase)? Surely not.
That was cathartic. Let me say that I still love Nintendo, I'm willing to give their non-gamer strategy a chance, and alot of the complaints that I listed above don't really apply so much to myself as to Microsoft and Sony fans - who will *HAVE* to be attracted to the Rev in someway in order for third parties to give the Rev significant support, let alone exclusives (unless they use the money hat, which they will not). (And I'm talking about real games, not 'nongames'.) If they don't do this, they won't be doomed - they'll just keep on being 'Nintendo', living off the GBA/DS industry as long as they can. If there comes a serious competitor in the portable market...heaven help them. (Honestly though, I don't think this is gonna happen. Everyone who tries seems to be too stupid to get it right; they don't realize that gameplay is king.)
Post by: attackslug on February 09, 2006, 09:52:58 AM
Regardless of one's opinion of their games, it would be *foolish* for nintendo to not pursue securing a title or two from Rockstar this generation.
Post by: mantidor on February 09, 2006, 10:19:14 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 09, 2006, 10:20:31 AM
I've always been more concerned over the market for games like Brain Training. Animal Crossing sells with gamers. We know this because it was well received on the Cube and this was well before Nintendo started talking about non-games or simple games or any of this stuff. It was first released into a market of gamers and accepted by gamers as a game. Nintendogs I feel has a lot of elements that attract gamers as well. There's items and breeds to unlock and there's a lot of stuff to do.
Stuff like Brain Training and Electroplankton are the wishy-washy titles where it's debated how much appeal they have in North America. These are the "non-games" where issues like depth and length become issues. These are the sort of titles where a gamer would question if they're worth the same price as a "real" game. For the first few months of the DS the games got creamed by reviewers. There were complaints of the games being too short or lacking depth or being glorified mini-games. Those reviewers, who are gamers, didn't "get" those early DS titles.
If you've played games for a length of time you establish a standard of quality and some titles if they seem too shallow are going to get dismissed. Those are the titles where we're unsure if there is a huge market because they're the games that an experienced gamer doesn't feel is worth full price for. To be a big seller that type of game has to be sold to non-gamers because gamers don't take it seriously. That's the market we're unsure about. Does that group of people who don't play games but would play games if they were more simplified to the point where existing gamers wouldn't be as interested exist?
Post by: BigJim on February 09, 2006, 10:56:03 AM
The first rule of Blue Ocean is not to compete. Wonderful.
I don't appreciate Nintendo's apparent "oh yeah and we'll make gamer games too" attitude because if their GameCube lineup for the second half of its life is any indication, many gamer-gamers will be disappointed. Or, if all they're going to do is make a console version of the DS, then why bother. They assume they'll keep their market of gamers as well as the new folks, when all they've actually done is lose gamers with every console refresh. Retention has not been a strong point. That's an understatement.
So what *of* traditional games? If 3rd parties are going to make them, then that hope is DOA. It's already painfully obvious that the 1st party sets the pace. Not much outside of that pattern sells.
And again it's difficult to really gauge their strategy because we have seen exactly squat. All we know is what we've been told. A focus on non-gamers. A nebulous strategy that tells them not to compete. Not to beat the competition. Not to exploit demand. etc. So what does that do for us? What does that do for someone that's been scratching their ass for a year while they wait for Zelda, and games *like* Zelda?
Those are concerns I have, which Nintendo hasn't answered yet. Sadly, I'm not sure why I am almost waiting for them to say "you're not our demographic anymore." Because they won't ever say that outright. But I would like to know so that I can make my decision for this generation. I guess I just have to wait for E3 for it to be official one way or the other.
Oh yeah... They're profitable, so loyal old-strategy customers since the NES be damned.
Post by: Deguello on February 09, 2006, 11:17:00 AM
Are even even entertaining the possibility that there are huge masses 40-year-olds that got an NES and now have Playstation2s?
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 09, 2006, 11:23:30 AM
I know Electroplankton was made by Toshio Iwai, who doesn't even work for Nintendo, and pretty much exclusively by him. It cost a few thousand, from what I recall (I wrote a paper on him). With games like this, they're not even cutting into their work force for other, big budget games.
Post by: BigJim on February 09, 2006, 11:27:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello
"Oh yeah... They're profitable, so loyal old-strategy customers since the NES be damned."
Are even even entertaining the possibility that there are huge masses 40-year-olds that got an NES and now have Playstation2s?
It was a tongue in cheek comment, but I don't get the point. Are you saying Nintendo's gamers just switch to PlayStations like the rest of the masses? Or what?
Post by: IceCold on February 09, 2006, 11:45:55 AM
QuoteEndangered. Almost extinct.. That's why Nintendo's going with this nongamer strategy; more effective than chasing after those gamers..
we on this board are the hardcore Nintendo fan, but what happened to t he casual Nintendo fan?
Post by: Ian Sane on February 09, 2006, 11:49:22 AM
I used those two as an example but in general I'm refering to all DS games that are low on depth and have been totally sh!tted on by reviewers, the quirky mini-game types. Supposedly these games aren't expensive to make and don't eat up resources but that doesn't change the fact that for the first six months or so of the DS there were virtually no games that really fit the "traditional" mold. It was all "simple games" or "non-games". If these didn't take up Nintendo resources then why was their such a lack of variety? If Nintendo really wanted to appeal to both existing gamers and non-gamers and were capable of doing so I think they would have had a more filled up lineup. Ideally the flow of "traditional" games should virtually not change if these titles don't eat up much resources. But it DID and that's discouraging.
"Gone. Does not exist. That's why Nintendo's going with this nongamer strategy; more effective than chasing after those gamers."
Maybe Nintendo should examine WHY those "casual Nintendo gamers" left in the first place. It wasn't because Sony brainwashed them or that they lost interest in gaming. It directly relates to really dumb decisions Nintendo has made. People have left less because of Sony attracting them but rather Nintendo turning them away.
