Post by: wandering on October 15, 2006, 02:53:11 PM
Quote
Like the old friend with the drinking problem, Nintendo is quick to fess up to old faults. "Yes, we really screwed up using cartridge format on N64. Yes, we did not support GameCube the way we said we would. Yes, we have been hard on third-party publishers in the past. Virtual Boy... oh, what were we thinking?"
And, like the old friend with the drinking problem, Nintendo bows its head after making these confessions and says, "We've learned our lesson."
And maybe Nintendo has learned its lesson. Maybe Nintendo has only learned the right things to say. The jury is out.
The guy obviously knows what he's talking about....but I think, like Billy, he's being a bit sensationalistic here. Not with what I quoted above, actually, (I'm fine with that), but with some of the other stuff he says. I've never felt 'scammed' by Nintendo (except maybe with the Virtual Boy.) I also find it hard to believe Nintendo would start to "run out of new ideas six months down the line." And as for complaining about Nintendo making a profit on the "souped up gamecube" hardware...bleh.
He does make some good points, though. Like about blu-ray, and who he thinks will win the holiday season. He also mentions Mario Galaxy was his favorite game at E3. So, worth a read.
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on October 15, 2006, 03:35:27 PM
Post by: BigJim on October 15, 2006, 03:40:58 PM
"Scammed" is a harsh word. I absolutely felt like I got my money's worth out of every system, for sure. (never got a VB so I can't say anything there.) There was some bait and switch, particularly with GCN, which I'll agree with him on. I don't think we'll know for sure, but I wonder if it really had anything to do with the changing of the guard. Things just started going in a different direction when Iwata took over. Their platforms, GBA/GCN, sorta took a hit while they re-wrote their agenda for DS and Wii.
Once the Wii is out, we'll see the "new" Nintendo running on all 4 cylinders. People will either love it or crave for more traditional wares.
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 15, 2006, 04:02:56 PM
Quote
First a no-brainer--Microsoft will womp everyone this Christmas.
Perhaps, but I really think the Wii has a huge chance. Maybe not though. Let's see why:
Quote
Why is this a no-brainer? Look, Sony and Nintendo are going to come to market with a few hundred thousand consoles to sell.
Oh...
Also:
Quote
Nintendo expects you to spend $249 instead of $199 or possibly $149 to buy a Wii because that game is packed into the box.
The DS COST $149 when it released, and no one complained. If any of you at any time thought that it would launch at that low price is an idiot. Any one who complains about it not selling that low is an idiot. BLEH, IDIASDM
Quote
My biggest problem with PlayStation 3 is not the $600 price, which is frankly more reasonable than the $250 Nintendo is charging for Wii, when you consider what you get for your money.
Time to stop reading!
Post by: UncleBob on October 15, 2006, 04:22:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothingQuote
First a no-brainer--Microsoft will womp everyone this Christmas.
Perhaps, but I really think the Wii has a huge chance. Maybe not though. Let's see why:
PS2 will win (Console wise...)
Post by: Galford on October 15, 2006, 04:23:36 PM
I guess I agree with that article completely.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on October 15, 2006, 04:29:22 PM
He makes some good points, but falls badly on others. I mean, the comment about how 600 dollars for the PS3 is reasonable is stupid. What exactly do you get that warrants the 600 dollar price point?
A high end gaming console? The 360 is 300 dollars and 400 dollars, and most of the PS3 launch titles I can get on the 360.
A Blu-ray player? Even HE admits it will flop.
A "computer"? I'm sorry, I can get computers for CHEAP, and chances are they will be able to do more than the PS3.
He is definitely missing a lot of points.
Post by: Mario on October 15, 2006, 05:03:13 PM
EDIT: Ok he DOES Make dumb points.
Quote
"My biggest problem with PlayStation 3 is not the $600 price, which is frankly more reasonable than the $250 Nintendo is charging for Wii, when you consider what you get for your money.
LOL. Considering what you get? People don't factor in the price of the chips and wires and electrical bits when deciding value, they factor in THE EXPERIENCE.
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 15, 2006, 05:46:51 PM
If Nintendo sold that many Wiis I would say Nintendo will have cut Microsofts lead in overall market close to half, even with upcoming Christmas sales...and I actually believe my above figures could be under-estimates than over estimates.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 15, 2006, 05:50:32 PM
Post by: wandering on October 15, 2006, 06:15:31 PM
Quote
What a non-article. It's not that he makes good or bad points, is that he has NO main point. Or does he? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Let's see. Or should we? No.
His main point is that he thinks the Xbox 360 will win the console war (or at least the 2006 holiday season war) because the Xbox has a head-start, while Sony has blu-ray and Nintendo has a bad history.
The problem with his commentary on the Wii is that he starts with a good premise - the Wii might not do well because the N64 and GameCube didn't - but then backs it up with bullcrap points. I will cut him some slack because I think every writer does this from time to time. Hell, I did it when I backed up my point about him having some good points by pointing out that his point about which console would win this holiday season was a good point. point.
Post by: IceCold on October 15, 2006, 06:16:48 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 15, 2006, 06:19:17 PM
I've read worse. Understandably, there are cynical, traditional, tech-centric, hardcore gamers out there who view Nintendo with skepticism because Nintendo refuses to play ball with their edgy, expensive, and bleeding-edge worldview.
This is not a bad thing, per se. Their views are understandable and rational. All they lack is a taste for kool-aid and a little faith.
I wonder if there were people like this when Apple revealed the iMac?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 15, 2006, 06:36:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon I wonder if there were people like this when Apple revealed the iMac?
If I recall correctly, both the iMac and iPod were met with immense skepticism.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 15, 2006, 07:02:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BiLdItUp1
Fact is, Sony has long offered more value and variety, and as we've seen with nearly every console ever, that's the key issue here. That's why we were 'scammed' with the 64 - lack of variety and massive game draughts that neither Sony nor Microsoft ever really handed to us. The chronic delays and broken promises, years later, I'm used to. Most consumers would not put up with that crap though - they need to tighten the ship if they hope to expand.
Perhaps I'm wrong here but I recall a massive drought of games for PS2 at launch (well of GOOD games) and quite a few months into its existance. In regards to article, I really hate the value argument because value can be derived from more than the cost of what is in something but what you get out of it, with gaming it would be the experiences you get. I kind of think of it in the terms of movies, let's say you get two movies with equal budgets, and they both cost 9$ to see them, one is a terrible experience the other is amazing, would you say you say the bad one is of equal value to the great one? If you use the logic that value is derived from what the cost of the product was to produce and the materials used, then you would have to say you got equal value.
Post by: Mario on October 15, 2006, 07:05:47 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 15, 2006, 07:21:22 PM
Post by: Ceric on October 15, 2006, 07:35:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
Nintendo fessed up to those N64 and GCN problems? I would have liked to have seen that... It would have given me much more confident knowing they had recognized their old issues.
"Scammed" is a harsh word. I absolutely felt like I got my money's worth out of every system, for sure. (never got a VB so I can't say anything there.) There was some bait and switch, particularly with GCN, which I'll agree with him on. I don't think we'll know for sure, but I wonder if it really had anything to do with the changing of the guard. Things just started going in a different direction when Iwata took over. Their platforms, GBA/GCN, sorta took a hit while they re-wrote their agenda for DS and Wii.
Once the Wii is out, we'll see the "new" Nintendo running on all 4 cylinders. People will either love it or crave for more traditional wares.
I wanted to come to the VB defense right away. I'll finish the topic in a bit. To its credit. I enjoyed a larger percentage of games on the VB then anyother console period. Grant it there wasn't that many games and I played almost all of them. Hated the Ergonomics but loved the Games. Thats why I would love to see the VB games on the VC. Even if they weren't there cool stereotopic selfs.
Edit:
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothingQuote
First a no-brainer--Microsoft will womp everyone this Christmas.
Perhaps, but I really think the Wii has a huge chance. Maybe not though. Let's see why:Quote
Why is this a no-brainer? Look, Sony and Nintendo are going to come to market with a few hundred thousand consoles to sell.
Oh...
Wow, has this guy been living under a rock. Nintendo has plan for a Million here. They state as much.
Also:Quote
Nintendo expects you to spend $249 instead of $199 or possibly $149 to buy a Wii because that game is packed into the box.
The DS COST $149 when it released, and no one complained. If any of you at any time thought that it would launch at that low price is an idiot. Any one who complains about it not selling that low is an idiot. BLEH, IDIASDM
lol, if the person was a forum member I point him to how I always pushed for the $249.99 price. Thats a bargain in my mind before we got the channels. With the channels even more so. It cost money to develope unique technology. It doesn't go down in price like Mainstream doesQuote
My biggest problem with PlayStation 3 is not the $600 price, which is frankly more reasonable than the $250 Nintendo is charging for Wii, when you consider what you get for your money.
Time to stop reading!
Agree, but I have to read it first. I bet you he doesn't have Hoover flags and its all thanks to Sony. There is nothing in what I'm looking for in the gaming segment that would warrant me to spend more than $400 for a PS3. At $400 for the Premium Super PS3 then Maybe I could agree with that statement... Maybe...Still unlikely with all the lack of refinement the system has...
NVM. I'm not going to read the article after reading those quotes.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 15, 2006, 09:42:40 PM
Post by: mantidor on October 15, 2006, 10:22:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
What a non-article. It's not that he makes good or bad points, is that he has NO main point. Or does he? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Let's see. Or should we? No.
Its a blog, a.k.a excuse to rant about things that would look unprofessional in a real article.
I do think the wii is not cheap at all, but the ps3 price is ludicrous in any context whatsoever, its ok if you have your issues with the price Nintendo gave but don't try to extend that argument into "the ps3 is cheap", because is just dumb.
Post by: Magik on October 16, 2006, 02:37:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Perhaps I'm wrong here but I recall a massive drought of games for PS2 at launch (well of GOOD games) and quite a few months into its existance.
That may be true, but after that initial drought, the PS2 had a consistent, if not ever increasing supply of games, a lot of good games btw, which the GC never had.
The GC had drought after drought and is currently in its biggest drought of games ever with Resident Evil 4 being the last big title.
As for the article, some good points and some bad points. He needs to fact-check the amount of Wiis available cause its more than a few thousand units.
When it comes to 'value' for money, its all subjective really.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 16, 2006, 02:45:47 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on October 16, 2006, 05:21:35 AM
GameCube drought: It's true that the system is basically dead, but this is a chronic problem for Nintendo since the Super NES days, and the company not only made it worse by pushing back and cancelling games (Super Paper Mario, Zelda, DK Bongo Blast), but it also made the Wii launch date later than it really has to be. It's a very annoying habit of Nintendo's, and if I didn't need every last dollar for Wii, I'd have purchased a PS2 by now.
Xbox 360: It's interesting, I'm seeing a lot of people pushing 360 since Sony started screwing up. I think they're missing the point. They can't believe Wii could be as huge as it is going to be, so they go with the machine that seems to have it the most "together".
The problem is 360 sales aren't even that high so far, and that's not just in Japan. As a recent study quoted by Nintendo suggested, DS has been responsible for almost all of the industry growth in North America this year - or maybe it was worldwide, but either way the point is that 360 is making a very small impression on the industry so far.
Of course, I have to agree that 360 will have the biggest sales this Christmas and it's going to look strong through next year because it has the biggest game lineup, but in the long run I feel more and more like Nintendo is going to run away with this generation.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 16, 2006, 07:09:52 AM
.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 16, 2006, 08:20:09 AM
Subtract the DS and analysts would be arguing that gaming is DYING and it would be hard to counter that point since the numbers are indeed on their side.
Post by: Arbok on October 16, 2006, 08:29:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
My main point though was that PS2 did have a massive drought in the beginning as did Microsoft with Xbox 360, so it isn't fair to say that Sony and MS are immune to the "drought" statement.
That's exactly right. The thing is that the PS2 drought took place when the system's only competition was the Dreamcast, which sadly continued to struggle and then died. By the time the Xbox and Gamecube hit the market, the PS2's games were coming out in a steady stream, so Sony lucked out in the drought happening when it mattered least for them.
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
The problem is 360 sales aren't even that high so far, and that's not just in Japan. As a recent study quoted by Nintendo suggested, DS has been responsible for almost all of the industry growth in North America this year - or maybe it was worldwide, but either way the point is that 360 is making a very small impression on the industry so far.
Yeah, I'm surprised about that as well. I thought the Xbox had grown its market enough that it would be doing pretty well at this stage, but that head start hasn't really paid off at all. I think a lot of people who might fall into the 360 crowd, though, are still waiting for the PS3, and it could possible be seeing the price in person that finally pushes them over.
Post by: couchmonkey on October 16, 2006, 08:51:55 AM
Now, like the PS2, 360 is going to look a lot better this Christmas than it did for the rest of the year. It was a really slow first year if you look at it (again, like the PS2). That may turn things around for Microsoft, and certainly a lot of the "wait and see" crowd will jump on the 360 bandwagon this Christmas. That said, from a publisher's perspective, Xbox 360 still hasn't got the lead to make it a forgone conclusion that most of your games should be ported to 360, as was the case for PS2.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 16, 2006, 09:06:08 AM
Halo 3 might change that, though. We'll see.
Post by: Arbok on October 16, 2006, 09:19:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Halo 3 might change that, though. We'll see.
That's not until November of 2007 at the earliest going by recent reports, which is a ways off versus the launch of the other two.
One thing that people have to consider is that the PS2 had Grand Theft Auto III vs. the launch of the Xbox and Gamecube. That right there pretty much won them the generation. The early launch was important to Sony, but their dominace was also due heavily to a lot of key games hitting right when the other two hit the market.
The 360 has the early head start, but I just don't see a killer lineup to fight off the launch of two systems for it. Like I said, though, a lot of the PS3 crowd will probably jump ship this Christmas, and the 360 will probably cater most to the "GTA" enthusiasts who will leave due to price. So Microsoft really lucked out as they could have been in huge trouble had the PS3 price actually been competitive.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 16, 2006, 09:27:33 AM
Post by: Pittbboi on October 16, 2006, 09:30:34 AM
I don't think that he is directly comparing the two consoles and saying the PS3 is cheap. But he does have a point. Yeah, PS3 is expensive as all hell for a gaming console, but that's not all you're getting. You're getting huge technological advancements since the PS3 is most likely to be the most powerful console of the bunch, and you're getting a blu-ray player, which by itself would cost a few hundred more than the actual PS3 does. Now, granted, blu-ray doesn't seem to be winning over HD-DVD, so eventually that blu-ray player may prove to be quite worthless. However, *right now* it's a very expensive piece of technology to come packed in with the PS3. So with the PS3 you're getting an assload of features that prices the console at a lot more than what people are going to actually be paying for it. $600 is freaking expensive, but NOT if you catalog everything you're getting with it.
The Wii, on the other hand, is priced higher than most people thought it would be considering what it is, and what's their justification for it? WiiSports? Please. I stand by my opinion that, while WiiSports is fun, it is in no way worth the 49.99 they claim it is. And I simply refuse to believe that the wiimote justifies the cost, either. It's a fun, unique controller, but it's not the $60 piece of heaven-sent hardware that people want to believe it is.
I value the Wii at a lot more than I do the PS3, but that's because I love Nintendo and I feel the Wii has a lot more potential than their last two consoles ever did. But, I'm not going to kid myself into buying that "it has to be $249.99" BS. Especially considering how shadily they sprung that on us. They priced it that way because they knew they could. Sony, on the other hand, is selling their console at a loss.
Post by: Arbok on October 16, 2006, 09:50:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Yeah, PS3 is expensive as all hell for a gaming console, but that's not all you're getting.
The same could be said for the PSP. Problem is that the non-gaming elements didn't do much to attract people to then buy games for it, causing for Sony to have good system sales but piss poor game sales which leaves them in an even worse financial situation considering they lose money with the system sales and then aren't making it up with games.
Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
...and you're getting a blu-ray player, which by itself would cost a few hundred more than the actual PS3 does. Now, granted, blu-ray doesn't seem to be winning over HD-DVD, so eventually that blu-ray player may prove to be quite worthless. However, *right now* it's a very expensive piece of technology to come packed in with the PS3. So with the PS3 you're getting an assload of features that prices the console at a lot more than what people are going to actually be paying for it. $600 is freaking expensive, but NOT if you catalog everything you're getting with it.
The question is: who actually thinks a Blu-Ray player is worth $1,000? Better question: who thinks a Blu-Ray player is worth $600? $500? $400?
I just can't fathom people who are banking on one of the formats in the current medium war. Let's break it down: you have two different formats, each with "exclusives" from studios that won't appear on the other, and you expect the consumer to dump DVDs, which will have both, for a format that has larger storage and looks better, only if they have a HD TV? Not even going to mention that the discs themselves cost $10+ more...
Laserdisc failed horribly, but at least everyone could enjoy the improved picture quality without a better TV (and audio if they had the set up) and it had the initial support from most major studios... and even then it failed to take on VHS in every location but Japan (where it was cheaper). There seems to be this mentality that "oh, new format, well one of them has to replace DVD then!" Afraid that's not the case, and history has shown with VHS that you have to have a great offering for most to adpot you over the current choice.