Post by: Deguello on February 09, 2006, 12:10:19 PM
40-year-olds don't play videogames. Period. The "one you know" doesn't count. If this was the "Casual Nintendo base" that Sony is "thieving," this is all hogwash. Sony attracted new people.
"I used those two as an example but in general I'm refering to all DS games that are low on depth and have been totally sh!tted on by reviewers, the quirky mini-game types. Supposedly these games aren't expensive to make and don't eat up resources but that doesn't change the fact that for the first six months or so of the DS there were virtually no games that really fit the "traditional" mold. It was all "simple games" or "non-games". If these didn't take up Nintendo resources then why was their such a lack of variety? If Nintendo really wanted to appeal to both existing gamers and non-gamers and were capable of doing so I think they would have had a more filled up lineup. Ideally the flow of "traditional" games should virtually not change if these titles don't eat up much resources. But it DID and that's discouraging."
Post by: BigJim on February 09, 2006, 12:43:42 PM
Quote
40-year-olds don't play videogames. Period. The "one you know" doesn't count. If this was the "Casual Nintendo base" that Sony is "thieving," this is all hogwash. Sony attracted new people.
Are we having different discussions?
I did say Sony expanded the market.
Post by: Deguello on February 09, 2006, 01:16:37 PM
The market hasn't really expanded since 1995. Around the same amount of Saturns, N64s and PSXs were sold in the same time span as GCs, Xboxs, and PS2s. Maybe even more.
Of course this is just the Console market. If you wanna get groady, Nintendo still controls more than 50% of the VIDEOGAME market (which includes handhelds) As the Numbers of GCs, GBAs, and DS's outsell PS2s and PSPs and Xboxes and Xbox 360's
Post by: BigJim on February 09, 2006, 01:50:48 PM
Video games are a subset of pop culture. There are LOTS of 30+ people playing video games out there. And I would hardly call them developmentally stunted manchildren. That's completely asinine. Read up on your demographic data. Get a clue and try not to think so lowly of grown up players that you have no business judging.
www.TheESA.com
The market certainly hasn't shrunk. IF you're correct in saying it hasn't expanded either, then that can only mean it's remained mostly constant. So since Nintendo's market has been ever-shrinking, then someone DID take those players away. Sega, for one, opened the gaping wound of perception that Nintendo was for kids and passe. Nintendo still hasn't developed an answer to that perception 3 generations later. They embrace it and continue to pay for it.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 09, 2006, 01:59:40 PM
Funny how I played the NES and I'm only 24. And I would consider anyone who also owns the SNES as part of the "casual Nintendo base" since that relates to when Nintendo was on top. I was 13 when the N64 launched. Out of everyone I knew who owned a console only one owned a Genesis. Everyone else was SNES. Almost all of them switched to the Playstation. Very few stuck with Nintendo because Nintendo's severe cartridge blunder scared off the third parties and too many of the games they wanted to play were on Sony's console. Maybe a lot of those people aren't playing games anymore but that set the current userbase for Sony. I think they attracted a lot of other people but they stole tons of existing gamers from Nintendo. Or more accurately Nintendo gave them to Sony.
Post by: ThePerm on February 09, 2006, 04:15:58 PM
but yeah one o f my best friends is 27, he's an obsessed Nintendo fan. He's a gamer who had an atari and then moved onto Nintendo when it came out.
Post by: Hostile Creation on February 09, 2006, 04:37:44 PM
It's been another six months since that six months ended, and the DS is doing fine. So what exactly is your point?
Post by: mantidor on February 09, 2006, 04:46:57 PM
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on February 09, 2006, 05:07:56 PM
----
[devil's advocate]
Despite all this, the Cube only sold about a million, a million and a half less than the Xbox in the US and clobbered it in Japan. Unless they really f*ck this one up, there's nowhere to go but up, especially with the ridiculously bad worldwide launch by my post is a train wreck.
[/devil's advocate]
Post by: BigJim on February 09, 2006, 05:53:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
All this "mature gamers" and "mature games" stuff has nothing to do with success of a franchise or a system. What are the top selling franchises? Mario, Pokemon, Final Fantasy, Tetris and Zelda. If I go down the list, the number of "mature" and "lol k!ddie" franchises is almost equal (surpassed by those "rated E" by a small margin of course), this so called maturity as well as older gamers arent the big deal that the gaming press and forumites want to make it be.
You're 100% correct. No group or genre should be catered to (and that should also include Nintendo catering to their franchises). They just shouldn't be ignored through lack of variety either, as BiLd mentions. A few good token games sprinkled throughout a system's life is not adequate coverage.
Post by: mantidor on February 09, 2006, 05:54:18 PM
Anyway, theres a reason Nintendo got all Resident Evils, which didnt turn out as well as we wouldve hoped, but its not to say that Nintendo isnt trying, they will never make these "mature" games, its against their philosophy of making a game that anyone can pick up, thats why they relay on third parties for that. They are out there trying to get the most variety possible, so I dont see why we should complain.
Post by: BigJim on February 09, 2006, 06:15:10 PM
They did try, yes. But now they should know that they can't put toothpaste back in the tube. They set the pace. They haven't discussed too much about their lineup yet, but we will definitely see if they learned their lesson or not at E3. The potential for FPS type games is obvious, but we'll see if they bothered to do anything with it.
Post by: Khushrenada on February 09, 2006, 06:47:00 PM
According to Ign, Take-Two might be bought by Elevation Partners and is in discussion with buy-out firms. If Nintendo bought Take-Two, they'd own the GTA series and could keep it from Sony and Microsoft. I'm sure there are some other big franchises Take-Two has but I can't think of anything except Firaxis and the Sid Meier games like Pirates and Civilization, but those are more computer games. Still, if Nintendo did something like that, would you feel that would solve some of the problems related to Nintendo and its not appealing to gamers, not mature, and not appealing to western games arguements?