Post by: wandering on October 16, 2006, 09:50:50 AM
Is that really what we're so upset about here? Nintendo making money? Is Nintendo supposed to be a charity? Are we supposed to hate them for getting more money to spend on advertisements to make the console more popular? For getting more money to court third-party developers?
Instead of getting upset about that, maybe we should be grateful Nintendo is a company that actually takes risks, and spends large amounts of money developing unproven technologies...even while most successful companies simply steel others' ideas.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 16, 2006, 10:02:21 AM
How many people bought a PSP for the UMD movies?
Exactly.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 16, 2006, 10:37:22 AM
I do think Kent is being a little overboard on the cost of the Wii. I think it's too expensive but don't think it should be $150. He is right about the PS3 being worth the costs. If you tallied everything up you could explain the $600 price. You couldn't do that with the Wii. Part of the total would involve the "gouge you because we think we can" fee. My problem with the PS3 isn't that it is too expensive for what it is but that it is too fancy for the mass market crowd that made the Playstation popular in the first place. It's worth every penny, it just isn't the product most people want. They're trying to sell a sports car and all we want is a commuter car.
Post by: Arbok on October 16, 2006, 10:39:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
From everything I've heard, most of the heavy-hitting studios are supporting both formats, and HD-DVD players are already on the market and are MUCH cheaper.
HD-DVD:
Universal
Paramount
Warner Bros
Blu-Ray:
Sony Pictures
Paramount
Warner Bros
MGM
Disney
20th Century Fox
In respect to studio support, Blu-Ray has the better offering, but you are still having to pick and choose between the two and it makes both formats less ideal. Even with full studio support behind each I think both would still faulter against DVDs, but it being divided is pretty much suicidal to both new formats.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 16, 2006, 10:51:28 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 16, 2006, 10:52:53 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on October 16, 2006, 11:00:57 AM
1. On pricing: The problem is Kent is looking at it from the perspective of manufacturing cost vs. retail price. Consumers don't normally ask how much the product cost to make in the first place. Consumers ask what they're getting for the money. PS3 is giving them improved graphics, plus Blu-Ray and a hard drive, for $500-$600. Wii is giving them motion-controlled games and some unique online features for $250. To me, at least, Wii is a more compelling product without even taking price into account. Yes, I'd pay $600 for Wii: I'm bored with graphics. The price of Wii controllers may turn out to be an issue, but I don't know if people factor that in when they make the initial purchase.
Edit: Unless the general public thinks Wii is a ripoff because the graphics haven't improved, then the only people that will ever feel it's a bad price are hardcore types who understand what the manufacturing costs are like.
2. PS2 vs. Xbox 360: Kent claims that PS2 "limped" into the holiday season with a 2 million unit lead. I don't know how he's calculating that figure, but according to Sony's own data, it had shipped 20.04 million units as of October 2001, while Microsoft has sold 5 million Xbox 360 units as of June, and hopes to sell 10 million by the end of the year. Sony's numbers may only be "shipped", but I think they're noticeably more impressive anyway. And PS2 was popular in every territory, 360 is failing miserably in Japan, which is home to a lot of important developers and publishers.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 16, 2006, 11:07:41 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on October 16, 2006, 11:10:08 AM
VGrevolution: I agree that we won't know 360's true sales potential until the end of 2006 - maybe not even until next year. I didn't expect PS2 to dominate as much as it did. That said, the system is dead in the water in Japan, and even in North America PS2 continues to outsell Xbox 360 month after month.
One thing is for sure, this is going to be an interesting generation!
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 16, 2006, 11:14:47 AM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on October 16, 2006, 11:19:14 AM
So I can get a hard drive, uber mega powerful chips, online and Blu ray, big whoopty doo. The 360 offers half of these at a better price. And you guys seem to forget that even if the price of something is justified if its too expensive the consumer simply will NOT buy it. I mean, not every man, woman and child can spare 600 dollars for a GAMING CENTER. As a friend of mine pointed out, if a kid wants a PS3 badly and the parents find out its 600 bucks they will not buy it. The Wii might not be cheap but at least it is accesible to people.
A good example are Apple computers. They are expensive, but they are simply one of the best machines out there. But why haven't then taken off? Because PCs are far cheaper and accesible.
The best example would be the PSP. The system was pver 300 dollars, and it offered Wi-fi, internet browsing, movies, music and games. It was touted as the handheld that could do anything. Yet, how is it doing compared to the DS?
So no, even if 600 dollars is fair for the PS3 it doesn't mean people will be willing to pay it.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 16, 2006, 11:23:08 AM
Post by: capamerica on October 16, 2006, 11:29:21 AM
Also Disney is getting ready to go both formats. At the last Stock holders meeting they let slip that they were planing to start supporting both.
And you can't really count MGM since Sony acquired them back in April 2005.
The only companies Blu-Ray has for sure 100% is Sony and Fox and HD-DVD only has Universal. And even Fox is starting to question if it will say Blu-Ray only.
If you look back during the Betamax / VHS war betamax also had the support from all these companies as well.
It should also be pointed out that Blu-Ray is already getting a track record of not playing well with any CDs and some DVDs While HD-DVD has no issues what so ever.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 16, 2006, 11:30:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok
In respect to studio support, Blu-Ray has the better offering, but you are still having to pick and choose between the two and it makes both formats less ideal. Even with full studio support behind each I think both would still faulter against DVDs, but it being divided is pretty much suicidal to both new formats.
Sony owns MGM and Disney has said they will do both.
And yes, DVDs are more than likely going to be the dominant format for years to come. DVDs beat out VHS only after MANY years and that's with DVDs being a graphical improvement people could literally see IMMEDIATELY on the TV they already own.
My opinion is that HDDVD and BluRay will take so long to be adopted that, by the time they would find a place in the market, a form of online media distribution will have already taken their place.
I have a hacked Xbox which serves as a media center. We don't watch many DVDs, but we do download TV shows and watch them at our leisure thanks to the Xbox. From what I understand the 360 is moving toward a similar level of functionality by supporting DIVX format in the next firmware upgrade. I strongly believe that media boxes will replace optical media because they're already doing that today.
As for Nintendo, this isn't the same Nintendo that made the N64 and the Cube: this is Iwata's Nintendo, Reggie's Nintendo, the Apple-inspired Nintendo which has already proven with the DS that it can be a deadly snake in the marketplace and everything I'm seeing and hearing about the Wii indicates it will do the same.
Post by: Kairon on October 16, 2006, 11:36:11 AM
I don't rate Nintendo as greedy. I can agree that they're profitable, and that as a business they're squeezing every last dollar they can out of their consumers.
But they're sticking to a $50 dollar price point for this next-gen while the X360 and PS3 will see more $60+ price points. They've long ago reduced their licensing fees to be competitive with MS and Sony. They still release their DS games at $30 MSRP (nevermind that retailers jack that up). And they are willing to release budget software, like with Brain Age, etc.
Yes, they make money on their controllers, their console, their first party games, but that's the whole point of a business. Greed is dictated by when they cross over the rational threshold and drive away customers that they would've had anyways had they played fair. They crossed that threshold with the N64's cartridges and license fees, but they didn't cross that threshold with the GC, nor have they so far with either the DS (The Lite launched at a surprisingly low price) or seem to with the Wii (for the reasons stated above... except for maybe a bit with the controllers).
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pittbboi on October 16, 2006, 11:42:16 AM
Sony's banking of blu-ray taking over as a new video medium, just like it did with the PS2 and DVD. As uninterested as I am in the PS3, even I have to admit that it's a little because blu-ray is so unproven and most likely won't take over. However, I do have an HD-TV, and I have to admit that, if blu-ray did become popular, the PS3 would start to look a little more attractive to me
Post by: Arbok on October 16, 2006, 12:01:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: capamerica
Also Disney is getting ready to go both formats. At the last Stock holders meeting they let slip that they were planing to start supporting both.
Must have missed that new piece of information, thanks for addressing it.
Quote
Originally posted by: capamerica
And you can't really count MGM since Sony acquired them back in April 2005.
Really? Fox does the MGM home video releases now, and will be the ones to release the Bond films to DVD again among other high profile titles. Sony gets the theatrical distribution still, but MGM has taken their home video catalogue else where.
Quote from the article:
"While Sony will lose access to MGM titles that it can release on Blu-ray, its efforts to promote the technology will still be buttressed by the fact that Fox also is known as a strong Blu-ray supporter."
As also stated in that article, the "buy out" was 20% of MGM for Sony, so the company is still able to make their own choices if the board gets behind them (think Square's relationship with Sony before the Enix merger).
Post by: IceCold on October 16, 2006, 02:50:33 PM
QuoteThat guy in the other thread wrote 17th of November by mistake, and you wrote 21st.. Average them out, and you get the real date
I would not be surprised if that was a relatively big factor in the descision to have it come out the 21 of November
I think that February - October of 2007 will be the critical period for all the consoles. The Wii will have gotten past its launch, and will have consoles readily available. It's crucial that they get picked up during this time period after the launch. I have no worries about the launch; it will be huge. But so was the GameCube's.. Third parties will look at this period and then decide whether to support the Wii strongly. Nintendo can pull out some aces from their sleeves to move consoles - the black colour addition, a pricecut, and most importantly, games like Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime Corruption. This was the factor that most contributed to the Cube's failure - the post-launch drought. Sure, in late 2002 and the whole of 2003, there was no shortage of brilliant games. That was the best part of the Cube's life. It didn't really make a difference, though.. The momentum had been stopped, and third party support was never quite regained. Hopefully this is different with the Wii.
The PS3 and 360 will also be tested during this time. The post-holiday lull will take its toll. Sony especially will need a lot of luck after launch - it's still to be determined whether casuals will drop that much money or wait for a pricecut. After the hardcores are done buying it, there might not be anywhere for Sony to turn to. Just like the PSP..
Post by: Kairon on October 16, 2006, 02:58:25 PM
Wario Ware was pushed back to January or February 2007, Metroid was pushed back to likely the same date. We're all hoping that Mario Galazy hits 6 months after launch, and the same for Sonic, which is a Spring launch right? Then after that, let's hope that Strikers Charged and BWii arrive on time, not to mention Pokemon Battle Revolution...
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 16, 2006, 04:07:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Yeah IceCold, here's hoping that all these cancelled Cube games, as well as all these slightly pushed back games keep the momentum going.
Wario Ware was pushed back to January or February 2007, Metroid was pushed back to likely the same date. We're all hoping that Mario Galazy hits 6 months after launch, and the same for Sonic, which is a Spring launch right? Then after that, let's hope that Strikers Charged and BWii arrive on time, not to mention Pokemon Battle Revolution...
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
I feel so ashamed about getting the Wii launch date wrong and I have it in my signature too! Grrrr, anyway good posts from both of you guys. This may sound strange but I think we should make an extra effort to support the 3rd party games this holiday season even if, heaven forbid, the bigger ones like Red Steel or Madden don't turn out to be stellar. If those games are supported heavily I think the 3rd parties will start flocking to Wii. In regards to a drought, I think Kairon has shown that there isn't that much to worry about in the way of droughts, there are so many hot titles coming out fairly consistently, though my guess is that we will see a short drought from July to late august but that happens with ALL the systems.
Post by: Ceric on October 16, 2006, 04:21:14 PM
A Jack of All Trades is a Master of None.
Player Choice is going no where. They extended to the GBA for goodness sake. Nintendo will drop the price of the games as they lose steam just to introduce new people to the style of play in hopes that they will like it enough to want the sequel.
This official ends my post and makes it the most incoherent of the thread...
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 16, 2006, 04:30:09 PM
I care that I get what I pay for.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 16, 2006, 04:36:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I don't care if Nintendo makes money: that's the fundamental basis of all capitalism.
I care that I get what I pay for.
You know when I first heard about the 250$ I was outraged, and now admit I was dead wrong. After knowing more about the Wii I am actually pleased by what I"m getting for the 250$. Not only do I get 512mbs built in, but also a game, internet browser, media player of sorts (that may be used for custom soundtracks), potential external HD compatibility, built in Wifi, and all the Mii channels. All that in addition to the unique gaming experiences doesn't seem so bad after all a much better deal than previous Nintendo consoles.
Post by: Adrock on October 16, 2006, 05:11:04 PM
We may not know the true potential of Wii's graphics capabilities. I'm no graphics whore, but it does seem like Nintendo undercut their technology. So Nintendo plays the graphics games, loses to graphically inferior PS2, then decides that gamers don't want graphics. Lesson learned? Not quite. The lesson here is that people don't want impressive graphics only. Passing on high-def is one thing, making Wii supposedly "twice as powerful as Gamecube" is an extreme alternative. It's not like standard televisions can't handle more. So what has Nintendo actually learned? Not much, but hey, they're trying something different and deserve points for that.
I know bringing up the graphics debate is like beating a dead horse, but it's really the easiest example. Nintendo is a company that continually says that the gaming industry is getting stale, but its biggest titles this generation were sequels, some weren't necessarily better than its predecessors depending on how you look at it. Would you consider Wind Waker a better game than Ocarina of Time or simply different? Was it really all that innovative? Slap Twilight Princess-esque graphics onto it and it seems like Ocarina of Time with a huge, annoying sea. My point is that there are several examples of Nintendo offering new solutions, but many of them are less than perfect. It really comes down to whether Nintendo finally found a formula that consumers, developers and themselves can accept.
And $250 isn't a terrible price. Wii is an extremely attractive console and people seem more than willing to pay the price. I might wish there was an extra controller (at least another freehand controller), but I'm buying one regardless albeit next year. If Prime 3 was available like it was supposed to, I would be standing in line on November 19.
Post by: capamerica on October 16, 2006, 05:55:04 PM
last thing I knew was that in April 2005 MGM was acquired by a partnership led by Sony and Comcast in association with Texas Pacific Group and Providence Equity Partners.
I heard about the deal with Fox doing distributing of MGM's Home Videos and figured it was some type of good will jester by Sony to keep Fox on the Blu-Ray team. Sony is still in control of the theater releases.
I went over to Wikipedia and read what they have over there and I can't figure out who owns what and who controls what. It looks like Sony bought them in 2005 but at the same time it looks like MGM was not purchased by anyone.
Anyway for now I'm still putting MGM in the same boat as Columbia TriStar. If Fox goes multiformat and MGM goes along then I'll start counting them as a actual studio again.
Post by: Arbok on October 16, 2006, 06:30:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: capamerica
Anyway for now I'm still putting MGM in the same boat as Columbia TriStar.
It's not at all the same as Tristar, which is a subdivision of Sony Pictures as of 1991.
MGM is their own studio, they were bought by a number of collective companies that pooled their resources to stop Time Warner from getting the company, which include (according to this article):
Quote
The Sony-led group, which includes the buyout firms Providence Equity Partners, Texas Pacific Group and DLJ Merchant Banking Partners, struck the deal with MGM on Monday, just 24 hours before the studio had scheduled a board meeting to approve a deal with Time Warner.
So a number of companies own MGM, not just Sony, each part of the agreement for their own reasons. Sony's interest being very clear, although they no longer have the home video sector anymore, just the theatrical distribution in the United States (although MGM is talking about doing their own distribution once again).
Sony owns a large part of the company, at 20%, but they don't own them, or even have a majority of the company (Providence Equity Partners has the largest at 29%) and with the move to Fox it's clear that Sony won't be able to call the shots here. The problem is that most people saw the headlines that read "Sony buys MGM" when that was only a fragment of the whole story. If it helps, as I said before, think of it like the relationship between Sony and Square after Spirits Within bombed and before the Enix merger.
Seriously, though, read up on it if you are still confused (make sure you are reading stuff that is current too), as Sony looks to be getting screwed from all of this as they paid $300 million for a seat on MGM's board which seems to be shrinking in importance with each month.
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 16, 2006, 07:53:42 PM
The negative press has been centered around the concept that this is actually just a sparkling innovation. This control system is limited, and will not allow true depth of gameplay that current generation controllers do. The big question is, how will Nintendo continue to create new and great experiences using the controller into the future. Won't Nintendo and developers run into a limit of cool control options for the system?
This negative look at innovation and creativity always seems to pop up with new ideas, technology and such. We doubt the need for the advance, the potential utility, and we never look at the full potential.
I want to ask the simple question, how will Microsoft and Sony be able to continue to create engaging software that creates unique control mechanics with controllers that have been the standard for close to 8 years now. Everything that is being done on the Xbox 360 controller has been done before, and there is no unique control experience. Yet people are still playing and buying Xbox 360 games because the experience and content as still fun.
Why doesn't Nintendo get that luxury of assumption with the Wii? Why must the innovative controller be limitless with ideas or be a failure. What counts is the connect and experience...and control is only a single part of the equation. Let it be known, First Person Shooters will rock on the Wii, but each one will play similar and control innovation will be minor. Yet, if the game is fun then people will buy it.
In the end, that is all that matters in any product be it an innovative new concept or a simple upgrade to an existing product or game. If it brings satisfaction to the consumer then it is a success.
Lets stop judging new concepts and innovative ideas by a higher standard than we do the status quo. Because if we continue to do that, all we will ever have is the status quo. Personally I am pleased that Nintendo is bucking the trends and moving the industry in a new direction...be it better or worse at least it is something new.
Post by: Strell on October 16, 2006, 08:31:43 PM
I remember when you bought a game system based on the games.
That is what used to matter.
None of this "I get value X for cost Y."
What the f*ck happened.
Post by: Adrock on October 16, 2006, 09:30:28 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 16, 2006, 10:05:10 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 16, 2006, 10:11:48 PM
Post by: UncleBob on October 17, 2006, 04:33:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Also I'm enraged by companies making money off of Refrigators, [...]. I need those to cook my food.
You cook food in your fridge? How does that work?
Post by: capamerica on October 17, 2006, 05:33:34 AM
This would explain why Sony got hit hard lately in the entertainment area. They were hoping that they would be controlling the content coming out of MGM and be given a nice profitable library of movies and then they lost it to Fox and now it looks like Fox may even lose it and MGM will go back to doing everything them selves.
I would bet that the reason they are listed as a Blu-Ray suporter still has something to do with Sony thou.
Post by: Ceric on October 17, 2006, 05:58:34 AM
Actually it was a list of things that I used with food preparation but it sort of got twisted by the time I wrote the last part.
Post by: Blackplague on October 17, 2006, 06:11:45 AM
1.) They have the cheapest console
2.) The Wii is targeted at a MUCH broader range of people, Sony and Microsoft are targeting a more Hardcore bunch
3.) Nintendo is not losing money on the Wii
4.) Software development is much cheaper than the PS3 and thus will attract more companies, including smaller ones( check out the game " Sadness")
5.) Wii is being marketed as an active and fun multiplayer console
6.) The Games are innovative
7.) The HD reason, most people still dont have HD televisions though it is a growing trend(360 and probably the PS3 wont look good on SD tv)
8.) Ease of programming with ALive
9.) Connect24, similar to Xbox live in terms of updating games, but will do it automatically
10.) Virtual Console, older games are just fun, Im currently playing OOT and MQ to get ready for TP and im having a blast. Also people remember growing up to certain games and old consoles are very hard to find.
11.) An extremely broad range of games from many different developers. (sadness, mario, zelda, metroid, redsteel, elebits, ect)
12.) Compactness. This may not seem like a big reason, but I for one dont have much space for a console and im betting not many others do either. Also makes for a more portable console
13.) Wii stresses innovation over graphics. Simply put, HD graphics are very expensive. I also have a PC for my graphical needs but play my ROMS more than anything else. Games today all seem to be the same, the industry needed some innovation. Look at the DS, in europe it is outselling the psp 3:1, in Japan it outsells everything combined, and in the US it is the top selling console.
Add anything else if you would like
Post by: couchmonkey on October 17, 2006, 06:30:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Player Choice is going no where. They extended to the GBA for goodness sake. Nintendo will drop the price of the games as they lose steam just to introduce new people to the style of play in hopes that they will like it enough to want the sequel.
See, I don't consider dropping the price on three games years after the fact to be much of a deal. Yeah, Nintendo eventually did it, but it happened so late that it's pretty much useless to early adopters. Nintendo basically hates giving anybody a deal on anything. Which makes perfect sense! Nintendo is smart to charge a healthy price for products (such as Virtual Console games) to maximize its profits. But as a consumer, I've really enjoyed the big selection of low-priced games on GameCube, and it's safe to say that's going to come to an end if Wii takes first place.
Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
You know.
I remember when you bought a game system based on the games.
That is what used to matter.
None of this "I get value X for cost Y."
What the f*ck happened.
Amen! And this will be the main factor in who actually wins. The thing is, until you get well into the lifespan of a system not a lot is known about the game lineup, so people focus on less important things.
There's good news and bad news in the game lineup respect. The bad news? Take a look at IGN's preview sections. There are 43 games previewed for Wii. There are more than 50 games each for PS3 and Xbox 360, the 50 most recent previews go as far back as August for PS3 and September for Xbox 360. Wii goes all the way back to May, when the very first preview was written. The good news is that it seems like a lot of developers are jumping off the Sony ship and Nintendo seems to be getting a really enthusiastic reception now that we know more about it.
Post by: Ceric on October 17, 2006, 06:56:29 AM
Quote
See, I don't consider dropping the price on three games years after the fact to be much of a deal. Yeah, Nintendo eventually did it, but it happened so late that it's pretty much useless to early adopters. Nintendo basically hates giving anybody a deal on anything. Which makes perfect sense! Nintendo is smart to charge a healthy price for products (such as Virtual Console games) to maximize its profits. But as a consumer, I've really enjoyed the big selection of low-priced games on GameCube, and it's safe to say that's going to come to an end if Wii takes first place.
The price of entry to being an "Early Adopter" is the full price of the game. Of course it's not going to help you. I'm still sure that Player Choice is not going to go anywhere. I'm sure we'll see TP at a bargain price Summer 2008 or so. By that time all the "Early Adopters" will have it and most of the people who weren't on the fence about it. Then drop the price and the people who don't normally play Zelda's will pick it up because it's at a bargain price and has garnered good reviews. It took forever but even SSBM went to player Choice. Even today they could have probably sold it for full price. Nintendo is also hoping to get some of the new audience they are trying to grab into more traditional games as well. Player Choice is a great way to do that.
Also on Strell: I like to add a Hallelujah.
Post by: couchmonkey on October 17, 2006, 07:21:55 AM
Post by: JonLeung on October 17, 2006, 07:23:25 AM
I would think that if a game has been around long enough, was a big hit, and is in a position where rereleasing them at a lower price might bring in more revenue, anybody, no matter their current position, would be up for it.
There are costs with manufacturing and repackaging and marketing of them, sure, but it's not like they have to write game code from scratch which I imagine is where the real bulk of the cost of a game comes from - so it should be a good deal for them too, not just the consumer.
There are a lot of so-called hardcore gamers still on the fence about the Wii just because it's unconventional, that I imagine that when they do pick up a Wii, they may have missed out on the first several Wii games. For that additional reason I believe Player's Choice games will come out at some point for the Wii.
Post by: Kairon on October 17, 2006, 08:41:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
So remind me, which DS Games went Player's Choice this summer?
Players choice games before the DS has been out for even a year?!?!?!
Anyways, no need. New games for the DS can be released for $20 right out the gate, first party games like Brain Age, and even third party titles like Cooking Mama.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on October 17, 2006, 08:43:37 AM
I mean, wouldn't we all have loved Atlus to be more greedy with Trauma Center? Capcom to be more greedy with Phoenix Wright?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ian Sane on October 17, 2006, 08:58:37 AM
I agree completely and think this is a great example of Nintendo learning the wrong lesson. The PS2 having inferior graphics was a coincedence. At the time the PS2 was released Sony was trying to be on the cutting edge graphically and were only behind because their console launched a year earlier. They succeeded despite it because the hardware was still reasonably comparible and they had good third party support and some really popular exclusives. Nintendo acts like the weak graphics somehow contributed to the PS2's success. Nintendo comes to really nutty conclusions. When they revealed the whole non-gamer plan they somehow connected it to the Cube's low sales. "Boy that Gamecube didn't too well. I figure it must be because our games were too intimidating to non-gamers."
"I want to ask the simple question, how will Microsoft and Sony be able to continue to create engaging software that creates unique control mechanics with controllers that have been the standard for close to 8 years now. Everything that is being done on the Xbox 360 controller has been done before, and there is no unique control experience."
The question I have is "who cares?" A unique control experience is not what you buy a console for. You buy it for unique GAME experiences which can be done regardless of what changes are made to a controller. When playing SNES did you ever think "boy I sure enjoy these shoulder buttons! This was the reason I bought this console!"? Probably not. In fact Super Mario World didn't even use them in a significant way but it was still a great game and had some new ideas not featured in the NES Marios. The PS2 had pretty much the exact same controller as the PS1 but it still had unique game experiences.
Now had Nintendo merely added new ideas to the existing controller like they had done in the past then there would be less doubt. But Nintendo told us that our old controllers were broken, something that no one thinks except Nintendo and some of their fans who only think that because Nintendo told them so. They're not just adding new stuff they're proposing a new standard. That sort of idea makes people defensive. Who is Nintendo, the market loser who is ridiculously out-of-touch and tries to grab every last penny from us, to tell us that a 20 year old proven controller design needs to be replaced? Plus with the Wii the controller is really the ONLY new feature. Online was what Nintendo SHOULD have done last gen. I like their setup but they're just playing catch-up. The hardware itself isn't upped much so the controller is everything.
So if the controller sucks then the entire Wii is a waste of time and money. I thought the Cube's clicky shoulder buttons weren't all that cool when I first heard about them and I was right in the end. But I was still excited about the Cube because the extra hardware boost would allow for new ideas and would improve on old ideas. And though it was a little infrequent it happened, even though the clicky buttons were a dud. The N64 without the analog stick and the SNES without shoulder buttons still offered new possibilities. Wii games that don't use the remote probably could have been done on the Cube provided the online capabilities had been used. So there is more pressure on the controller alone to perform and thus more skepticism about whether it will or not.
Regarding Player's Choice titles remember that when Nintendo first released Player's Choice titles on the Cube some titles were $30 while ALL PS2 or Xbox discount titles were $20. That's the sort of greedy Nintendo stuff we're talking about. There was no reason to charge a higher price than the competition. Nintendo was just dicking us around because they thought they could. Sony was the market leader and could have probably gotten away with charging $30 but didn't while Nintendo was in last place and couldn't get away with pissing off consumers for no reason but did anyway. That's Nintendo in a nutshell. "We have no leverage but we're going to act like we do anyway."
Post by: couchmonkey on October 17, 2006, 09:05:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
So remind me, which DS Games went Player's Choice this summer?
Players choice games before the DS has been out for even two years?!?!?!
Fixed.
The other consoles will possibly force Nintendo to keep up with it's Player's Choice ways, but I don't recall Player's Choice ever being a big deal on Super Nintendo or NES, and certainly not on Gameboy. In the case of NES, Player's Choice games appared sometime after the Super Nintendo was already released. I don't remember if they ever released any Player's Choice games on the Super Nintendo.
I will admit, though, that Nintendo is moving towards "fairly priced" games, where some titles don't cost as much up front if they weren't as expensive to develop. I think that's great. But as far as discounting more expensive games goes, I think we're going to see a lot less of it if Nintendo is in first place, and I'll point to every other Nintendo system besides N64 and GameCube as evidence.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 17, 2006, 09:27:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane The question I have is "who cares?" A unique control experience is not what you buy a console for. You buy it for unique GAME experiences which can be done regardless of what changes are made to a controller.
Jigga-what?
I haven't had a "unique game experience" on a home console for...this entire f*cking generation.
Seriously, there isn't a game I played which I didn't distinctly think, "Yeah, I've done this before." Even alleged innovative titles like Pikmin and Katmarci-whatever just borrow concepts from older games and rehash them (neither of which I thought resulted in truly enjoyable game experiences).
The only thing NEW I've played has been on the DS, and that's because I'm not just pressing buttons to make a character jump or shoot anymore. Right now, the Wii is basically my last hope for gaming because I've done this sh*t before. Sometimes more of the same is alright, but that makes for a sparse gaming diet, only buying the titles of that genre which TRULY shine (like Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow if I want a solid platformer).
And I'm not alone: I have friends who all owned Genesis/SNES/PS1 back in the day and now they haven't bought consoles for a generation or two. I believe Nintendo when they say that the gaming market it shrinking because I see this trend in my friends and even myself.
If not for the DS, gaming sales would have been in a HUGE decline this past year. It was the DS alone which gave gaming an increase in growth from previous years. I don't think it's a coincidence that the only console with a unique and innovative control scheme is the ONLY one to be growing in the market.
Your skepticism is unwarranted in this case. People who have played the Wii with the new controller, after a brief adjustment period, all say that the controller feels absolutely natural to use and makes more sense than a regular analogue. That, and I'd wager that going back to a regular analogue will feel clunky and awkward once you've enjoyed the freedom of simply pointing at your targets and using gestures to influence the game world instead of pushing buttons.
This guy wrote an editorial on Nintendo about two years too late, before the DS, before the Wii, before Iwata's Nintendo really came into its own.
I'm less worried about Nintendo now than I've EVER been and anyone with the most basic observational skills will see the same picture.
Post by: odifiend on October 17, 2006, 09:46:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"We may not know the true potential of Wii's graphics capabilities. I'm no graphics whore, but it does seem like Nintendo undercut their technology. So Nintendo plays the graphics games, loses to graphically inferior PS2, then decides that gamers don't want graphics. Lesson learned? Not quite. The lesson here is that people don't want impressive graphics only. Passing on high-def is one thing, making Wii supposedly 'twice as powerful as Gamecube' is an extreme alternative."
I agree completely and think this is a great example of Nintendo learning the wrong lesson. The PS2 having inferior graphics was a coincedence. At the time the PS2 was released Sony was trying to be on the cutting edge graphically and were only behind because their console launched a year earlier. They succeeded despite it because the hardware was still reasonably comparible and they had good third party support and some really popular exclusives. Nintendo acts like the weak graphics somehow contributed to the PS2's success. Nintendo comes to really nutty conclusions. When they revealed the whole non-gamer plan they somehow connected it to the Cube's low sales. "Boy that Gamecube didn't too well. I figure it must be because our games were too intimidating to non-gamers."
"I want to ask the simple question, how will Microsoft and Sony be able to continue to create engaging software that creates unique control mechanics with controllers that have been the standard for close to 8 years now. Everything that is being done on the Xbox 360 controller has been done before, and there is no unique control experience."
The question I have is "who cares?" A unique control experience is not what you buy a console for. You buy it for unique GAME experiences which can be done regardless of what changes are made to a controller. When playing SNES did you ever think "boy I sure enjoy these shoulder buttons! This was the reason I bought this console!"? Probably not. In fact Super Mario World didn't even use them in a significant way but it was still a great game and had some new ideas not featured in the NES Marios. The PS2 had pretty much the exact same controller as the PS1 but it still had unique game experiences.
Now had Nintendo merely added new ideas to the existing controller like they had done in the past then there would be less doubt. But Nintendo told us that our old controllers were broken, something that no one thinks except Nintendo and some of their fans who only think that because Nintendo told them so. They're not just adding new stuff they're proposing a new standard. That sort of idea makes people defensive. Who is Nintendo, the market loser who is ridiculously out-of-touch and tries to grab every last penny from us, to tell us that a 20 year old proven controller design needs to be replaced? Plus with the Wii the controller is really the ONLY new feature. Online was what Nintendo SHOULD have done last gen. I like their setup but they're just playing catch-up. The hardware itself isn't upped much so the controller is everything.
So if the controller sucks then the entire Wii is a waste of time and money. I thought the Cube's clicky shoulder buttons weren't all that cool when I first heard about them and I was right in the end. But I was still excited about the Cube because the extra hardware boost would allow for new ideas and would improve on old ideas. And though it was a little infrequent it happened, even though the clicky buttons were a dud. The N64 without the analog stick and the SNES without shoulder buttons still offered new possibilities. Wii games that don't use the remote probably could have been done on the Cube provided the online capabilities had been used. So there is more pressure on the controller alone to perform and thus more skepticism about whether it will or not.
Regarding Player's Choice titles remember that when Nintendo first released Player's Choice titles on the Cube some titles were $30 while ALL PS2 or Xbox discount titles were $20. That's the sort of greedy Nintendo stuff we're talking about. There was no reason to charge a higher price than the competition. Nintendo was just dicking us around because they thought they could. Sony was the market leader and could have probably gotten away with charging $30 but didn't while Nintendo was in last place and couldn't get away with pissing off consumers for no reason but did anyway. That's Nintendo in a nutshell. "We have no leverage but we're going to act like we do anyway."
Ian, which game was more fun, Super Mario Bros. or Super Mario Bros. 2? SMB 3 or SMW? Blank or blankity blank from same genre as blank? Now why was the fun game more fun? There are no right answers but it is doubtful it has anything to do with graphics. It seems to me that is the lesson Nintendo is taking away. I hate when people say this, but in this case I really do think Nintendo knows its cyclic market better than you do. As for the technology, I never found the GCN to be lacking when a developer put in the time. The controller is one indirect way that Nintendo has likely increased 3rd party quality.
Since I'm at work, I'm going to just touch on somethings that caught my eye on the rest of your post.
Sony and MS won't be able to create engaging software because Nintendo is no longer there to copy. Not to overtoot the Big N's horn, but they are damn good at what they do and are the source for a lot of the new ideas that come into the industry.