Also, just out of curiosity, I was wondering what you consider to be Nintendo's best two consoles? Name your first favorite and your second favorite.
I would like Big Jim and Ian to answer but anyone can answer that as well. There is a point to this but I want to wait first for people to respond.
Post by: Pryopizm on February 09, 2006, 08:57:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJimQuote
Microsoft's XBox division are "cool." They're "mature." Yet, they also made a net loss in the billions last gen, and their attempt to storm Japan with Eurocentric videogames somehow failed. Interesting strategy to say the least.
Come again? Is there a direct correlation between "cool" and red ink? This money-in-the-bank thing comes up constantly, but the picture isn't as rosey when you remove portable sales and look at console sales, which Nintendo tries not to do in their financials, IIRC. You don't have to lose a billion a year to be "cool." There's no direct correlation and that defense is pointless.
Is this the Revolution forum? I didn't bother checking since I was just here to respond to Ian. As far as next-gen is concerned, I think I should point out that currently Nintendo and Sony have a combined 0% market share and are losing miserably to Microsoft's 100% dominance.
Post by: BigJim on February 09, 2006, 09:50:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Khushrenada
What if Nintendo bought Take-Two?
According to Ign, Take-Two might be bought by Elevation Partners and is in discussion with buy-out firms. If Nintendo bought Take-Two, they'd own the GTA series and could keep it from Sony and Microsoft. I'm sure there are some other big franchises Take-Two has but I can't think of anything except Firaxis and the Sid Meier games like Pirates and Civilization, but those are more computer games. Still, if Nintendo did something like that, would you feel that would solve some of the problems related to Nintendo and its not appealing to gamers, not mature, and not appealing to western games arguements?
Also, just out of curiosity, I was wondering what you consider to be Nintendo's best two consoles? Name your first favorite and your second favorite.
I would like Big Jim and Ian to answer but anyone can answer that as well. There is a point to this but I want to wait first for people to respond.
Interesting proposition. I'm not sure what effect Take-Two would have. Would they release another GTA (as we know it) with all the problems they're having? Would Nintendo let them if they owned them? GTA might have passed its apex if they can't replicate the violent style. But under the surface there is solid gameplay mechanics. They're capable if there's still room for growth in the genre.
Nintendo's best 2 consoles... Personally or analytically? Personally I liked NES and N64 (in that order). Mainly because they had the games I was most fond of. SMB3, LOZ, Mario 64, Zelda:TOOT. But the list goes on.
Post by: thejeek on February 10, 2006, 12:16:59 AM
Quote
What if Nintendo bought Take-Two?
According to Ign, Take-Two might be bought by Elevation Partners and is in discussion with buy-out firms. If Nintendo bought Take-Two, they'd own the GTA series and could keep it from Sony and Microsoft. I'm sure there are some other big franchises Take-Two has but I can't think of anything except Firaxis and the Sid Meier games like Pirates and Civilization, but those are more computer games. Still, if Nintendo did something like that, would you feel that would solve some of the problems related to Nintendo and its not appealing to gamers, not mature, and not appealing to western games arguements?
I can't imagine Nintendo wanting Take-Two - they just don't seem to see the value in the GTA franchise. I think they'd regard it as somehow unsporting to be successful selling games like GTA.
Quote
Also, just out of curiosity, I was wondering what you consider to be Nintendo's best two consoles? Name your first favorite and your second favorite.
I would like Big Jim and Ian to answer but anyone can answer that as well. There is a point to this but I want to wait first for people to respond.
I'm torn between the SNES and the Gamecube. I remember having a lot of fun on the SNES but I'm not sure how much of that is looking back through rose-tinted specs - a lot of the games were hard, unforgiving and repetative whereas on the Cube this is less common. I never had an N64 - couldn't afford one, couldn't afford the games :-(
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on February 10, 2006, 03:40:00 AM
And yes, in retrospect, Ico vs. Zelda was a stupid comparison, scratch that. The fact remains that Sony offers more variety than Nintendo does - Ico just popped in my head for some reason. I'm talking about sheer numbers here, not one really great game (say like Resident Evil, which didn't pan out because of Capcom's idiocy). They may not do Nintendo-style games as well as Nintendo, but the sheer numbers seem to offset that. One RRBG, like ResEvil, doesn't seem to work for them.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 10, 2006, 06:35:56 AM
SNES is by far number one. Best system ever. Number 2 would be the N64 because due to having anti-videogame parents I never owned an NES so I didn't get to play it as much as a wanted and today I find a lot of the top NES games to be a little dated. The N64 had lousy third party support but the first party games were pretty much the best games of all time so that balanced things out a lot.
Nintendo buying Take-Two wouldn't do much I think. GTA is a killer app this last gen but it won't be next gen. That's how killer apps work. They can remain big sellers but the games that really sell consoles are always new or they're a major revision of an old franchise to that point that they're new again (like Super Mario 64). That was a problem with Resident Evil. Was RE a good catch? Sure was. But it wasn't something that should be relied upon to be a killer app. RE was a killer app on the Playstation. If I own a Playstation I don't NEED a Cube to have that RE experience. Sure I might miss out on some games but I'm not missing out on a whole experience. With the Cube it's like Nintendo noticed that Mario and Zelda sold N64s and they assumed that that meant franchises sell consoles. WRONG. Those games sold N64s because of the new experience they provided. So Nintendo's "who are you?" campaign was a flop because few buy a new console to play the stuff they already played last gen. Sure there were new games on the Cube like Pikmin and Metroid Prime but Nintendo didn't push that in their marketing. All they focused on was the franchises so everyone thought it was just the same old same old.