Ian, you are missing the point. The controller automatically is lending itself to new Game experiences. You almost have to have no talent to not create something promising provided you had the time and the resources. Though their are still great games out there, a lot of it is the same old game with slight enhancements. I thought that is why everyone is so critical of Madden?
What Nintendo controller has every sucked?
Look at the PS3 controller- even if you could have the 'standard' and motion sensing, the standard limits what can be done with motion sensing. The standard has been explored.
Nintendo is the Godfather of gaming and that is why they are changing the game. :P
Post by: Ian Sane on October 17, 2006, 09:47:27 AM
To me this sounds like someone complaining that movies are stale because all you do is watch them and music is stale because all you do is listen to it. To me it isn't that I'm pressing buttons to do things. To me that is gaming. It's what the buttons do and the reality the game creates that matters. That is the experience and that can be unique. Metroid had a jump button and a shoot button like every other game made at the time. But how it was done is what created the unique experience. So games like Pikmin and Metroid Prime are unique to me. I'm doing things I wasn't doing before or I'm doing things I have done before with a different twist that keeps it fresh. A remote doesn't necessarily change things. The same game I've played before with movement instead of buttons isn't fresh or different if the content behind it is the same. A controller is just a tool. The content is everything.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 17, 2006, 10:00:34 AM
Hardware improvements create more than just prettier graphics. The SNES wasn't just a prettier Nintendo. It could do scaling and rotating and all sorts of other effects that affected gameplay and that could not be done on the NES. Miyamoto has stated that he wanted Mario to ride a dinosaur on the NES but couldn't do it because the hardware wasn't good enough. That right there is a new feature in Super Mario World that was impossible on the NES. Mode 7 games like F-Zero and Super Mario Kart were impossible. And then the N64 takes it a step further. How could you do 3D like THAT on the SNES hardware? On the Cube could 100 Pikmin be on screen on the N64 without the framerate going to hell? No.
One game I would love would be something like the Massive program used for the battles in the Lord of the Rings movies. They had thousands of individual AI having a battle with each other. Imagine that sort of idea used in a game. You're in a huge battle and all around you members of your army and the enemy are duking it out. You're just part of something bigger. The feeling of a war has never truly been achieved and it won't without better hardware. A game where the AI on your side isn't a liability isn't possible without better hardware. This game isn't possible on the Wii regardless of what controller is used. Now it probably isn't possible on the PS3 or Xbox 360 either but the point is that as hardware improves new ideas can be achieved and capping the hardware is going to prevent that.
Post by: IceCold on October 17, 2006, 10:22:57 AM
QuoteThe Cube hardware boost did allow for new ideas. Pikmin could never be done on the N64. However, Nintendo's right; hardware just doesn't matter as much now. The only thing that a hardware boost can really improve upon now is the graphics. Sure, you may bring up physics and AI, but the Wii can do those just fine. Honestly, there won't be much of a difference at all in those categories. Then you may bring up the number of characters on screen; didn't you say once that you wouldn't be satisfied with consoles until they had enough power to simulate Lord of the Rings type battles in realtime? I've said this before; that wouldn't improve the game in any way.. With that number of characters, the camera would have to be very wide, and the game would be reduced to a useless hack 'n slash. The Wii's hardware is more than capable of handling all these things compared to the other consoles - the only thing which you'll be able to tell a difference is in the graphics department. The gap isn't even that big, especially on a normal TV, like most of us have. Super Mario Galaxy on 480p for you lucky ones will be breathtaking, and that's all I could ask for.
So if the controller sucks then the entire Wii is a waste of time and money. I thought the Cube's clicky shoulder buttons weren't all that cool when I first heard about them and I was right in the end. But I was still excited about the Cube because the extra hardware boost would allow for new ideas and would improve on old ideas.
And I loved the digital click
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 17, 2006, 10:26:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane The same game I've played before with movement instead of buttons isn't fresh or different if the content behind it is the same. A controller is just a tool. The content is everything.
The controller is your link to the world you observe inside that screen. It is the only connection you possess to the virtual world of the game.
Better controllers beget better content because they increase the amount of influence you have in that gaming world. With the introduction of the analogue stick, the player was not only able to indicate a direction but also the SEVERITY of that direction: before, I could make Mario walk or hold down a button and make him run. That was it.
After the birth of the analogue stick, I could make Mario walk, run in circles, sneak as slowly as possible, etc.
An advancement in controller technology allowed the game to provide more depth and content to the player.
Prior to the Wiimote, games could place the player in a situation where they would be tested on a basis of timing and at best, direction. Oblivion is a good example of this.
In a simulated swordfight, the player would be responsible for facing the right direction and timing their attacks to hit the enemy. This is what Oblivion offered in the way of swordfighting: you faced the direction, hit the button, and the game did the rest for you, assuming that your character would swing the weapon and hit the target for you.
In this way, the game can only test the skill of the player based on the input the player can give the game. The game can test you on timing and direction in order to determine whether the player succeeds or fails.
In the case of the Wiimote, the game can now test the player on a whole range of previously unavailable variables because the player now has control of these. The game can test your physical dexterity, aim, speed and coordination, all of which it literally COULD NOT do before.
You seem to think that these variables will, in fact, make the games LESS enjoyable (mostly because they'll require physical work), but I disagree on all fronts.
When your motion can translate directly to the game world, it brings the player closer to the games. Pressing a button can NEVER be as immersive as actually making the gestures involved in the activity you are simulating in the game world.
Just like the analogue stick before it, the Wiimote evolves the concept by giving the player more direct control of the game world, by knocking down more of the barriers which separate the player from the experience.
I'm not arguing that games CAN be unique and innovative without new control schemes, but A) I've not seen any games which I feel fall under that heading this generation (no FUN ones, anyway) and B) new control schemes speed the process up, DRAMATICALLY.
Would we have figured out ways to make Mario sneak with a regular D-pad? Sure, but that didn't change the fact that the analogue stick not only made the act more intuitive but drastically more FUN as well, and FUN is still the bottom line here.
Do I think pantomiming the stabbing of on screen enemies will be more FUN than pressing a button to stab them? Oh HELL yes. So in short, there's no reason to complain about something which is going to revitalize what I believe is a dying industry. It's not a question of whether or not people CAN innovate without controller improvements, it's a question of whether or not they WILL and I think that question has already been answered in the steady flow of bland, uninspired games I've seen released this generation.
Post by: couchmonkey on October 17, 2006, 10:37:29 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 17, 2006, 10:39:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
I agree with both Ian and Smash. I think that there's still plenty of room for change in games without new controls, but I think the new controls are going to go a long way towards contributing to innovation and freshening the experience.
Yeah, like I said, I agree with the "can" part. Developers CAN still squeeze more out of the existing control schemes.
It's the "WILL" part I'm not so sure about.
Post by: Galford on October 17, 2006, 10:40:09 AM
Resident Evil 5
It has been annouced for PS3 and 360. Where is the Wii version?
The hand me down Umbrella Chronicles doesn't count.
Granted RE isn't the system seller it use to be, but is still a big franchise.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 17, 2006, 10:43:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford It has been annouced for PS3 and 360. Where is the Wii version?
The hand me down Umbrella Chronicles doesn't count.
But WTH could RE5 POSSIBLY have in it that REs 0-4 didn't already offer?
Post by: odifiend on October 17, 2006, 10:50:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Now why was the fun game more fun? There are no right answers but it is doubtful it has anything to do with graphics."
Hardware improvements create more than just prettier graphics. The SNES wasn't just a prettier Nintendo. It could do scaling and rotating and all sorts of other effects that affected gameplay and that could not be done on the NES. Miyamoto has stated that he wanted Mario to ride a dinosaur on the NES but couldn't do it because the hardware wasn't good enough. That right there is a new feature in Super Mario World that was impossible on the NES. Mode 7 games like F-Zero and Super Mario Kart were impossible. And then the N64 takes it a step further. How could you do 3D like THAT on the SNES hardware? On the Cube could 100 Pikmin be on screen on the N64 without the framerate going to hell? No.
My point has nothing to do with any of that. Miyamoto has gone on record as saying that he wish he invented the Tamagochi too. From that statement, it seems to me that Miyamoto is about simplistic fun. A child can play with his shadow and have a blast for hours. How much RAM or GHz does it really take for a human being to have fun while playing a video game?
I don't understand how individualized AI a mile away plays differently from scripted AI a mile away... I don't know if it is because I'm an engineer or what, but Nintendo's policy is clicking with me. It is practical. HD is great, I want one and will probably get one, but the LCD boom is not likely going to come until 2009 and beyond.
IceCold, amen.
Smash, from what I skimmed over (sorry), yes, it is having some real organic fun and the controller makes it easier for the developer to give the gamer that satisfaction.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 17, 2006, 11:05:36 AM
Games will be made better and more immersive by:
A. Seeing.
B. Feeling
Heh, the DS's motto should have been "Why look when you can touch?"
Post by: Ian Sane on October 17, 2006, 11:46:59 AM
Okay I'll agree with that but "better" is a relative term. I could say the N64 controller was better than the SNES controller fairly easily since it pretty much just was a SNES controller with more stuff. It expanded what was there. The Cube controller didn't do that. It changed things around and removed some stuff and it received a lot more criticism than any previous Nintendo controller because of it. The Wii controller is different, not necessarily better. It removes functionality and tries to replace it. So there is reason to be skeptical. Improvement and change aren't always the same thing.
Nintendo's credibility doesn't help. They came across as clueless idiots with the Cube and that negative reputation makes it harder to believe that THIS time their utterly bizarre idea is a good one. I think of connectivity and stupid Cube button arrangment and the useless clicky buttons (which are pretty fun to press actually, they just aren't that useful). Nintendo made a big stink about a bunch of junk that turned out to be nothing.
Combine that with their reputation of being greedy and you think that maybe there was no real idea for connectivity. Maybe the goal from the get-go was just to get people to buy both systems and to buy cables. It seems pretty obvious that they didn't have any great ideas for it when they came up with it. People bring up the DS. I think the touchscreen is a neat idea that compliments the traditional Gameboy controls that were not removed from the design. But since their first game was a port of an N64 game I don't believe that they had some big plan for it. Any good ideas for it have come later after a long period of nothing and I still don't see anything that suggests that a touchscreen is a requirement for future game systems. In fact some games have been made worse by forced touchscreen usage which you never saw with the N64 analog stick. That's the difference between a real future impacting idea and a quirky distraction. And I still feel that much of the DS success is due to Nintendo dominance of the portable market. It sold because it was the follow up to the Gameboy.
Anyway I've assumed that the real incentive for the Wii is that the remote is an effective marketing tool. It's different so it stands out better than another Nintendo console with the same goof ups and mistakes from ten years ago would. Nintendo didn't want to address their real problems (or doesn't know those problems exist) so they made a distraction to hide them. The remote also provides an excuse to cheap out on the hardware (to make more profit of course) with the promise of new experiences created by the controller providing the incentive for consumers to buy a Gamecube 1.5. Now I think Nintendo is going to try damn hard to make new games for that controller. Partially because they want to attract non-gamers and partially because it would look pretty bad if they didn't. But I didn't think they had ideas that necessitated the creation of the remote in the first place. They came up with it because of its marketing potential and then set down to figure out ideas for it. They did the same thing with the DS. Come up with something different to attract attention and then hope to hell you can actually come up with good ideas for it.
That's where Kent's suggestion of Nintendo switching to a normal controller in a year comes from. It's a weird idea that attracts attention, hides weaknesses, and may or may not actually be a good idea. All this coming from a company that has had a really lousy track record of actually delivering on promised "industry changing" ideas lately and who is known for squeezing every last dollar out of its consumerbase. It is hard to believe with those factors in place.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 17, 2006, 12:26:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane Improvement and change aren't always the same thing.
No one would say they are, but from all FIRST HAND accounts I've heard, people LIKE the change.
Look at the 3rd parties who are rushing to support Nintendo now who had completely dropped cube support before. I think it's safe to say that THEY think it's an improvement.
And lastly, look at all of the people who don't play games or gave up on games who are excited about the Wii. Clearly, THEY see it as an improvement if they're willing to try/reacquire gaming as a hobby because of it.
I understand it's subjective, but the reaction to the idea is QUITE clear.
Quote
Nintendo's credibility doesn't help. They came across as clueless idiots with the Cube and that negative reputation makes it harder to believe that THIS time their utterly bizarre idea is a good one.
Uhh, the DS?
It was an utterly bizarre idea and yet it stomped Sony's fancier, more hi-tech handheld and was responsible for the only growth in the gaming market this past year.
The time for doubting Nintendo's ideas came and went with the DS's proven ability to sell assloads of hardware and software.
Quote
And I still feel that much of the DS success is due to Nintendo dominance of the portable market. It sold because it was the follow up to the Gameboy.
Your opinion is irrelevant in this case: we already have initial Wii sales data via preorders and despite the Wii having more than 2-3X the amount of PS3s available for reserve, the Wii reserves sold out faster across the country.
I believe the DS sells well because it delivers excellent software and new gaming experiences the likes of which its competitor didn't offer. So far, the Wii is already doing the same.
Quote
All this coming from a company that has had a really lousy track record of actually delivering on promised "industry changing" ideas lately and who is known for squeezing every last dollar out of its consumerbase. It is hard to believe with those factors in place.
The problem with your assumptions is that, by your logic, every person to ever invent or innovate anything was a money-hungry c*ckbag.
Of COURSE money is the driving force behind innovation, and I find it puzzling that you blame Nintendo for overpricing and scamming their customers while Sony charges $600 for their console, $120 for an HDMI cable and Microsoft charges $60 for a wireless controller as well.
The "industry changing ideas" are already here in the DS: Brain Training especially changed the industry. It turned games from toys for children and sociopathic teenagers into something that was actually intended to help better the user. THAT is an industry change RIGHT there, and they're continuing that trend with interactive cookbooks that read you the next step via voice command and language learning software.
If people who would have never DREAMED of owning a gaming console own one, then SOMETHING IN THE INDUSTRY HAS CLEARLY CHANGED.
Here's where I take the MOST issue...
Quote
It's different so it stands out better than another Nintendo console with the same goof ups and mistakes from ten years ago would. Nintendo didn't want to address their real problems (or doesn't know those problems exist) so they made a distraction to hide them.
The only "mistake" Nintendo made was believing that a $16 billion company can play the same game and win against $100 billion behemoths who can afford to buy development houses and toss money hats around like it's no big deal.
What did you expect Nintendo to change that would win them the next console war? Make more games? Push for better graphics?
We've already seen what happens when people have three choices in the industry: Nintendo gets ignored. When you're up against companies like Sony and MS who outweigh you in sheer resources so heavily that they can ALWAYS out-advertise, out-develop and out-bribe you, what option does that leave?
People weren't buying the GC, despite the fact that it was home to all of the classic Nintendo franchises which people once enjoyed. Read my goddamn words: that wasn't enough. Gamecube 2.0 would have tanked and failed utterly, and to be honest, I had already accepted that this would likely be Nintendo's fate if they tried to play the same game as Sony and MS, a game in which they are INEVITABLY going to get beaten.
They did the only thing they COULD do: they innovated. They created something new and different, something simple and approachable and hoped it would appeal to a broader market.
They understood that they couldn't earn any of the existing market away from Sony and MS, and I don't care WHAT you think Nintendo could have done: that market would do nothing but shrink for them. So they aimed for a new market, made their next consoles into something that would be more appealing to people who were previously not their customers.
Apple did this too. Rather than trying in vain to push against Microsoft's OS monopoly, they branched out into a new market: the MP3 market and because of that, their core business of selling computers is doing much, MUCH better: people try an Apple product: the iPod, like it, and tend to give more of their products a try. The business model worked for Apple, despite harsh criticism from analysts predicting its failure and now Apple rules the MP3 market with an iron fist.
Nintendo is employing the same strategy and guess what? It's ALREADY WORKING. The Wii has earned a reputation as being something different from a standard console, and this has earned it a spot on CNN Money's hot toy list and the VERY TOP of TRU's hot toy list, the same TRU who predicted the Furby and TMElmo as being the hottest toys of the season that they were.
Meanwhile, you won't find any other consoles on that list because Nintendo has succeeded in differentiating the Wii has something different, which is exactly what they were aiming for from the start.
They basically took Apple's strategy and it's working for them. What was the alternative? To compete in a fight you're outmatched in yet again? Don't think so.
Nintendo did what they had to do in order to survive and it's already paying off for them in a huge way. Analysts like this Steve idiot are going to be chewing their words for YEARS to come.
Post by: darknight06 on October 17, 2006, 12:30:22 PM
Don't like them either? Well have you ever considered just putting video games behind you since "the golden era" is long gone? I mean egads man, if I was as angst filled against Nintendo as you are I wouldn't be here shoveling post after post after post on the forums, I'd have just said f*ck it all and packed it all up.
By the way, the DS at one point in time was losing to the PSP. Game Boy's dominance wasn't helping it at one point in time.