The most important thing for a console is variety. The "winner" is always the one with the most variety. NES, SNES, PS, PS2. The bottom feeder consoles are the ones with the least variety. Nintendo should always be looking at their lineup and asking what's missing in a big way and then trying to address that. And variety means genres and styles. So no more "90% of our games look like Sesame Street" or "every second game is a Mario Party or Mario sports title".
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 10, 2006, 07:14:24 AM
Killer Apps:
Super Mario Brothers: Yes this fits your defination.
Super Mario Brothers 3: This boardline fits your defination. Lots of new game mechanics added, but still the same game.
Super Mario World: Nothing new but a fantastic game.
Super Mario 64: Yes this fits your defination completely.
Zelda:
The Legend of Zelda: Fits your defination.
Link to The Past: Does fit your defination it is just a really great enhancement.
Final Fantasy series
Final Fantasy 7: Really doesn't fit your defination, just had higher production values.
Grand Theft Auto Series:
Grand Theft Auto 3 fits your defination but...
San Andres doesn't.
Halo Series: Neither fits your defination. Both were just first person shooters.
Goldeneye: Kinda fits. The First console FPS that really pushed the limits closer to computer FPS.
Smash Brothers: The first fits, but was never a killer App
Melee doesn't fit and was a killer app.
I could go on, but I think I made my point.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 10, 2006, 07:50:15 AM
Stuff like Super Mario Bros 3 and San Andreas don't count because they're not the game that really pushed things. Super Mario Bros and GTA3 were the original killer apps. People who bought a console for those other sequels were really buying the system for the series in general which was overall new.
I think being perceived as new is a key factor as well. I don't think Halo is new but it is a new franchise and it introduced a very PC-style game to the console games. For someone who hasn't played PC first person shooters it was new (Goldeneye came before but plays different then a PC FPS). FF VII really wasn't that new but the production values at the time were unique. DKC is a like another Mario game but the graphics style was unique and different.
Everyone is going to have slightly different opinions on what game is a killer app for what console. What games I consider killer apps all fall into my rules. In general though my point makes sense in that you can't just say "hey look we've got this major franchise you all bought last gen" and rely on that to sell consoles. Having something unique and marketing it well is going to have a better chance of catching on.
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 10, 2006, 12:00:16 PM
I look back and remember games that were exclusive that everyone enjoyed or wanted to play as Killer Apps. They may not have initially pushed the system, but their presence on the system definately helped secure the system.
And Sonic might of had more media and press, but it never really changed the market any.
I also consider the big sequels Killer apps, because IF they were released on another system the buzz would have been so large, it would have created huge buying power for the other system. So keeping the sequel exclusive for your system is important.
Look at Perfect Dark Zero. It didn't matter if it was good or bad. The fact that Nintendo lost the game, and Microsoft picked it up for Xbox 360 was huge and drew alot of attention. Now, everyone knows it was more hype than a great experience...but the initial hype helped create a semi killer app for Xbox 360.
Speaking of 360, when are they going to get their first killer app? So far there is no need to own a Xbox 360.
Post by: antman100 on February 11, 2006, 05:30:41 PM
From a marketing standpoint, the Blue/Red Ocean paradigm has been around for a couple years now. A lot of companies are using it to justify branching out into new areas, or removing themselves from others. My company is also using this strategy to develop a new division. As an employee, I'm intrigued by the concept. But as a stockholder, I also a little worried. The Blue Ocean theory only works if it is something that the consumer WANTS or there is a real market for. You have to hope the 'higher-ups' know what the hell they are doing.
Did the RevMote re-define gaming? We're all going to have answer that question, but not for a couple years. Just because Nintendo says this is a Blue Ocean does not make it so. The Revolution could be the Bermuda Triangle (to stretch an analogy). I wish I could say I was more optimistic. I have a feeling I will wait 6 months or for the first price drop to decide if I should get the Revo.
Always look for the Blue Ocean, but don't be afraid to mix it up in the Red. Anyway, I thought this was supposed to be the AND console.
Post by: animecyberrat on February 12, 2006, 02:03:13 PM
And Nintendo didnt win the SNES era, they and Sega pretty much tied, unless you count neo geo and turbo Graphx they were on sale those same years and they both pretty much flopped.
GTA adn FF have pretty much lost hier luster as far as gamers are concernd and proably wont matter much next gen at all. Same think happened to Sonic, his games deteriorated in quality adn his fanbase started to shrink so I think Sonic is going to have to make major changes before people will notice it again.
Mario is iffy, way back when Super Mario Bros was THE game to get a NES for, then when SNES came out it had to compete with SMB3 for attention, I distinctly remeber holding off on getting a SNES BECAUSE we just got SMB3 and it offered very similar mechanics to SMW. I remeber playing SMW at my frinds ouse and wanting a SNES but SMB3 was more than enough to distract me for a long time, and by teh time my parents were willing to invest ina enw systems Sonic came out and won us over so we skipped SNEs for Genesis, and I was a BIG TIME Nintendo fan at that time so to jump ship for Sonic was a big deal but sinced SMB3 satisfied me for Mario and Sonic overshadoed SMW at the time I was pretty well off. It wasnt untill after N64 came out that I had found enough games on SNES that WERENT on Genesis to get me to buy the system.
When Saturn and PS came out I skipped both cuz N64 just looked better and i had too much invested in Genesis to replace it with Saturn and my SNES was a bargain purchase so N64 wasa no brainer for me. but that chanegd a year latter when FF7 came along, seing how much I enjoyed FF3 so much and how cool the commercial was I just HAD to have that game so I abadnoned my 64 for PS. I did keep my 64 and eventualy got more games for it than PS since FF7 and 8 were basicaly the only games I liked on it.
BUt Game Cubne has been so different. I originaly was expecting it to sell because of the franchises, all my friends owned N64s for Smash Bros and Zelda so i natrualy expected them to get GCs for teh same games, liek I did, but when the time came they were split, most went with PS2 becauuse of DVD and games like GTA3 and Ratchet and Clank. It wasnt until after having them over playing Mario Party 4 and SSBM one nite did I convicne them to give GC a chance, but by then it was too late they all told me they were sick of playing the same old crap and wanted something new, and thast what PS2 offerd.
Now for the REv it is looking like theres a REALLY BIG chance Nintendo can pull it off since they are goiong for something new and original plus they are offering old favorites that many people will want to revisit.
I am willing to wager money that the REV will not only fair better this coming Gen but I actualy expect it to totaly blow the others away, and I honestly do realisticaly think that theres a chance eitehr SOny or MS will fold as a result. BUT it all ways has and always will depend on the GAMES. Nintendo didnt do so well tios gen because of the games but next Gen if they fix some mistakes they should be ok. I also knwo a lot more people who are interested in the rev right now way more than PS3 just because they are growing tired of the same old stuff and ps3 is just more of the same.
Post by: darknight06 on February 13, 2006, 07:04:00 AM
Post by: trip1eX on February 13, 2006, 12:53:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: animecyberrat
It wasnt until after having them over playing Mario Party 4 and SSBM one nite did I convicne them to give GC a chance, but by then it was too late they all told me they were sick of playing the same old crap and wanted something new, and thast what PS2 offerd.
Now for the REv it is looking like theres a REALLY BIG chance Nintendo can pull it off since they are goiong for something new and original plus they are offering old favorites that many people will want to revisit.
I think you have a good point there. The Rev this time will be offering something new in the controller. Hopefully Nintendo will put their gameplay talents to work on a couple of new 1st party titles that aren't over the top cute.
I still expect the 360/PS3 to do well. The DS is doing great, but still at least in NA the PSP is doing good too. The PSP looks kewler and has other media functions. This really seem to be much like the Rev vs PS3/360 comparison. Plus unlike the PSP the PS3/360 are 3rd and 2nd generation products. They already have a market.
Post by: Galford on February 13, 2006, 07:26:30 PM
Let me translate:
Nintendo doesn't want to spend the money to compete with Sony or MS. So instead of spending billions of dollars trying to compete, Nintendo is trying to change the rules of engagement. It will be interesting to see what happens...
Post by: Kairon on February 14, 2006, 12:43:10 AM
~Carmine Red
Post by: Ceric on February 14, 2006, 04:39:18 AM
In the end for Microsoft some of what we see and scratch are heads about is just a play to get more usage of there other products that make them more. Nintendo on the other hand doesn't have anything like that. They are a game company. Now I do have a question to pose though. Does anybody know if Nintendo glasses are actually made by Nintendo?
The glasses never use any of the characters and always have the official logo on them. So why would you pay for the licensing if you didn't use it? I have a sneaking suspicion that Nintendo has another side that is never saw.
Post by: animecyberrat on February 14, 2006, 05:32:32 AM
Thast why nobody bothers, cuz all Nintendo gets for liscneses is wallets and lolypops, they never get action figures or comic books, thinsg that would seriously affect thei rimage and give them plenty of tie in marketing and exposure.
I havea friend who works for Hasbro and they have tried in the past to get Nintendo liscense for toys, back when they were still cool, and Nintendo said no because THEY make thier own toys, but in truth they never do.
They are a really stubborn company like that. Same dal with comic books, thast why they starte dthe Pokemon company, to handle the pokemon stuff so theyd didn't have to liscense it out.
They like to control thier products its thier Quality COntrol bit, which they dont brag about as much anymore, if you'll notice the OFFICAL NINTENDO SEAL OF QUALITY has been shrunken down in size, placed n the back instead of prominatly displaye don the front and now simpley reads OFFICAL NINTENDO SEAL. Its liek they are embaressed of themselves.
Post by: Galford on February 14, 2006, 03:15:05 PM
I wouldn't want to out spend MS, but I would spend enough money to keep them at bay. Nintendo still has enough, brand-name/clout/money to do that. It just seems that Nintendo is painting itself into a corner. That is never good.
Post by: King of Twitch on February 14, 2006, 03:47:49 PM
In HS I made a ceramic whistle for art class in the likeness of Boo, but I couldn't get it to whistle, so it turned out to be just a ceramic Boo. If I ever started a business I would make a bunch of them, only I would make them real whistles. what was this thread about
Post by: Kairon on February 14, 2006, 03:58:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
To Karion...
I wouldn't want to out spend MS, but I would spend enough money to keep them at bay. Nintendo still has enough, brand-name/clout/money to do that. It just seems that Nintendo is painting itself into a corner. That is never good.
That's strange. I was under the notion that Nintendo was ALREADY in a corner. Decline in user base from N64 to Gamecube, loss of relevance to present pop and gaming culture, relying more and more on items branded with Mario and Pikachu instead of core games from those series to maintain a mindshare, successful competitors with immense resources and know-how from BOTH major markets, and a game market that's mutating faster and faster in terms of technology, culture, demographics, content and intent.
Gamecube 2 would've painted Nintendo into a corner. The Revolution, in contrast, is Nintendo embracing the mutating games market and attempting to escape old viewpoints on gaming.
Besides, with Microsoft out for blood, I doubt you could "keep them at bay." Look at apple, netscape, oracle, etc.
~Carmine M. Red
Post by: couchmonkey on February 15, 2006, 06:21:39 AM
I think Nintendo could compete with MS and Sony on their terms, but I'm starting to agree with Kairon more and more that that is a losing strategy. Nintendo does have a huge selection of franchises and a good brand name, but when it comes to capturing the third party support it needs and changing it's image, Nintendo is not in a good position. I honestly believe it would take billions of dollars in marketing and bribes for third party exclusive for Nintendo to reverse its position.