Post by: Arbok on October 17, 2006, 12:34:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
The other consoles will possibly force Nintendo to keep up with it's Player's Choice ways, but I don't recall Player's Choice ever being a big deal on Super Nintendo or NES, and certainly not on Gameboy. In the case of NES, Player's Choice games appared sometime after the Super Nintendo was already released. I don't remember if they ever released any Player's Choice games on the Super Nintendo.
They released a number of them actually, each having to be a "Million Seller" to make it, just like the N64.
They had a lot of great games in that line up too, including all of the Donkey Kong Country games, Super Metroid, Mario Kart, A Link to the Past, Mario Paint and others. There are a couple of odd choices there too, although most of them were early titles so they were able to hit a million like Super Star Wars and SimCity (I seem to recall Punch Out making it... but can't find anything citing that). I can't for the life of me explain how "Tetris and Dr. Mario" hit a million, though...Anyway, I would be surprised if they didn't continue something like this to push software more, I just wouldn't expect it very early in the system's life unless it looks to be struggling (be nice if they went back to doing the million set up too that they dropped for the Gamecube).
Post by: Ian Sane on October 17, 2006, 01:04:36 PM
I expected Nintendo to stop f*cking routine sh!t up. That's what sunk the Cube. It seemed that regarding the three consoles if you made up a comparison chart Nintendo was last in like 90% of the items listed. And almost all of it were problems that anybody could have avoided with ten minutes of thought. Sony and MS beat Nintendo because they merely screwed up less than Nintendo did. I think Nintendo would have done fine if they just admitted what they did wrong, fixed those problems, and thus leveled the playing field so that their games would shine through without a huge wall of incompetance in front of it. They handicap themselves more than anything. Doing this wouldn't win them first place right away but it would help them do better and gradually improve so that when Sony screws up they can swoop in for the kill. Interestingly enough Sony IS screwing up and it would be the perfect time for this to work.
"Don't like them either? Well have you ever considered just putting video games behind you since 'the golden era' is long gone? I mean egads man, if I was as angst filled against Nintendo as you are I wouldn't be here shoveling post after post after post on the forums, I'd have just said f*ck it all and packed it all up."
I don't want to give up a major interest. Who ever does?
Post by: couchmonkey on October 17, 2006, 01:12:42 PM
Thanks for the info, though I haven't changed my mind.Smash's last post sums things up pretty nicely. I have said in the past that I think Nintendo could have succeeded with a GameCube 2, but I now realize that that was a losing proposition in the long run. Sony's momentum + Microsoft's money are too hard to fight.
The reason is that games are the main thing that sell a console. And I'm not talking about one or two games, I'm talking about hundreds of games. Without third parties, a console will fail. So how does Nintendo convince third parties to make games for its console?
In a brute force battle with a GameCube 2-type system, the only way for Nintendo to convince third parties would be to bribe them. Okay, before it does that, Nintendo could lower or eliminate liscencing fees...but that's practically the same thing as a bribe, right? Once bribing becomes commonplace, the whole thing turns into a bidding war that Nintendo can't win. I think Nintendo could improve it's position, but it would be temporary and it would eat up Nintendo's profits.
In this battle, Wii offers a way to separate Nintendo from the pack. If the features are considered fun, then people buy it. Publishers, especially Ubisoft, are already speculating on it, and Nintendo has increased third party support over what the GameCube had without making any sacrifices.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 17, 2006, 01:22:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane I expected Nintendo to stop f*cking routine sh!t up. That's what sunk the Cube. It seemed that regarding the three consoles if you made up a comparison chart Nintendo was last in like 90% of the items listed. And almost all of it were problems that anybody could have avoided with ten minutes of thought. Sony and MS beat Nintendo because they merely screwed up less than Nintendo did. I think Nintendo would have done fine if they just admitted what they did wrong, fixed those problems, and thus leveled the playing field so that their games would shine through without a huge wall of incompetance in front of it. They handicap themselves more than anything. Doing this wouldn't win them first place right away but it would help them do better and gradually improve so that when Sony screws up they can swoop in for the kill. Interestingly enough Sony IS screwing up and it would be the perfect time for this to work.
Even with a perfect track record, I still see Nintendo in 3rd, maybe not as much of a distant 3rd, but still 3rd.
The problem, as I see it, is that no matter WHAT Nintendo did, hardcore gamers saw them as not appealing to them because of the lack of mature franchises on the cube (as is evidenced with the huge sales spike from MP and RE4), casual gamers saw the PS2 as a better console because it had more games, and pretty much EVERYONE viewed the GC as being a system for children. Non-gamers didn't even realize Nintendo existed.
They tried getting the M games onto the system. It didn't change the kiddié image.
They tried getting more games. It didn't change the fact that most people still preferred the PS2.
They tried securing exclusive titles. Again, no one cared.
Nintendo isn't going to win the console war by trying to do what Sony and MS are doing, only better. It's NOT going to happen.
As much as I dislike the Wii name, they picked it because it would separate them from the competition and make them stand out and it worked.
They went with a controller which would make them stand out and it worked.
They're going with a strategy which is aimed at making them stand out, and according to TRU and CNN, it's workING.
I do not, for even a SECOND, believe that Nintendo has a prayer in hell of being anything but a distant 3rd if they continue to try to beat MS and Sony at their own game. It's like a 99 pound kid trying to arm wrestle a 300 pound weight lifter: the weight lifter has FAR FAR more resources (muscle) and thus the kid (Nintendo) has no prayer in hell of beating them.
So they did the smart thing: they moved the market, suddenly and without warning, which is akin to pulling out a nail and jamming it in the weight lifter's eye. Sony and MS probably thought Nintendo would arm wrestle with them forever, at least until they were tired of losing and quit. Low and behold, Nintendo says, "We can't go through you so we're going to go around you."
Nothing else would have worked. Gaming isn't the same industry it was 10 years ago. When Sony entered the market, everything changed. Nintendo trying to be the "same old Nintendo" would get them killed.
The company itself has been around for over 100 years. Do you think it survived that long by doing the same thing without ever questioning it?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 17, 2006, 01:35:11 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 17, 2006, 01:39:36 PM
To call Nintendo's move a mistake or them making the same error is stupid until we see the final outcome. This is pretty much untreaded territory for gaming consoles, and all a thinking person would say is that it is risky, we still do not know if it will work for sure. Apple did the same thing with iPod, and Nintendo is trying to do the same with Wii which is to create another market within the gaming industry through differentiation (iPod was quite unique at the time and was competing within the small consumer electronics industry) and also like iPod these fights are won through abstract value along with its uniqueness to hopefully create a new market for others to follow suit (price is seldom "low" for this kind of approach).. This paraells the Wii in that it is competing within the console industry but has done something different to set it self apart hoping that this new take on gaming will create a new market within the industry while bringing in current gamers, like iPod did within the small consumer electronics industry.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 17, 2006, 01:58:17 PM
They tried getting more games. It didn't change the fact that most people still preferred the PS2.
They tried securing exclusive titles. Again, no one cared."
I wouldn't say they tried very hard in any of those. For mature games for example it was a token title here or there but no real commitment. A typical offering from Nintendo where no real effort is put into anything they don't really want to do. In some cases they tried but were so clueless about what they really should have been doing that it didn't help. Attracting third parties to make more Mario games isn't attracting third party support. It accomplishes nothing because it provides no variety and nothing Nintendo couldn't have made themselves got made. Getting Final Fantasy in name only or a Metal Gear remake gets nothing. And anything you do do correctly is nullified if you can't market worth a damn. Though I am assuming Nintendo can tell what mistakes they've made in the past. They probably can't tell. Thus they think they did do everything right but failed anyway.
We differ in our view of the Cube. I don't consider the Cube a full effort. I feel they half-assed at first and just assumed that because they're Nintendo people would eat the Cube up. Then they realized they were in trouble so they panicked and went sequel crazy which probably made things worse. Then they quit and left all us Cube owners out to dry. The Cube was a weak effort from a company that didn't really know what they were doing in the first place.
You're probably right in that Nintendo couldn't compete but I think that's because they would f*ck up another normal console. My idea is unrealistic because it requires Nintendo to suddenly figure things out which wasn't going to happen since it hasn't yet.
Post by: Guitar Smasher on October 17, 2006, 02:24:20 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 17, 2006, 02:31:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane I wouldn't say they tried very hard in any of those.
I still wouldn't say that it mattered.
The Xbox boasted itself as an online-centric console for the hardcore adult gamer. The PS2 was everything else, including some online support, and the GC was a lesser version of the PS2.
This generation was a wash from the start. Nintendo didn't get the sheer number of exclusives and the library of the PS2 and they couldn't afford to buy a place at the table like MS did.
They were going to lose no matter what.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 17, 2006, 02:40:45 PM
Not necessarily in first but in a good position. With a stable or even increasing marketshare, better image with consumers and the media, increased interest from third parties as a result of better marketshare and image, fanbase being content, and as usual a consistent annual profit. I don't think anyone can get the number one position without number one f*cking up first. So the idea is to be making a profit and being in a position where when the market leader goofs you can take their spot by default.
It's not too often that I hear about a profitable company being incredibly competent going under. This isn't like the Sega Dreamcast where regardless of how great a console they made they were broke from the get-go. Somehow Nintendo has continued to make a profit with the Gamecube so is it so unbelievable that a traditional console from Nintendo that wasn't borked beyond belief would do at least as good? I'm not asking for a Gamecube 2. Get the image of the Gamecube out of your head completely when thinking of what a traditional console should be like. A better comparison would be the Sega Genesis, an incredibly competent console that was very successful and competed with a strong market leader despite the fact that it was the follow up to an unpopular flop.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 17, 2006, 02:55:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane Not necessarily in first but in a good position. With a stable or even increasing marketshare, better image with consumers and the media, increased interest from third parties as a result of better marketshare and image, fanbase being content, and as usual a consistent annual profit. I don't think anyone can get the number one position without number one f*cking up first. So the idea is to be making a profit and being in a position where when the market leader goofs you can take their spot by default.
I still think that would have landed them 3rd.
Sony was going to be #1 regardless and MS's hardcore online strategy and ability to buy any exclusive they want made them 2nd.
Besides, in this gen, a perfectly managed GC 2 would STILL make last place.
Post by: SixthAngel on October 17, 2006, 03:06:55 PM
Looking back its easy to point out mistakes but it is harder to point out why systems succeed. The ps2 succeeded by making some new smart moves and by doing things that Nintendo simply could not do because it is a different kind of company. Nintendo realized it needs to use the fact that it is a fundamentally different company to their advantage by breaking out in a new creative directions that the larger companies simply can't do as easily.
When three companies are selling ice cream you don't defeat the other companies by adding more scoops (especially when your opponents have more flavors), you have to make something original and different like the Blizzard (its at Dairy Queen).
Post by: IceCold on October 17, 2006, 03:43:41 PM
I have become 100% convinced that if Nintendo did such a thing, they would fail miserably, as much as people like Ian or Billy would like to think otherwise. I think I came to this realisation during the HD debate. Think about it; maybe we on this forum would buy it, and a few others, but who else would give a damn about the console if it was similarly priced the the 360 and PS3? I've heard Ian say over and over that they need to have a "traditional" console without the "screwups" of the N64 and the GameCube. His main reasons of why the GameCube failed are, I believe, things like a smaller disc, expensive memory cards, no demo discs and marketing. Really, the only thing that I believe really contributed was the bad marketing. Those other things are trivial, and even if they were fixed, I I doubt it would have saved the GameCube. So, what else did they do wrong with the Cube? Not much, I'd say.. Third party support was a vicious cycle (thid parties give half-assed ports, they don't sell, they stop supporting the GameCube, the marketshare goes down, third party games don't sell, etc) but I really believe Nintendo tried hard to secure more support for their console. See Crystal Chronicles (even the fact that they collaborated with Square was big), Capcom 5, when Nintendo leased their franchises to SEGA and Namco to improve relations, etc. Looking at the GameCube's game lineup, it had some brilliant games that deserved to be the best-selling games in the generation. Yet many of them went ignored, because the Xbox/PlayStation crowd just didn't care about Nintendo.
Taking this into consideration, if Nintendo made a console for "old school" (ugh) gamers, they would be buried. Let's say they went all out with a powerful (yet expensive) console, HD support, traditional controller, costly disc media, a full blown online service, and only hardcore games with sky-high production values. This would be, to put it lightly, a disaster. I have accepted that Nintendo just can't compete with the deep pockets and aggressive marketing of Sony and MS. They can't regain the traditional market. They're just a small videogame company with no other interests, trying to survive among corporate giants. Another traditional console, especially one with a price tag like that, wouldn't have a chance. They just wouldn't have much return in terms of marketshare, third party support, software sales and, in general, profit.. There would be nothing to differentiate between them and the other consoles, and if this happened, it would be a pipe dream to believe that Nintendo could come out on top. Casual gamers would go with the 360 or PS3 every time because of the mindshare that Nintendo doesn't have. Billy or Ian would probably say, at this point, that all they need to differentiate themselves are their usual amazing games. I would beg to differ, though.. Again, look at the GameCube. Nintendo's games, however much better they were than the competition, didn't make much difference in the end.
And that is why Nintendo needed something different. They needed to separate themselves, to innovate, to build momentum by being unique, and to capture the attention of those who wouldn't otherwise care. A $350 console would stop all of this in its tracks. It would be a complete turn-off to many people, especially the ones who don't care about the CPU's power. These are the people whom Nintendo is trying to capture.. They sure as hell won't pay that much for a game console, when they aren't interested in playing videogames anyway. You could argue that $250 is even too much, but Nintendo has this covered. They pack in Wii Sports, so that the hardcore early adopters get it with the system. The launch and the next few shipments will sell out to the early birds, so a lower price is not needed. To top this off, they can use viral marketing through Wii Sports, and get casuals and nongamers interested in the system. Then, after a few months, they cut the price, inviting people to try the console out. It's a great strategy..
Even the dreaded nongamer strategy has paid its dividends, looking at the DS. Not only have they sold millions upon millions of systems and games that are designed to attract nongamers, by opening up a new demographic, it has helped their other games as well. Ian is the first to tell us that Nintendo franchises don't sell Nintendo consoles as much as they used to. With the DS, games like Nintendogs and Brain Training expanded the market, so the new audience has a chance to try out classic Nintendo franchises. New Super Mario Bros is the best selling Mario game in Japan since Super Mario World.. that's not a coincidence.
Post by: Arbok on October 17, 2006, 03:55:31 PM
Will it pay off? Time will tell, but I think Nintendo is in a much better position right now then they could have been with a traditional console ready to launch.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 17, 2006, 04:18:54 PM
If Nintendo released a "traditional" console, do you know where they'd be? Concealed in obscurity in 3rd place.
The only, I repeat, the ONLY THING Nintendo could do was pull off something that would carry them OUT of the depths of obscurity and into the spotlight, otherwise they'd become that sh*tty little 3rd place company that has its ideas ripped off on a regular basis and no one knows they exist. They NEEDED a way to say, "Hey, look at US!" and the Wii has done that nicely.
Ian, the Nintendo you want cannot survive in this market. I know you don't like this Nintendo, but this is the evolution necessary for the company to survive.
Don't be the type of ignorant fanboy who wants the company to stick to its roots so badly that it would do so at the cost of its own existence.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 17, 2006, 09:18:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok
Gotta aplaud IceCold for the post of the thread right here; a lot of great points, and I fully agree that a lot of the mindshare that Nintendo is now getting is because they aren't following the pack in terms of their next console, but are paving their own way which is really turning heads.
Will it pay off? Time will tell, but I think Nintendo is in a much better position right now then they could have been with a traditional console ready to launch.
::Gives up on writing anything anything of any length in the future since people it is obvious people don't care:: Anyway good post Ice, that definately does fall into Nintendo using a the Business model of diffentiation. Also is it just me or does Ian seem like he needs another vacation? He seems to be in grumpy mode again
.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 17, 2006, 09:25:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution ::Gives up on writing anything anything of any length in the future since people it is obvious people don't care::
We all read your post (I did, anyway).
It's just that, when it becomes Ian vs. the world in a thread, we all tend to make similar arguments.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 17, 2006, 09:39:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution ::Gives up on writing anything anything of any length in the future since people it is obvious people don't care::
We all read your post (I did, anyway).
It's just that, when it becomes Ian vs. the world in a thread, we all tend to make similar arguments.
I think we all should chip in and give Ian another vacation, it was so nice when was he was relatively happy and positive.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 17, 2006, 09:54:56 PM
Once this thing explodes into a burning holocaust of media frenzy, trust me, much of his doubts will be erased.
Post by: Smoke39 on October 17, 2006, 10:05:41 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 17, 2006, 10:07:41 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 18, 2006, 12:06:08 AM
This is the reason he's not all ga-ga on the DS: sales don't make it a good system; quality, traditional, golden era style Japanese games do.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2006, 12:12:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Dudes, you've got Ian all wrong. He's not a fanboi who can be swayed by sales figures and who'll snap up Nintendogs on hype alone just to later risk being charged with criminal neglect of a virtual being.