I also feel Nintendo's new strategy has more long-term viability. A lot of people believe the next-generation leap we've seen with Xbox 360 is not that impressive. Even if you think the Xbox 360 is worth buying, imagine what the Xbox 720 is going to look like. There's really not that much room left for improvement, the only reason to buy new consoles in the generation after this one will be that Sony and MS aren't making games for the PS3 or Xbox 360 anymore. Unless you buy Nintendo - because it will be offering new gaming features with it's next-next console, just as it is with the Revolution.
Post by: trip1eX on February 15, 2006, 07:02:28 AM
But they are the only console maker that only does games and the only one that also makes it's own games. They are run by gamers. And that's the card they are playing with the REv and their new controller. That's the card they have to play.
GAmes are about interactivity not graphics. And that's the bet Nintendo is making. AT the same time they know it's going to be tough to go after the same demographics as their competitors and so they are going to reach out and try to bring in other people to the party also.
Post by: animecyberrat on February 15, 2006, 08:13:57 AM
I still think that Nintendo has shown more cards in the fight against MS than anything recently, what made Xbxo so friggin popular was it had the ebst 1st person shooter lineup and the best online plan, Nintendo is takign BOTH of those away form Microsoft and I think very sincerley that those two things right there combined with all the normal things they have like thier franchises and brand name will work alot in dismissing 360.
What they aren't doing is taking Sony seriusly. But again Even Sony hasnt really done much to atttract new people and are depending entirely on brand recognition, which lets face it in Video games, thats never been enough.
I think that theres a couple descisive things Nintendo could still do to stop the 360 from really taking off, and the first is to make damn sure that MP3 is thier flagship game to counter Halo, if its online, and fully uses the Revmote Nunchuk combo to its fullest that will go a long way to convincing 1st Person shooter fans, even Halo fans, that Rev is better. If they also get it to market close to Halo 3 release date they are going to have an easier time fighitng it off. They should be first of course but only by a wekk or two at most. Unelss MS screws up and delays that game too much and it loses relavence.
Alll they have left to do is to offer some key games to combat the best of PS line up, they didnt really focus too much this gen on Sony so Next Gen they need to take them more seriously (next gen being Rev)
First I know its not going to be enough to have a clone or siliar type game but it coudl go a long way to have a Gran Turismo type game, a realistic racer with liscensed cars and all the bells and whistles GT has, but add some Nintendo flavor, kind of like Crusin USA did for arcade racers.
They also need to realise that mario isnt their only platformer and they need to get some decent Kirby, DK, and possible some older games liek Ice CLimbers or Kid Icarus to make a come back, to sorta provide a little more variety.
Sunshune was a good game in its own righst and Wario World was crap all around, but Sony attracted mroe peoel with thier big ones liek Ratchet and Clank and Jak and Dexter. Nintendo needs to accept the reality that those games are good and a lot of people will want them. Instead of relying on Sega to make SOnic fill in the gaps cuz we all knwo how well that turned out.
Anyways sorry for a nother long post but I really have been getting a lot more excited for the Rev and I keep thinking of so many things that could be done to make it the best game system ever.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 15, 2006, 08:23:33 AM
So I think the best way for Nintendo to attract third party support and increase market share is to shapen up and stop being so stupid. Nintendo doesn't know how to market their games. They don't know how to treat third parties fairly. They don't understand how important it is to provide options for boths devs and gamers. They don't understand the importance of providing variety. The winning strategy is not "every game for everyone" it's "everyone can find a game they'll enjoy". They don't even know how to do routine things like distribute demo discs. They always try to take advantage of everyone: higher licencing fees, memory cards that are 1/16 the size of the competion but cost the same, Player's Choice titles that $10 higher than the competition's. These aren't hard concepts to grasp and Nintendo's sheer stubborness is the main reason why they don't get it. They need to put themselves in the shoes of gamers and developers. What do I want out of a console? What do I want to have available for me if I want to make a game for this console? People don't want compromises and excuses and that's all Nintendo ever gives them.
Nintendo HAS an advantage over Sony and MS. They make better games then anyone. But this advantage is completely nullified because they screw up everything else. It's not a hard formula. Take the competition's good ideas and either provide the same thing or improve on them. Avoid the mistakes the competition makes or mistakes you've made in the past. Exploit the competition's weaknesses, focus on your strengths. If Nintendo levels the playing field by matching features and options for both third parties and gamers then they can provide something BETTER because they can provide the same things but with BETTER GAMES. They would give themselves the advantage. Instead Nintendo is always making tradeoffs. With Nintendo it's always "they have this BUT..." and that just kills the whole thing.
Nintendo can say that they can't compete or whatever if they do this first with decent marketing and for whatever reason it doesn't work. But until then I'll never be convinced they can't compete because they're never really tried.
The Rev isn't a solution because it doesn't address ANY of Nintendo's problems. The same stupid sh!t is going to be there. The Rev's unique features are just another typical Nintendo tradeoff. "Yeah Nintendo has this remote thing BUT..." It might do better depending on what games get made but it isn't the solution to Nintendo's overall problems.
Post by: couchmonkey on February 16, 2006, 05:48:40 AM
Marketing? Yes, this is a problem, but it's not as easy to fix as everyone thinks. Honestly, if all it took was putting a bunch of game footage in the commercial, how come PSP is outselling DS in North America? Portable cheese doesn't sound like a big selling point to me. I think for Nintendo to turn marketing (and its image in general) around, it needs to put more into advertising than the competition does and it needs to somehow acquire a bunch of games that are "cool". The only semi-cool games Nintendo released last year were Fire Emblem and Geist, and Geist was not considered very good. I do think Nintendo could improve on it's marketing a little, but it's not enough to change the style of the commercials - you need products people want in the first place (Boring Shooter 2 and Random Violence: Big American City Name) and you need to advertise a lot.
I really believe stronger third party support and a complete and utter marketing blitz were the main things Nintendo needed to overtake the competition this generation. If nobody cares about the games then big memory cards and demo discs mean nothing.
Post by: Ceric on February 16, 2006, 06:05:54 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on February 16, 2006, 08:53:14 AM
Post by: Ceric on February 16, 2006, 09:08:13 AM
Why I'm ranting people complain about the GCN being RPG deprived. The X-Box was too. In fact every system but the GBA, DS, and PS2 have been pretty deprived of this category lately.
Post by: IceCold on February 17, 2006, 12:26:20 PM
You could say that a "mistake" Nintendo made was to release a realistic Zelda first instead of Wind Waker. That would definitely have sold more GameCubes, but I don't really consider that a mistake (at least for me) since Wind Waker was a great game..
Post by: Ian Sane on February 17, 2006, 01:47:18 PM
What does it matter if Wind Waker ended up existing anyway? It would still be a great game and we would all still get to play it, just Nintendo would have sold more consoles. The real mistake though was showing completely different looking Zelda footage at Spaceworld and then "switching it". I don't care if the tech demos weren't supposed to represent real titles, they should have realized how deceiving that stunt was.
Of course you can say that few really even knew about that just like few knew about all the small things Nintendo screwed up. Marketing is important but it's only useful to sell to rubes you don't know better. Gamers who actually know their sh!t and follow gaming news wrote the Gamecube off as well. Outside of the Nintendo fanbase nobody really saw the Cube as something beyond just a way to play the Nintendo games that aren't available on the other consoles. The idea of it being their only console never crossed their mind. That's who I think Nintendo really has to win over. If hardcore gamers don't even take you seriously then casuals definately won't. Nintendo's never going to do much better if EGM or IGN still rag on them. Or if a store clerk who actually is unbiased is honestly explaining the different systems and finds he has to say "yeah, but..." more times for Nintendo's system then the other ones. I think the only person who should have a negative opinion about a Nintendo console should be an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Their FANS definately shouldn't be annoyed as much as they are.
Marketing is really important but I don't think it would help Nintendo if once the people they attracted with their ads went to the store, asked about the Rev, and had a whole bunch of "well it can't do this" shoved in their face. Marketing doesn't stop someone from buying a console and then being unsatisfied with it and trading it in. Marketing isn't going to keep people who were disappointed with their purchase buying the next Nintendo console. Marketing is important but Nintendo should make sure they have the best product they can as well. I personally feel kind of ripped off by the way Nintendo compromises my console of choice and denies me features. Case in point I'm a Nintendo fan and have been for years but I'm very cautious about the Rev and probably won't buy one at launch because I want to wait and see. It's not good for Nintendo for me to have that attitude. I should be eagerly awaiting Rev launch day.
If you have good marketing but don't deliver on the product then essentially you're conning people and you're not going to last long doing that.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 17, 2006, 03:44:48 PM
That would be a small case where Nintendo helped out 3rd parties by providing definitive exposure of a game to gaming press AND the public.
Post by: Ceric on February 18, 2006, 03:22:54 AM
It had a great battle system.
Very nice looking graphics. (Quiet enjoyed them)
This would win peopile over to play it who where wait and see UNTIL...
You had to break to them the fact that you never get to use the battle system.
Rarely see the cool graphics BECAUSE...
Most of the time you were on the ocean.
Even after you learn to warp. They make you explore the whole ocean for Triforce.
I get the point of having the ocean but it does not make me hate it any less for ruining what should have been a good game.
Post by: trip1eX on February 18, 2006, 04:55:36 AM
The triforce hunt actually turned out easy for me. At first I thought man this is going to suck. But YOu had clues to where almost every piece was. And then I had most of them I still said dam I don't where the hell that ghost ship is. But then suddenly it appeared and I didn't have to hunt for it.
The biggest problem I had was locating the little 'leaf' guy under the waterfall and the girl in the 'bird-person' mountain in order to get something (a code or .....I forgot what?) to enter a couple of dungeons and continue with the rest of the story. I guess I wasn't paying attention and had too much of a break (a week or so) in between picking up the game.
Post by: IceCold on February 18, 2006, 12:02:04 PM
Post by: Khushrenada on February 19, 2006, 08:54:17 PM
The first Nintendo system I ever had was the SNES (which, I agree with Ian, was the best system ever released). My dad bought it for my brother and I but he also played with us. The system came with Super Mario World and so that is what we played. I remember it took us forever to learn the controls. Anyways, we played it at that game for a long time. It was always a huge celebration for us when we beat a koopa kid and moved on to a new level. In fact, even my mom gave it a try. She would only play one level for some reason but she tried it out. Anyways, when we finally reached Bowser, my dad started to lose interest, though he still tried to beat Bowser. Finally, one evening, I was able to beat Bowser. Everyone gathered around to see the end of the game. After that, my dad stopped playing. We'd ask him all the time to join but he wouldn't. My mom had long stopped playing her one level. Point of all this being that I was the better Nintendo player compared to my brother. When we rented games, I'd be the one to beat the big bosses and such. The only game he always beat me at was Mario Kart.
That changed when we rented Mario World 2. We'd switch back and forth as we fought Baby Bowser and finally my brother beat him. It was the first time he beat a game. Although, I'd still usually be the one to finish games, it marked the start of his ascendancy over me. Anyways, after some time, we finally bought a 64. It was around the time that Donkey Kong 64 had come out. And once again, we had to sort of learn how to use the controller again. Eventually, we got the hang of it but my brother seemed to get it better than I did. He was the one who now beat all the games. He beat Mario 64, Mario Kart, Mario Golf, Paper Mario, StarFox, etc. In fact the only game I ever seemed to beat for the 64 was DK64 but namely because he didn't really play it much or seem that interested in it. After awhile, I got kind of bored with the system. I'd still play games like Mario Party or Kart but didn't play as much as my brother. He'd rent games and I'd watch him play for a bit then go do something else. Maybe it was partly that he was a better player then me that led to my playing less but I think it was also the fact that it was a hard system to play.