This is the reason he's not all ga-ga on the DS: sales don't make it a good system; quality, traditional, golden era style Japanese games do.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Funny I thought DS had traditional games along with quirky or casual games like Nintendogs. We have Star Fox, Castlevania, Super Mario DS, Yoshi's Island 2 (looks very traditional), Mario Kart, along with some others that I am sure that I've forgotten. DS has a ton of variety for gamers of all kinds, and I think it is a bit silly to still hold a grudge against it. Heck for me last year it was my favorite system, which is very unusual for me since I usually end up pushing my handhelds off to the side, but DS has been something very special.
Post by: Smoke39 on October 18, 2006, 12:41:56 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on October 18, 2006, 05:40:50 AM
Kairon gets Ian -- sales don't impress Ian, games do.I'd say Ian still pines for older games...he's like my dad, only my dad pines for the text adventure cycle of games, where Ian pines for the 16-bit generation of games (give or take a few years). This is perfectly understandable, it's the generation he grew up in so he's got a preference for it. A lot of other people have preferences that they feel aren't being met. Games are going to change in the next few years and Nintendo is on the leading edge of what's next in gaming, and a lot of people aren't going to like where this leads. Wii Sports, anyone?
VGRevolution points out a bunch of traditional games on the DS. This is a good point, and in fact Ian has expressed more interest in Yoshi's Island DS than pretty much any other game this year. But there are two counter-arguments:
1. From a traditionalist view Nintendo "failed" with New Super Mario Bros. If you've watched the reaction on the internet, you've probably noticed that there's a very vocal minority that's unhappy with this game. What they want is all the best elements of previous 2D Mario games plus new elements - flight is the number one thing they say the game needs, followed by greater length/challenge. Instead Nintendo reinvented the original Super Mario Bros to create a simplistic experience that a larger audience could enjoy. This game is not meant strictly for hardcore Mario fans, it's meant for anyone that wants a fun 2D platformer. Star Fox Command has also strayed somewhat from the formula that made the first two "classic".
2. Nintendo and other companies are spending resources on games like Nintendogs, World of Warcraft, The Sims and Mario Party instead of games that reflect the tastes of the 16-bit generation. Sure DS has Castlevania, Final Fantasy III and Mega Man ZX this fall - but I bet almost any given fall season on the Super Nintendo outdid that, in terms of the style of games that Ian wants to play. It's not just about a few bankable sequels, it's also about all the forgotten one-shot titles like Plok, Shadowrun, ActRaiser*, Super Ghouls n' Ghosts, and Blackthorne: these were the kinds of games filling in the blanks on Super NES. On DS it's titles like Club House Games, Mario Hoops 3-on-3, and Phoenix Wright. Not bad games, but not the same as the 16 bit era at all.
So from a traditional perspective, the games are still coming, but not in the quantities or forms that they used to.
*I know ActRaiser had a sequel, but it only survived for one generation, which is what counts.
Post by: MaryJane on October 18, 2006, 05:54:50 AM
Nintendo should not be making casual games, all casual games eventually fail.
Like Second Life which only has 900,000 users.
Who needs it? Because we all know developers hate when a game they don't make sells big, it means the games they make won't sell any right? even with a huge userbase if you make a game that can sell a million in a short period time, it means no other game type will do the same, and only that type of game will be made.
Especially when nintendo faithful will buy games like Zelda and Mario. Red Steel has one of the largest following in the gaming community right now also. So you can see my point right?
Post by: trip1eX on October 18, 2006, 06:26:37 AM
The thing that none of you have figured out is that no matter what Nintendo does Ian won't be satisfied. Oh he might try to throw you off that trail once in awhile by throwing out a positive post, but he can't keep that up. It's his nature to be negative.
I also get the sense the dude has no money. I remember a post awhile back where it came to light that Ian hadn't played alot of pretty good Nintendo titles of the past couple years.
Post by: couchmonkey on October 18, 2006, 06:48:13 AM
trip1eX: I agree that Ian can almost always find a way to complain, but if you look at the E3 press conference thread, it's definitely possible to please him:
Quote
Ian sez:
Okay I just heard about a new Yoshi's Island game for the DS. OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD!!! I honestly am short of breath after hearing that. Not Wii related but it's the same conference so whatever.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 18, 2006, 07:48:45 AM
Seriously, for every "innovative" game on the DS, there's an "ol' skool" title which just reeks of "WTF this should have been on the SNES".
We'll soon have not one but TWO Castlevanias, Tetris, Mario Kart, Final F*cking Fantasy III, and OMFG, NEW SUPER MARIO BROS. which is as dated as it gets in terms of gameplay.
Explain to me where he has grounds for whining again?
Quote
Originally posted by: trip1eX I also get the sense the dude has no money. I remember a post awhile back where it came to light that Ian hadn't played alot of pretty good Nintendo titles of the past couple years.
Ooooohhhhhhhhhh...
THAT would explain everything.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 18, 2006, 08:25:03 AM
Would they with their $600 console? I think Sony is going to slip from number one this gen but I don't think it's because Nintendo is totally schooling them with the Wii. I think Sony's just screwing themselves over so bad that that third parties will have to leave because the console just won't sell well enough. Nintendo is going to pick up the slack by being the de facto number two in Japan. Now to be fair it is easier to point this out in hindsight though there have been some chinks in Sony's armour for a while. They aren't treating third parties as well anymore, dictating what games can or can't be released in North America. Someone like Nintendo who needs better third party support could win companies over with a more flexible policy (which is pretty much how they attracted SNK to the Wii).
Regarding this traditional game stuff "traditional" is just a term commonly used to differentiate between a non-game. It has nothing to do with nostalgia titles offering the same stuff that has been played forever. That is what Nintendo considers to be a "traditional game" but that isn't what I want. I want new titles and sequels with new ideas created for people who play games as opposed to simplistic games made for people who don't play games. Rehash city is not what I want. Now I like New Super Mario Bros and I'm interested in Yoshi's Island 2 but that's because those are (or will be) great games. But they aren't very fresh and nothing but games like that would get real stale real quick. New Super Mario Bros is great but it's a nostalgia game. It's full of references to old games and formulic Mario stuff that Nintendo knew fans would like. But it doesn't break much new ground like the past Mario games did.
Right now Nintendo's creative energies on the DS are going towards simplistic non-games. There are games made for gamers but they're rehashes, even if they are pretty good. I want Nintendo making creative games for gamers. That is what I always mean when I say "traditional game". The idea of traditional games being uncreative is placed in your heads entirely because Nintendo says they are and is making all of their "gamer games" in that style. They could be innovating in a way that doesn't result in dumb-downed simplistic non-games but they are choosing not too. I don't like non-games and I don't want nothing but nostalgia trips.
Now if they did put some damn creativity in anything else but their non-games then the non-gamer stuff wouldn't bother me as much. Then Nintendo truly would be working on pleasing both groups. Right now they aren't. Gamers get token scraps.
I am a little more interested in the Wii lineup though. Super Mario Galaxy for example looks like a gamer's game and has some really cool new elements like the planet stuff. I'm afraid the game might control like crap but it looks like a cool concept that is fresh at the same time.
Post by: Strell on October 18, 2006, 08:42:36 AM
That was about my fill for the rest of the year.
Post by: Requiem on October 18, 2006, 09:10:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
I know, Kairon. I tend to agree with Ian to a degree. For example, he expressed concern over the new interface being an exuse not to inovate in other areas. That is, a developer may make an extremely derivative, formulaic game, and justify it with, "But it's new and cool because instead of pressing buttons now you make hand gestures!" Sure, it makes things a bit more interesting, but I don't think that's enough. I think that's a legitimate concern, though I'm not as skeptical as Ian.
Though that maybe a legitimate concern, you must realize that we, the consumers, won't stand for it. For instance, if the Wii takes off there will most likely be a sh#t-ton of crappy games that 3rd parties throw at us for the sole reason of "cashing-in". They'll give us all sorts of nasty sparkling innovationy games, but you know what....they won't sell.
Why?
Becuase those games that do innovate and are actually fun will be the best selling games. You must remember that with the Wii, the competition is starting out on the same foot. People will now look at how the game plays as a big part of their decision to buy the game. This game could have been made by Nintendo or a small indie company; no matter, because if its fun -- then damn it it's fun.
Now these third parties can thrive off of our curiousity for a while, making sports games and FPS's that still intrigue us simply because of the Wii. However, as soon as THE FPS or THE boxing game comes out, 3rd parties are going to have to reform and get their act together. They are going to have to reinnovate their style and continually innovate so they can get our attention.
What I'm basically trying to say is...
Sloppy controls will lead to the death of the game.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 18, 2006, 10:00:01 AM
I think that's wishful thinking. Super Mario 64 DS was a port with inferior controls and yet people ate it up. Poor games sell on ignorance.
Post by: WalkingTheCow on October 18, 2006, 10:01:11 AM
Post by: Artimus on October 18, 2006, 10:07:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Though that maybe a legitimate concern, you must realize that we, the consumers, won't stand for it. For instance, if the Wii takes off there will most likely be a sh#t-ton of crappy games that 3rd parties throw at us for the sole reason of 'cashing-in'. They'll give us all sorts of nasty sparkling innovationy games, but you know what....they won't sell."
I think that's wishful thinking. Super Mario 64 DS was a port with inferior controls and yet people ate it up. Poor games sell on ignorance.
SM64DS wasn't a poor game. It was a very good game. The controls are not perfect, and inferior to with a control stick, but the game itself is superior to the original. The graphics are better, the multiplayer is fun, the minigames are great, and the characters add-depth. It's overall better game than the 64 version. But you never bothered to truly play it, did you?
(do you even OWN a DS?)
Post by: Smoke39 on October 18, 2006, 10:10:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: RequiemQuote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
I know, Kairon. I tend to agree with Ian to a degree. For example, he expressed concern over the new interface being an exuse not to inovate in other areas. That is, a developer may make an extremely derivative, formulaic game, and justify it with, "But it's new and cool because instead of pressing buttons now you make hand gestures!" Sure, it makes things a bit more interesting, but I don't think that's enough. I think that's a legitimate concern, though I'm not as skeptical as Ian.
Though that maybe a legitimate concern, you must realize that we, the consumers, won't stand for it. For instance, if the Wii takes off there will most likely be a sh#t-ton of crappy games that 3rd parties throw at us for the sole reason of "cashing-in". They'll give us all sorts of nasty sparkling innovationy games, but you know what....they won't sell.
Why?
Becuase those games that do innovate and are actually fun will be the best selling games. You must remember that with the Wii, the competition is starting out on the same foot. People will now look at how the game plays as a big part of their decision to buy the game. This game could have been made by Nintendo or a small indie company; no matter, because if its fun -- then damn it it's fun.
Now these third parties can thrive off of our curiousity for a while, making sports games and FPS's that still intrigue us simply because of the Wii. However, as soon as THE FPS or THE boxing game comes out, 3rd parties are going to have to reform and get their act together. They are going to have to reinnovate their style and continually innovate so they can get our attention.
What I'm basically trying to say is...
Sloppy controls will lead to the death of the game.
I don't agree with your logic. Doesn't Madden sell well? Don't "real gamers" like to make fun of the masses who consistently buy "the same game" over and over again? Don't crummy licensed games make money? There seem to be a lot of people who're willing to buy some pretty lame stuff.
I'm not trying to argue that this is likely. We won't know until later in the game. I'm pretty confident that we'll get some cool stuff, but some people want some more proof, and I think that's reasonable.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 18, 2006, 10:24:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane Would they with their $600 console? I think Sony is going to slip from number one this gen but I don't think it's because Nintendo is totally schooling them with the Wii. I think Sony's just screwing themselves over so bad that that third parties will have to leave because the console just won't sell well enough. Nintendo is going to pick up the slack by being the de facto number two in Japan. Now to be fair it is easier to point this out in hindsight though there have been some chinks in Sony's armour for a while. They aren't treating third parties as well anymore, dictating what games can or can't be released in North America. Someone like Nintendo who needs better third party support could win companies over with a more flexible policy (which is pretty much how they attracted SNK to the Wii).
Sony had a year lead and GTA launched just as their competition was finally entering the market. Sony won before the battle started because they became the de facto system to bring games to. Nintendo was competing for 2nd place with a competitor with limitless resources, willing to lose billions of dollars to stay in the market.
No amount of "not screwing up" would have earned them anything but 3rd in that race, not with the GC anyway.
Quote
Regarding this traditional game stuff "traditional" is just a term commonly used to differentiate between a non-game. It has nothing to do with nostalgia titles offering the same stuff that has been played forever. That is what Nintendo considers to be a "traditional game" but that isn't what I want. I want new titles and sequels with new ideas created for people who play games as opposed to simplistic games made for people who don't play games. Rehash city is not what I want. Now I like New Super Mario Bros and I'm interested in Yoshi's Island 2 but that's because those are (or will be) great games. But they aren't very fresh and nothing but games like that would get real stale real quick. New Super Mario Bros is great but it's a nostalgia game. It's full of references to old games and formulic Mario stuff that Nintendo knew fans would like. But it doesn't break much new ground like the past Mario games did.
Problem is, the difference between "rehash" and "great game" is subjective to the point where one could call it both ways at the flip of a coin.
Castlevania is a prime example of this. The game adds numerous features which previous games did not possess. Many would hail it as groundbreaking progress in the genre while others could, also justified, declare it a rehash. Mario Kart DS featured online play and the highest number of tracks ever featured in a MK game. Great game or rehash? It's COMPLETELY subjective.
Knowing that, Ian, you will never be happy with anything Nintendo produces unless you're willing to relinquish your quest for this legendary game which will somehow stay true to its roots while at the same time building on the original formula.
It is not Nintendo's failures which are making you unhappy. It's your inability to enjoy their games for what they are instead of trying to tell Nintendo what they should be.
Quote
The idea of traditional games being uncreative is placed in your heads entirely because Nintendo says they are and is making all of their "gamer games" in that style.
Conspiracy theorize much?
First of all, Nintendo didn't buy all those copies of Brain Age and Nintendogs, the consumers did. Are we to blame Nintendo for the fact that non-games sell?
Second, I see no drought of gamer games on the DS. I'd agree and be inclined to be upset with Nintendo over the non-games if it meant a severe shortage of gamer games, but it hasn't so far and with titles like LoZ:PH, FFIII, Castlevania: PoR, etc. on the horizon, I'm not exactly worried.
The Wii, to my knowledge, has ONE non-game it'll launch with and it's the same game packed in with the console. Everything else is pure gamer, from LoZ to Red Steel to THDJ. Maybe Elebits, but even that has bosses and the like which would probably steer it away from being a non-game.
All in all, I can't see your fears as being anything but ungrounded. How can you be afraid that Nintendo will forget its gamer roots when the Wii will launch almost nothing but gamer games?
In case you haven't noticed, there aren't that many non-games for the DS: Nintendogs, Brain Age/Training, Cooking Mama...and? Maybe I'm forgetting some here, but the ratio of games for gamers compared to non-gamers is still drastically weights in favor of GAMER games.
I think Nintendo acknowledges that they don't need many non-gamer games to sell the system. Nintendo clearly didn't intend to sell 10 games to 100,000 non-gamers but 1 game to 1,000,000 non gamers. Non-gamers won't buy a game once a month/week like the hardcore will.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2006, 10:41:45 AM
S, NSMB (I have to admit though I wasn't a huge fan of the game), or the CV games. Not to mention all the other quality games on the system which is almost unheard of for a handeld especially one that has only been out for less than 2 years. The DS has tons of variety, and think that is what makes it, at least in my opinion, Nintendo's best handheld.
Post by: couchmonkey on October 18, 2006, 11:11:06 AM
Steven Kent's original point is that Nintendo screws up and breaks promises to us. As for the screw-ups, I really don't see them as that monumental with GameCube. N64 and PS3 both featured much more monumental screw-ups than GameCube. I really don't think a perfect Mario and Zelda game would have suddenly turned GameCube into a 40 million seller, or even a 30 million seller. Same goes for controller adjustments and larger memory cards. What the system really needed an entire lineup of additional games, and where are those going to come from? Moneyhats are the only option.
As for broken promises, I think Nintendo did withdraw a bit once it saw that GameCube wasn't going to close the gap with Sony. There's no guarantee that won't happen again with Wii, so cautious players will wait a year or two to buy one. That said, I think Nintendo has clearly made an impact with Wii. There's no reason to cut game support on a system that's selling well.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2006, 11:20:28 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on October 18, 2006, 11:43:14 AM
-PS2 games filled an entire shelf and overflowed into the next shelf...because it used similar packaging to PSX, it seemed like there were three whole shelves of games!
-Xbox filled about half a shelf.
-GameCube filled less than a third of a shelf.
For Bob Briefcase walking in and deciding what to spend his disposable income on, it's pretty obvious which system is going to give you the most bang for your buck...and keep on giving for the next five years. Add in the fact that Sony already had 20 million PS2 customers around this point, and really, how is Nintendo (or Microsoft) going to compete with that?