Anyways, when the GameCube came out, I was still interested enough to play it. We'd started watching X-Play on TechTv and they review all the new games coming out for the Cube and we were just amazed at the graphics. We saved enough to buy one in January or Febuary 2002 and bought Rogue Leader. My brother loved the game for the 64 (I could never get the controls) and we always liked the graphics (which show they can help sell). It started out the same with my brother doing well at the game while I was having trouble flying. But after awhile, I finally figured it out and got going. It sounds wierd but something just clicked in my head and I just got the control scheme easy. I remember thinking to myself many times that this was the best controller Nintendo ever made. It just seemed so perfectly designed compared to the 64. My brother and I were racing one another to complete the game first and get all the Gold medals and I beat him. It was the first time I'd beat a game before him in years. And it was Rogue Squadron as well. Then Mario Sunshine came out and again we both competed to finish it first. Once again, I beat him to it. This time he didn't even finish the game. In fact he's never finished it 100%. Now, he's the one who's become disinterested in games. The only games he plays with me are Mario Kart DD (and he still beats me all the time) or Mario Party. Now and then, he'll play a new game I buy for awhile but his interest will burn out. He's more interested in doing things on his computer. Sometimes he says video games are a waste of time.
One final thing is with the DS. I bought one that was bundled with Mario 64 and played that and loved it. Even though I had a hard time with Mario 64, I still loved the game and wanted it. It was the first time I ever completed the game 100% percent. Also, even though swinging Bowser could be awkward, I finally got a good grasp of how to aim when fighting him. As a result, I was inspired to replay the 64 and I finally finished the game 100%. Also, thanks to the DS and the Gamecube, I had much better ability to use the controller than before. As a result, I've been inspired to play all my 64 and beat them. I've been surprised at how well now I'm able to use the controller. Unfortunatly, the graphics just don't look that good anymore and can make it hard for me to really get into playing some games, especially compared to the Gamecube. (F-Zero X).
So let me end my long story by saying that Nintendo may have something with creating a new type of controller. A complicated controller makes it hard for people to keep playing games. Also, if it's easy to understand, there's a good chance it will get people to keep playing games and may attract back people who have stopped playing games. Also, a system that does appeal to casual gamers might be for the best. Ian mentioned the SNES as appealing to casual gamers and from my experience I agree. We also both feel that the SNES was the best system as well. Finally, graphics do sell. If the DS graphics looked like the N64, I don't think the system would be selling as much as it has. It really does put the 64 to shame. Even if the Rev doesn't have the best graphics, as long as it doesn't look like the 64 compared to the DS, it should be fine and still appeal.
OK, I'm done.
Post by: Khushrenada on February 19, 2006, 08:55:23 PM
Post by: IceCold on February 20, 2006, 01:20:42 PM
My favourite system is a split between the GameCube and the SNES. I know that the Super Mario Bros NES was the first game I ever played, and for sentimental reasons the best one, and that the N64 was a pioneer in 3D games and the home of some of the best ones ever, but I don't know, I love my SNES and GCN. I think it's because by the time both of them came over, I was used to 2D and 3D control respectively. So I appreciated the games more, and it helped that so many amazing games were released on the systems.
Post by: animecyberrat on February 21, 2006, 04:32:22 AM
When N64 came out I wa impressed at first with Mario but thenI lost inetrest and sold it. It took a long time for me to go back and try again and when i did I still foudn the system boring. It had a few good games a some decent games but nothing really spectacular. Zelda OOT was oneof the few good ones, but it wasnt as good for me as the other Zeldas. I never finished it though and everytime i rty to go back I get bored with it.
I love the Mario PArties and the MK games for it, those kicked ass MK trilogy still is one of my favorites and MK 4 is almost as good as MK gold.
BUt I was mostly disapinted with N64, I didnt like Perfect Dark, DK64, Diddy racing, Mario kart 64, Star Fox 64, KI Gold, Jet Force Gemeni, conkers, Zelda MM, and ost of the 3rd party stuff eihet. What I did like was Mario 64, Zelda OOT, MKT, MK Gold, Bomberman 64, Mega Man 64, Crusin USA, Dooom ,Quake, and that was mostly it.
Alot of it was the controls were too hard to figure out but some of it was that teh games jsut werent as fun for me. When GC came out I was just finaly warming up enough to 64 that I wasnt ready to swicthed over just yet, but when i played MK Deadly alliance and Star Fox adventures I was sold.
GC has been far mroe satisfying than 64 but its been some what disapointing also seeing so many games I wanted to play not make it to the system and seeing so many I wanted to like turn out to suck.
All in all GC has a more nastalgia feel to it than 64 did andit actauly has fun games.
Post by: couchmonkey on February 21, 2006, 05:28:59 AM
But I loved all of Nintendo's systems, and I have to admit, N64's lack of third party support was a big problem.
Oh yeah, Wind Waker: I agree with IceCold, North American gamers want "mature" titles, and Zelda was Nintendo's "mature" game during the N64 era (along with Goldeneye/Perfect Dark). It's not gorey or filled with guns, but it doesn't look like it's made for 8 year olds either. Looking at my friends, they definitely want this type of game, even some of the girls find Nintendo's popular games too cutesy for them. Of course that preconception is silly, Mario is awesome, etc. etc. but you can't tell the audience what it wants. I think the audience would have eaten Wind Waker up if it had looked like Twighlight Princess. This probably wouldn't have totally changed the outcome of the current gen, but it might have put Nintendo in a tie with Microsoft in North America.