This time around, Xbox 360 is in the lead position. But Nintendo has separated itself from the pack so that Wii might be interesting even if you already own a 360. Also, luckily for Nintendo and Sony, 360 is worthless in Japan and its lead elsewhere isn't up to par with the PS2 lead.
*Edit: Maybe GTA can make a 20 million seller a 30 million selller, but I would argue that it's more a combination of GTA, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Devil May Cry, Kingdom Hearts, etc, etc. than GTA all alone.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2006, 12:22:47 PM
This is a bit off topic but does relate to variety. I find it funny that even though Sony has pushed PSP into stores with sometimes larger displays (and more out in the open) the Nintendo DS is still kicking the crap out of it sales wise.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 18, 2006, 12:29:51 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 18, 2006, 12:39:41 PM
But unlike Ian, I don't think that this is because Nintendo wasn't trying. I think they were giving it their all. I just think that Nintendo really hit a brick wall with coming up with anything new to do. I really, truly believe that the Wii is as much something that Nintendo needed itself to be able to come up with new ideas, as the industry needed to move forward.
When did we stop talking about Steven Kent and start talking about Ian?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2006, 12:47:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Yeah, the only game I really felt was innovative last gen was Pikmin... I was disappointed with so many of Nintendo's first-party stuff on the GC like Sunshine, Windwaker, Prime 2 (but Prime 1 was cool), Mario Kart: DD, Pikmin 2, blah blah blah hate hate hate.
But unlike Ian, I don't think that this is because Nintendo wasn't trying. I think they were giving it their all. I just think that Nintendo really hit a brick wall with coming up with anything new to do. I really, truly believe that the Wii is as much something that Nintendo needed itself to be able to come up with new ideas, as the industry needed to move forward.
When did we stop talking about Steven Kent and start talking about Ian?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
They combined to form the Giga Ian Kent.
Post by: Artimus on October 18, 2006, 02:03:38 PM
Come to think of it, Ian is an ideological extremist! If only I ran a "news" video game blog I could make an "insightful" entry about ideological extremists in the video game world and how that affects the "market" in this "postmodern" environment at the break of the new "feminist" threshold of early-era "Marxist" theory! I went to college! I did! I swear!
(not sure where that second paragraph came from, sorry)
Post by: Ian Sane on October 18, 2006, 02:04:09 PM
Pikmin 2. Majora's Mask. Metroid Fusion. Metroid Prime. These games are all sequels that built on the original formula while still feeling like a sequel should without being a rehash or a nostalgia trip. It can happen and Nintendo until recently was really good at it. I would even consider Super Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker as games like these, they're just not as good.
And the thing I have to ask is where is the brand new first party DS content that isn't targeted at non-gamers? The new stuff are games like Nintendogs and Brain Games while the traditional games are all sequels. If Nintendo truly wants to balance things out where are the brand new franchises (like Pikmin was on the Cube) made for gamers? Even on the Wii the one first party launch title that isn't associated at all with an existing franchise is WiiSports, the non-game. ExciteTruck is derived from ExciteBike (though I do think it's different enough that it's pretty new) and Zelda is Zelda.
Post by: wandering on October 18, 2006, 02:20:21 PM
Quote
And the thing I have to ask is where is the brand new first party DS content that isn't targeted at non-gamers?
The thing is, though, Nintendo has never focused on portables that much. There's a reason you're more excited about the Wii's lineup than the DS's: Nintendo is putting a lot more effort into it. You act like all their time is being eaten up by (great) games like Nintendogs and Brain Age. How much resources do you seriously think went into developing those? I don't think Nintendo's goal is to create a split market of gamers and non-gamers, I think it's to get as many people as possible interested in the kind of games they make.
Here's a relevant quote from a recent Iwata asks feature:
Quote
Iwata It does seem that there is a level of misunderstanding among some people. I am concerned about this. It's true that Nintendo is reaching out to non-gamers, but this does not mean that we are ignoring game fans. I believe that if we don't make moves to get people who don't play games to understand them, then the position of video games in society will never improve. Society's image of games will remain largely negative, including that stuff about playing games all the time badly damaging you or rotting your brain or whatever. If that happens, then even people who enjoy games will start to feel a strange guilt when they play them. If people who haven't played games up til now start playing them, and appreciate how enjoyable they are, it is highly likely this situation will change. Society will be more accommodating towards people who play games, and it will become even easier to produce more conventional games. In reality, while Nintendo is looking to reach out to people who don't play games, it's not as if we've become less committed to Zelda. On the contrary, we've invested four years and a huge amount of effort into developing the new Zelda. There's no question that we are passionate about it. For the people who are willing to wait for them, we will absolutely continue to produce games like that. But I think if we don't also develop things for non-gamers, the future for game fans will become bleak.
Post by: trip1eX on October 18, 2006, 02:26:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
trip1eX: I agree that Ian can almost always find a way to complain, but if you look at the E3 press conference thread, it's definitely possible to please him:Quote
Ian sez:
Okay I just heard about a new Yoshi's Island game for the DS. OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD!!! I honestly am short of breath after hearing that. Not Wii related but it's the same conference so whatever.
This falls under the
"Oh he might try to throw you off that trail once in awhile by throwing out a positive post, but he can't keep that up. It's his nature to negative."
part of my post.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2006, 02:30:38 PM
Also Ian you like bringing up NDog's and Brain Age, when I think those games defeat your point because with handhelds NIntendo has hardly EVER created new IPs, so if anything those two games are something unique, not because of their "non-game" category but because they are new IPs, so they are a step in the right direction! Heck with handhelds we seldom seen sequels to games, but instead had rehashes or simplified versions of the console counterparts (SML anyone?), while DS has changed that for the most part. If anything NDS is showing a positive shift for NIntendo especially for handheld gaming.
Post by: BigJim on October 18, 2006, 02:55:01 PM
I'll take Mario and Zelda any day of the week, but I also want more. Kid Icarus reinvented on Wii, and with an epic feel. A "dark side of Hyrule" title would be freaking awesome too... Things along those lines. With enough regularity that you don't get too starved while waiting for the next big game of that caliber to hit.
Of course anytime I mention something like this, someone says "well duh, we all want that" yet somehow it's still an argument... or, "non-argument" as the case was last time.
What I don't really like is the how Nintendo's "expand the market" goal is seemingly cherry-picked or half ignored by many of those that are so confident that "traditional" gamers won't be starved. They point to questionable games like Red Steel (potential control issues) as proof positive of satisfaction. No such guarantee is there at this point. Fans of these types of games were starved for the last couple years on the Cube, and they just don't want to see it continue. Assurances in fan forums isn't going to be convincing. Only the long term game lineup will do that.
Post by: ShyGuy on October 18, 2006, 02:58:26 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 18, 2006, 02:59:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
As the risk of projecting my feelings on Ian, I think the bottom line of what he wants is the best from the past and also new stuff that is current and fresh (and deep). Or not, he can correct me.
There's nothing wrong with wanting the world. It's just being disappointed that you don't get it that trips you up.
Quote
Kid Icarus reinvented on Wii, and with an epic feel.
Hmmm... could that be God of War?
Quote
A "dark side of Hyrule" title would be freaking awesome too...
Hmmm... could that be Assassin's Creed?
[rant]
I just don't understand why we're trying to imprint all our needs, wants, and desires on a specific game franchise. Why must our fan-fantasies dictate the sort of game that Nintendo makes?
No, Zelda is Zelda is whatever Nintendo makes it. Whether I want less cel-shading, more sailing, or a little girl high up on a pike should never dictate what a Zelda game IS. Zelda should merely be Zelda, and I will love it more for being true to itself and not becoming FFX-II.
Why do fans get to say what the next game "should" be as if they control the darn game? They don't. They're just sitting on the sidelines, getting excited and screaming and feeling like they're all wrapped up in something unique when someone else is doing all the heavy lifting, putting their own life and soul and ideals on the line.
I can't fathom it! It's selfish and little and ARRRGGGHHHH! What does it mean to judge? How can we say that someone's experience is less worthy because it doesn't match with our preconceived notions of good or bad or even "cool."
But then I'm a hypocrite. I've been judging all my life. Heck, I pass judgement on everyone from Sega to N-Space and here I am saying that we can't pass judgement on Nintendo?
NO! Well, this is different. It's one thing to say that we don't like a game, a thing, a painting. BUT it's an entirely different thing to go to the creator and say that THIS is what they do, to suppose that we have a deeper connection to the work than they do, to suppose that OUR VIEWS, which may or may not be valid, are GOD'S GIFT TO ARTISTS. After all, what are works released for but to be critiqued endlessly just so we can tell the person that they're cute and nice but they're LACKING A AND B AND X AND Y AND WE GO ON DISMANTLING THEIR SOULS AND DESTROYING THEIR SELF-IMAGE BEHIND PREDATORY TEETH, TEARING THEM DOWN MAKES US FEEL SO SUPERIIORRRR!!!!!! AFFWBKLIWATCHEDAGYMNASTICSMOVIELIKETHISCALLEDSTICKITITHADJEFFBRIDGESINITANDITMADETHISSAMEPOINTMSKLDNAK
<AWait, but this isn't what you're doing, you're just saying it would be neat to see a PIT or Zelda that fit your fantasies that's not tearing down or anything but GOD IT MAKES ME THINK OF UUUUUURRRGGGGGHHHHH
*huff* *puff* *wheeze*
... If Nintendo wants to make an Epic Kid Icarus, if Nintendo wanted to make a "Dark Zelda" (Zelda: TP?), if Nintendo ACTUALLY WANTS TO MAKE YOSHI'S STORY TWO I'm fine with that. Fine. I may or may not keep playing as much, but I'll at least respect them. But the minute Mario kills someone just because the bloodthirsty fans demand it, say that it should be in the next game, AS SOON AS Nintendo does something because the fans have started dictating their artistic goals more than their talent and ability... the moment THAT happens I'm gonna know. I'm GONNA KNOW! KNOOOOWWWWW!!!
...okay, now I'm just being silly.[/rant]
Quote
Of course anytime I mention something like this, someone says "well duh, we all want that" yet somehow it's still an argument... or, "non-argument" as the case was last time.
DOH! You knew what I was gonna say all the time didn't you? DIDN'T YOU?!?! GET OUT MY MIIIIIiiiiiiiiiinnnnduh...
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: wandering on October 18, 2006, 03:00:01 PM
Quote
SM64DS...the game itself is superior to the original. The graphics are better
No it isn't, and no they aren't. Sm64DS is to SM64 what the Psycho remake is to Psycho. Every horrible, uninspired addition is as out-of-place as a voice that's suddenly cracked into a higher octave. Every "improved" texture is like an unsightly pimple on a once clean face. Every control configuration is as awkward as a first kiss. Maybe the DS thought what he was doing back in 2004 was cool, but now that he's past that awkard stage and has blossomed into the mature (and undeniably sexy) handheld that he is today, he can see how much of what he did back then was unfortunate.
Post by: Galford on October 18, 2006, 03:26:31 PM
I just kinda wondering where the hell he is coming from.
Most gamers I know don't give a f$#& about what non gamers think of them.
What's with all this Ian bashing? He's bringing up a lot of good points.
Back to Steve Kent though, his point is valid. For example, how am I going to play
a 3d fighting game with the Wii remote? That POS DBZ game doesn't count.
I am talking things like Soul Caliber and Street Fighter 3.
Post by: Kairon on October 18, 2006, 03:39:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
Back to Steve Kent though, his point is valid. For example, how am I going to play
a 3d fighting game with the Wii remote? That POS DBZ game doesn't count.
I am talking things like Soul Caliber and Street Fighter 3.
Street Fighter is now in 3D?!?!?!??!
Either way, do what Nintendo did for Smash and Capcom did for Power Stone.
Innovate.
Why do so-called fighters still look like they did on the SNES: two opponents, each almost always facing the other, who depend on big ultra powerful moves rather than wit, ingenuity, environment, and good 'ol fighting spirit?
I'm certain that I've seen B-TV movies with more exciting and inventive fight sequences than that.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Strell on October 18, 2006, 03:49:24 PM
Buy a PS2.
If you have one already, then buy more games for it.
You keep talking about how you hate Nintendo's approach to their franchises, and then you proceed to compare them to something else on the PS2.
So get a PS2.
Sh*t.
Post by: Artimus on October 18, 2006, 04:03:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Oh, I almost forgot...Quote
SM64DS...the game itself is superior to the original. The graphics are better
No it isn't, and no they aren't. Sm64DS is to SM64 what the Psycho remake is to Psycho. Every horrible, uninspired addition is as out-of-place as a voice that's suddenly cracked into a higher octave. Every "improved" texture is like an unsightly pimple on a once clean face. Every control configuration is as awkward as a first kiss. Maybe the DS thought what he was doing back in 2004 was cool, but now that he's past that awkard stage and has blossomed into the mature (and undeniably sexy) handheld that he is today, he can see how much of what he did back then was unfortunate.
Ummm...no? The controls are better in the original, otherwise the DS version improves. The graphics are DEFINITELY better (partly because it's a smaller resolution, but whatever). Have you actually looked at the original game lately? The DS version is MUCH prettier.
Please see:
http://nintenblog.free.fr/blog/?2005/02/25/293-comparatif-visuel-entre-super-mario-64-sur-ds-et-sur-n64
Bowser barely even looks like Bowser in the original. The models are eons beyond the originals.
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 18, 2006, 04:08:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Oh, I almost forgot...Quote
SM64DS...the game itself is superior to the original. The graphics are better
No it isn't, and no they aren't. Sm64DS is to SM64 what the Psycho remake is to Psycho. Every horrible, uninspired addition is as out-of-place as a voice that's suddenly cracked into a higher octave. Every "improved" texture is like an unsightly pimple on a once clean face. Every control configuration is as awkward as a first kiss. Maybe the DS thought what he was doing back in 2004 was cool, but now that he's past that awkard stage and has blossomed into the mature (and undeniably sexy) handheld that he is today, he can see how much of what he did back then was unfortunate.
I think this is alittle harsh. Actually if SM64DS had an easier to use control system then it would be harold by most as the better game. The additional characters are fun. Specially Luigi and Yoshi, and the additional few levels fit very well in the world of Mario 64, and were fun additions.
In fact, when the virtual console is made, I would love the ability to download SM64DS with more traditional controls. It probably won't happen, but I would buy it instantly if it came available.
Post by: wandering on October 18, 2006, 04:18:16 PM
Quote
http://nintenblog.free.fr/blog/?2005/02/25/293-comparatif-visuel-entre-super-mario-64-sur-ds-et-sur-n64
I had actually forgotten the changes were that bad. Imo, that's worse than what Lucas did to the original Star Wars trilogy. To quote Bill out-of-context:
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
Yeah, let's take all the charm out of the game! NO THANKS!
But, whatever. To each his own.
Post by: IceCold on October 18, 2006, 05:09:15 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2006, 06:07:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-SpangQuote
Originally posted by: wandering
Oh, I almost forgot...Quote
SM64DS...the game itself is superior to the original. The graphics are better
No it isn't, and no they aren't. Sm64DS is to SM64 what the Psycho remake is to Psycho. Every horrible, uninspired addition is as out-of-place as a voice that's suddenly cracked into a higher octave. Every "improved" texture is like an unsightly pimple on a once clean face. Every control configuration is as awkward as a first kiss. Maybe the DS thought what he was doing back in 2004 was cool, but now that he's past that awkard stage and has blossomed into the mature (and undeniably sexy) handheld that he is today, he can see how much of what he did back then was unfortunate.
I think this is alittle harsh. Actually if SM64DS had an easier to use control system then it would be harold by most as the better game. The additional characters are fun. Specially Luigi and Yoshi, and the additional few levels fit very well in the world of Mario 64, and were fun additions.
In fact, when the virtual console is made, I would love the ability to download SM64DS with more traditional controls. It probably won't happen, but I would buy it instantly if it came available.
That would be cool Spak, I am holding out some hope that maybe Nintendo will make SM64DS for VC with traditional controls because it is superior to the original in every other aspect. Then again I am not the kind of fan who complains about changes made to classics (I am one of the few supporters of Lucas changing Star Wars especially since it is his VISION not ours) since I don't see anything wrong with fixing what is now broken or outdated. The new additions to Mario 64 DS felt right at home and I don't really think you can make a legit argument besides the controls as to why Mario 64 for N64 is "better" since 64 DS has everything M64 had and more.
Post by: Smoke39 on October 18, 2006, 06:10:00 PM
I'm also one of those guys who thought NSB completely lacked the charm of the old Mario games.
Post by: Artimus on October 18, 2006, 06:15:11 PM
Do you not find sand gets in your ears when you spend so much time with your head in it?
Post by: Smoke39 on October 18, 2006, 06:18:15 PM
Post by: wandering on October 18, 2006, 06:20:01 PM
Quote
I am one of the few supporters of Lucas changing Star Wars especially since it is his VISION not ours
The Lucas of today has about as much in common with the Lucas of 30 years ago as Darth Vader has in common with Anakin Skywalker.
Quote
I'm also one of those guys who thought NSB completely lacked the charm of the old Mario games.
I don't hate New Super Mario Bros. (or its phantasmagorical imagery) the way I hate Mario 64*4, but I agree it isn't as magical as the classics.
Quote
How can you people not see that the graphics are better? The models are far more detailed and they far better match what Mario looks like (especially Bowser). The textures are superior, the effects are superior. The Star Wars reference would be cute if we were ten years old and liked making comparisons that made no sense.
Do you not find sand gets in your ears when you spend so much time with your head in it?
The Star Wars refernce makes perfect sense (I think it does, anyway. It's hard to be sure of anything when you're ten years old and have your head in the sand!) The models were updated to make mario and friends look like they do in the modern games, in the same way that Star Wars was updated to make the original trilogy better fit with the newer prequel trilogy. Except in the case of Mario, instead of changing things here and there, the apperances of the main characters were completely destroyed. Lucas would have to digitally alter James Earl Jones's voice to be more like Hayden Christensen's to make a change that bad.
As for the textures being superior....eh. I prefer the solid colored grass.
Quote
Wandering, in your Iwata quote is he talking about otaku culture?
I just kinda wondering where the hell he is coming from.
Most gamers I know don't give a f$#& about what non gamers think of them.
Imagine the following scene at Thanksgiving. Two aunts are talking. One asks the other if the other's daughters play any videogames. The other shakes her head and responds "No, they aren't allowed that....kind of thing." As one of her daughters is staring blankly at Spongebob (heaven forbid they actually engaged in any activity that required thinking.)
I'd like to see an end to that kind of stupidity, personally.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2006, 06:33:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wanderingQuote
I am one of the few supporters of Lucas changing Star Wars especially since it is his VISION not ours
The Lucas of today has about as much in common with the Lucas of 30 years ago as Darth Vader has in common with Anakin Skywalker.Quote
I'm also one of those guys who thought NSB completely lacked the charm of the old Mario games.
I don't hate New Super Mario Bros. (or its phantasmagorical imagery) the way I hate Mario 64*4, but I agree it isn't as magical as the classics.
You are probaly right about Lucas but I support any individual behind creative works to change or update them as they see fit. Not only that but I LIKED the changes made to it, and I find discussions like "Who shot first" to be ridiculous. IN regards to NSMB I have to agree it isn't as magical as the others but I think that is largely because Miyamoto wasn't very involved with it.
Post by: Artimus on October 18, 2006, 06:56:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
The Star Wars refernce makes perfect sense (I think it does, anyway. It's hard to be sure of anything when you're ten years old and have your head in the sand!) The models were updated to make mario and friends look like they do in the modern games, in the same way that Star Wars was updated to make the original trilogy better fit with the newer prequel trilogy. Except in the case of Mario, instead of changing things here and there, the apperances of the main characters were completely destroyed. Lucas would have to digitally alter James Earl Jones's voice to be more like Hayden Christensen's to make a change that bad.
Do you really not see the obvious difference? Mario 64 DS isn't Mario 64. It's not a direct re-release. It's more closely connected with, say, an Extended Edition DVD (Lord of the Rings, for example) than Star Wars. When Lucas changes Star Wars, he changes Star Wars. All future releases are changed, he says the original no longer exists. Even when he finally releases the original it's a crappy version as an "extra" on the DVD. He doesn't call it Star Wars Redux, it's still called Star Wars. Super Mario 64 DS and Super Mario 64 are two different games, and Nintendo says so. When they release it on the Wii's Virtual Console they'll be releasing Super Mario 64. The DS version is a separate port, a new game. At no point has Nintendo said "This is now Super Mario 64." What they say is "Here's a DS version of Super Mario 64!" Notice the word version. It's not a replacement, it's a separate entity. Super Mario 64 =/= Super Mario 64 DS.
Smoke, but I'm not saying SM64 is inferior. I said in every post I've made that were it not for the controls, the DS version would be better. The DS version itself is superior, but the controls are inferior, making it worse. If both games had equal controls then the DS version would be better. Mainly because it's merely an expanded version of the same game, not because it changes things and improves them. It adds quality stuff, it doesn't fix old things (there's nothing to fix).
Post by: wandering on October 18, 2006, 07:45:24 PM
My contention is that Mario 64 DS would be a worse game than Mario 64 even if the control scheme didn't suck. It doesn't matter that they simply added stuff without taking anything away. The extended edition of Return of the King didn't take away anything apart from an extra hour of my time, but the film is still a lot worse than the original.
From the perspective of someone who's already played the game, they may enjoy the additions. From the perspective of someone who hasn't already played the game, the underlying game may be so great that they enjoy the game anyway. BUT, if you took two people, and gave one person Mario 64 DS with a good control scheme, and one person Mario 64, and neither one of them had ever played the game before, I think the person who was given the original would say they liked the game more than the person who was given the remake.
Post by: Smoke39 on October 18, 2006, 07:56:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
Smoke, but I'm not saying SM64 is inferior. I said in every post I've made that were it not for the controls, the DS version would be better. The DS version itself is superior, but the controls are inferior, making it worse. If both games had equal controls then the DS version would be better. Mainly because it's merely an expanded version of the same game, not because it changes things and improves them. It adds quality stuff, it doesn't fix old things (there's nothing to fix).
Controls asside, I still don't think the DS version would be better. Imo, all the new stuff either adds absolutely nothing (eg, the lame multiplayer and minigames), or detracts from the game (eg, having to go switch to the right character to get through new obstacles lodged into the levels). To me it's like they took the original and muddied it up just to make things different.
Post by: Artimus on October 18, 2006, 08:22:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
My contention is that Mario 64 DS would be a worse game than Mario 64 even if the control scheme didn't suck. It doesn't matter that they simply added stuff without taking anything away. The extended edition of Return of the King didn't take away anything apart from an extra hour of my time, but the film is still a lot worse than the original.
But most people don't feel that way about ROTK. I would say the ROTK: EE benefits the least from being extended, but the first two films are immensely superior in their long formats. And the opening of ROTK is definitely superior, as is the confrontation at the gate. Overall the LOTR: EE is much better than the originals, which were great.
Eh, this argument is tiresome. Obviously different people feel differently about SM64: DS, but I think judging by the reviews we can draw the conclusion that it's a well done port hurt by its controls?
Post by: Smoke39 on October 18, 2006, 09:12:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
Eh, this argument is tiresome. Obviously different people feel differently about SM64: DS, but I think judging by the reviews we can draw the conclusion that it's a well done port hurt by its controls?
If I write a review saying that the game's kinda lame will it become absolute truth?
Post by: Kairon on October 18, 2006, 09:28:56 PM
BUT, as soon as something comes out, it's final. He can release an updated re-mastered special edition, and that's cool, BUT the original release will still be the definitive version. After all, a delayed game can eventually become good, but a solo-shot-first movie will remain that way forever.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Strell on October 18, 2006, 09:33:55 PM
They totally took Mario 64 DS and took out all the guns and made Luigi shoot first.
What the hell is up with that?
I didn't need Bowser to explode in a fury of blue vapor rings when I killed him. Why in the hell did they add that?
Post by: Arbok on October 18, 2006, 10:00:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
I will admit that my Psycho remake comparison was more apt (although Lord Lucas will be allowing people to view the original trilogy on dvd soon.)
That set has been out for awhile now...
Anyway, I will add my vote as another in favor of the DS version over the original in every respect except the controls. I especially liked the increased roster size, and found the game fun to go around in as the other characters to spice things up (although it could be argued that Luigi made a lot of the game much easier than it was).
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
From the perspective of someone who's already played the game, they may enjoy the additions. From the perspective of someone who hasn't already played the game, the underlying game may be so great that they enjoy the game anyway. BUT, if you took two people, and gave one person Mario 64 DS with a good control scheme, and one person Mario 64, and neither one of them had ever played the game before, I think the person who was given the original would say they liked the game more than the person who was given the remake.
Why? I don't really understand that. It's an amazing game anyway you slice it, but I don't see any of the additions messing with someone's enjoyment of the game for the first time they play through it.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2006, 10:41:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I'm fine with Lucas' prequel, and in fact on repeat viewing I appreciate it more and more.
BUT, as soon as something comes out, it's final. He can release an updated re-mastered special edition, and that's cool, BUT the original release will still be the definitive version. After all, a delayed game can eventually become good, but a solo-shot-first movie will remain that way forever.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Well we definately disagree there I think that whatever the creator of the original decides they want to do should be the definitive version since it is their creation. I hold the same opinion towards authors who decided to update or revise their novels, since it is their creation whatever they are creating should be the true version, the only time this would not be the case is if someone else was doing the updating.
Post by: The Traveller on October 18, 2006, 10:53:28 PM
Post by: Arbok on October 18, 2006, 11:03:57 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 18, 2006, 11:08:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok
I think The Traveller pretty much summed this all up...
You are right it was so condensed and to the point, you cannot argue with the Traveller's point!
Post by: The Traveller on October 19, 2006, 01:45:27 AM
Anyway, saying Mario 64 DS is any less of a good game than Mario 64 is kinda stupid. If Mario 64 had been released as the DS version from the start back in 96, would it still have been as ground breaking? Yes definitely! Its just that people seem to hate the controls in the DS version..I finished the game with the thumb strap, it worked well after about 20 mins of getting used to it. Also the 64 version was the one people played first so it has that nostalgic charm.
(Btw I didnt just edit my blank post, because I didnt want to destroy the original vison.)
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 19, 2006, 04:29:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
I will admit that my Psycho remake comparison was more apt (although Lord Lucas will be allowing people to view the original trilogy on dvd soon.)
My contention is that Mario 64 DS would be a worse game than Mario 64 even if the control scheme didn't suck. It doesn't matter that they simply added stuff without taking anything away. The extended edition of Return of the King didn't take away anything apart from an extra hour of my time, but the film is still a lot worse than the original.
From the perspective of someone who's already played the game, they may enjoy the additions. From the perspective of someone who hasn't already played the game, the underlying game may be so great that they enjoy the game anyway. BUT, if you took two people, and gave one person Mario 64 DS with a good control scheme, and one person Mario 64, and neither one of them had ever played the game before, I think the person who was given the original would say they liked the game more than the person who was given the remake.
I really don't get this.
So you are saying that someone who has played neither game is going to choose the version of the game with less graphical flair, fewer characters to play as, and fewer levels and challenge to explore. Not to mention drop the aspect of multiplayer battles, which if you had better control would be amazing.
The only thing the Original Mario 64 has on the DS game is that its the original AND you got to start out the game as Mario. You can argue that the games additional characters hurt the feel of the game, and such...but guess what you can play the game strictly as Mario one you unlock him.
The truth is if controls weren't an issue Super Mario 64DS would be a perfect extention of the original title, keeping everything we loved about the original title and adding new elements we can love equally well.
Post by: Ceric on October 19, 2006, 05:02:12 AM
Post by: Galford on October 19, 2006, 06:17:31 AM
A fan favorite here Smash Bros, is apperantly using either the GC remote or the classic remote.
http://www.planetgamecube.com/previewArt.cfm?artid=11798
While the Wii remote has some innovative features, is throws a way a lot of standard features
that many games use. It's been brought up by only a few people, but I think the Wii remote
is not very friendly to certain genres.
Post by: couchmonkey on October 19, 2006, 06:34:31 AM
However, the argument from Nintendo's end is that this is going to become the new standard, just like the NES pad replaced Joysticks 20 years ago, and analog practically replaced the d-pad 10 years ago.
Is Nintendo right? Maybe, maybe not. Many previews have surprisingly praised the controller in Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, in spite of the fact that it's a very traditional style of game. Racing games, Rayman, and Madden have also all gotten good previews. FPS's are having trouble, but IGN's last Metroid Prime 3 preview was really positive - maybe it doesn't beat a keyboard and a mouse, but if it can beat old-fashioned controllers, that's a start. If one or two genres fall by the wayside but it provides a better experience overall (and especially for "non" games) then it won't matter except to some hardcores...who, once again, can buy the classic controller.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on October 19, 2006, 07:34:14 AM
the wii controller+nunchuk will make Mech games so so so much cooler and less expensive!
especially when you enter a battle form (hold Z and B triggers and your mech will wrap two hands around a big friggin sword) and start swinging like a robot with hoof and mouth
Post by: couchmonkey on October 19, 2006, 08:10:43 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 19, 2006, 08:19:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
Galford is right, the Wii remote is not very friendly to certain types of games. That's why the classic controller exists. Just like arcade controllers exist for people who really want that authentic fighting game feel. And Joysticks exist for people who won't play flight sims any other way. And instruments exist for music games. And that huge-arse control console exists for Xbox fans that want a more immersive Mech game.
However, the argument from Nintendo's end is that this is going to become the new standard, just like the NES pad replaced Joysticks 20 years ago, and analog practically replaced the d-pad 10 years ago.
Is Nintendo right? Maybe, maybe not. Many previews have surprisingly praised the controller in Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, in spite of the fact that it's a very traditional style of game. Racing games, Rayman, and Madden have also all gotten good previews. FPS's are having trouble, but IGN's last Metroid Prime 3 preview was really positive - maybe it doesn't beat a keyboard and a mouse, but if it can beat old-fashioned controllers, that's a start. If one or two genres fall by the wayside but it provides a better experience overall (and especially for "non" games) then it won't matter except to some hardcores...who, once again, can buy the classic controller.
Maybe it was IGN or something but they said that each control method has its pluses and minuses (personally I think the control pad has a TON of them for FPSs). With the Wiimote I can't help but thing that there is a good chance the controls in Red Steel are fine if you become experienced with the game which is why Ubisoft has not changed them (Sensitivity options may shake things up too).
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 19, 2006, 08:30:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane Pikmin 2. Majora's Mask. Metroid Fusion. Metroid Prime. These games are all sequels that built on the original formula while still feeling like a sequel should without being a rehash or a nostalgia trip. It can happen and Nintendo until recently was really good at it. I would even consider Super Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker as games like these, they're just not as good.
(Pikmin 1 - timer) + product placement = Pikmin 2.
Majora's Mask was Eonuma's (spelling) first Zelda game, hence why it felt so different.
Prime was an effort by an American company to make a game that would appeal more to Americans.
Fusion was Metroid, + more story and some bells and whistles.
These games were VERY few and far between, but I think you're missing the big picture here when it comes to the DS...
As far as 1st party titles go, the DS has offered us basically everything a standard Nintendo console has: Mario, Metroid, Starfox, Kirby, Mario Kart, Animal Crossing, Pokemon, Advance Wars and soon Zelda.
If you're asking that Nintendo themselves put more overall "effort" into their games, then why aren't you sending in criticisms to Nintendo rather than posting them here?
Post by: wandering on October 19, 2006, 09:01:41 PM
Quote
I really don't get this.
So you are saying that someone who has played neither game is going to choose the version of the game with less graphical flair, fewer characters to play as, and fewer levels and challenge to explore. Not to mention drop the aspect of multiplayer battles, which if you had better control would be amazing.
Let's start with the begining of the game (since I haven't played that much of it!) You pop out of a pipe as mario. There's a castle in front of you that you intuitively know is your destination - but you start by running around in the grassy field. Swimming. Doing a triple jump to mario's woo-hoos. This is one of the classic videogame openings, and they botch it in the DS version. There's crap about four characters coming to the castle, and you have to chase that bunny thing. It's a mediocre, Mario Sunshine-esqe way to start a game.
In my opinion, shoving peripheral characters down your throat from the beginning flies in the face of the spirt of the game. As does complex character switching. Letting me play as Luigi? Great...but let it be a temporary power up that Mario discovers.
As for the improved graphics, I think they have the special edition Star Wars problem. They're just improved enough that it becomes hard to appreciate the simple beauty the creators were able to squeze out of the N64 hardware, but they aren't so good that they don't look dated by today's standards. Nevermind that I think the simpler visuals of the original are often more evocative than the updated version's.
I don't have a problem with the added modes. I didn't think the multiplayer battles were anything special, but the minigames were a lot of fun (actually, I think the minigames were the game's sole redeeming feature. But now that they're also on New Super Mario Bros, there's thankfully no longer any real reason to own Mario 64 DS.)
edit:
Quote
And the opening of ROTK is definitely superior, as is the confrontation at the gate.
I can't begin to tell you how much the ROTK EE dissapointed me. I can't think of a single addition to ROTK that I liked, and I was really looking forward to all of them. I thought the impalement of Saruman was horribly cheesy. And the confrontation of the gate - nice as it was that we finally got an explanation for Sauron suddenly shifting his gaze - really interrupted the flow of that overall scene, making it awkward where it once was powerful. This was all the more dissapointing for me because I thought the EE of TT made the film better (and the EE of FotR at least had some really great additions, even if some horrible ones meant the film wasn't an overall improvement over the original.)
edit 2:
Quote
That set has been out for awhile now...
Ah, right, I knew that. I should probably get around to picking it up one of these days...
