Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 12, 2007, 11:37:44 PM
But what I'd like to know is what you guys have heard from other people when they talk about Nintendo. Do the Nintendo haters still bash the company as being "k!ddie"? Or have the abandoned Sony/MS and now think Nintendo is the cool company to follow? Do they think the Wii is just a fad and that Blu-ray and sixaxis are the real future of gaming, or do they think the Wii remote concept is here to stay? That's the thing I want to know. I don't hear a lot of Nintendo bashing going on anymore so I'm wondering if it is still going on within certain circles.
It is very funny to think of Nintendo haters being shocked and bewildered by a company they had thought was on its last legs suddenly emerge as the leader once again. I can't think of anything else like this ever happening. I guess it would be like some third party candidate like Perot or Nader suddenly winning an election when most people were saying third parties can't win. Or maybe it is like how Alexander the great had defeated a Persian army that was 5 times his size..
It's just like the late 80's-early 90's again, and I have to say sometimes I wonder if I'm just dreaming. I mean, how could Nintendo be in 1st place again? For that matter, how could the Playstation 3 be in 3rd? Have I entered into some Bizarro world or something?
Post by: Plugabugz on December 13, 2007, 12:25:46 AM
However, the more people who want to have fun means the quality required can drop. Developers can get away with being lazy and still sell into their millions and millions. Hudson did it with Mario Party 8, and despite the large amounts of criticism (the first one hidden in the title - 8!) it's still one of the better selling games on Wii. So they'll be ENCOURAGED to keep doing it.
It doesn't feel like the nintendo of the 90's because they are effectively the monopoly in this "new era" and don't really have to try so hard anymore.
Post by: LuigiHann on December 13, 2007, 12:32:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Plugabugz
It doesn't feel like the nintendo of the 90's because they are effectively the monopoly in this "new era" and don't really have to try so hard anymore.
Nintendo's original monopoly, in the 80s, was when they were awesome. The 90s was when they made some of their greatest games, but it was also when they started failing. How weird is that? It's like the whole industry is built to reward mediocrity and punish quality. And it's not new.
Post by: Deguello on December 13, 2007, 12:46:55 AM
3rd parties seem to resent that Nintendo is building their new empire with their own two hands, much like they did with the DS, but their resentment is fostered by the reality that they had opportunity to get a berth on Nintendo's Gravy Train both times and elected instead to proselytize on the dangers "not using all the graphics ever" and "children having the gall to play videogames" BOTH times. Unfortunately for them (and particularly in Japan) their greatest fear of begging Nintendo to let them program for the Wii is quickly becoming a hard reality that they'll have to accept, particularly in this age of rising development costs and less avenues for sale (The PC market being basically dead and all.) Maybe they'll have to learn to deal with lower end graphics like the seemed content to for 4 generations in a row.
Game journalists make no bones about slamming the Wii, particularly online ones, whose wrath is quickly earned by not stroking their massive egos with PR packages and advertising revenue. Nintendo usurped them and went straight to the consumers and gamers. They are also leading the charge in the gamer "schism" between those labeled "casual" and those labeled "hardcore" by acting all indignant whenever Nintendogs or Brain Training are brought up. The "Casual" and "Hardcore" labels are an extension of the "Nintendo is for children" label, only re-engineered to deal with the massive weight of the 5-29, over-30, over-40, over-50, and 60+ markets that seem to be all Nintendo's at the moment. No longer an ageist track, no it is an evidence-less based judgment call based simply on the games you enjoy. Thankfully their influence appears to be crumbling at the seams, which will require new journalists with less prejudice to take over for them.
But as for me, DS in one hand and Wiimote in the other, I'm happy as a clam, particularly with the DS. The full weight of the DS's library as well as the most creative games ever to grace any console or handheld, Trauma Center in particular, make it quite possibly the best game system of all time. Not that you'll hear that from the games press, but you'll hear that from the gamers' lips, which is good enough for me.
Post by: Tanookisuit on December 13, 2007, 01:45:38 AM
What I have seen: I have seen high school students who have never had a console buy a Wii. I have seen college students sell their PS2 and 360s to buy a Wii. BUT I have seen people that work at Gamestop and in the magazine Game Informer constantly bash the Wii and push the other systems.
Personally, I don't want to play the most badass 1st person shooter out there. I don't need half-naked wrestlers pummeling each other on my TV. I just want to have fun. I saw one of the new PS3 commercials with all the game footage lurching forth from their black system and I realized- I'm no longer a "hardcore" gamer. And I'm fine with that.
Post by: Bill Aurion on December 13, 2007, 03:06:38 AM
You just aren't "hardcore" in the way the gaming media likes to portray it now...If you use the definition of hardcore that was around pre-Wii, you're in the clear...You aren't going to magically become a "casual" gamer just because you enjoy Brain Training...
Post by: Nick DiMola on December 13, 2007, 03:27:18 AM
As far as the Wii goes. I agree with everything Deg said. The gaming media is trying to tell you the Wii is a fad and that it isn't hardcore enough, but the fact of the matter is, the Wii (and DS) is reaching demographics gaming has never seen before. It is turning people on to gaming in a big way, and as an enthusiast of the industry this is just fantastic. I couldn't be happier with the success of the system and I hope to see it continue onward. The more people the Wii reaches the better. It means a stronger presence of gaming in culture and to me that is the ultimate achievement for gaming. My Wii and DS libraries are always growing, and between these two systems, Nintendo has totally reinvigorated creativity in the industry. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, the Wii is a trend setter and an opportunity for innovation and gaming will benefit greatly from it's presence (and popularity).
Post by: Ian Sane on December 13, 2007, 04:48:08 AM
The Wii's third party support really is pretty lame for a market leading console. Thus the high demand seems fad-like because back in the old days before blue ocean and non-gamers the Xbox 360 logically would be the market leader based on its third party support.
Post by: darknight06 on December 13, 2007, 05:16:25 AM
Post by: Kairon on December 13, 2007, 06:27:01 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 13, 2007, 06:36:58 AM
Post by: Kairon on December 13, 2007, 06:44:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
It seems the Xbox 360 is more popular with the people that prior to the Wii would talk about videogames with me. So in that sense as the Nintendo fan I'm still somewhat of the outsider with the gamers around me only now they're more familiar with Nintendo's current console because its so popular.
I can generally agree with this and it causes me conflicted feelings. I want the same broadband acceptance that the PS2 got, and that's not possible without converting over these supposedly traditional gamers... feh.
What can be done about this? Is it something to be worried about? I just... blargh.
This is one of the reasons I'm fixated on third parties. Every little inroad that we can make on traditional and niche gamers, be it from Atlus support like Baroque, Tecmo Support on Rygar and Fatal Frame, or even lesser known support like Codemasters with their Wizardology/Dragonology exclusives, every little title announced for the Wii that would have normally been announced on the PS2 should be celebrated. (oh ho, is there any doubt as to how much of a fanboi I am?)
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 13, 2007, 06:48:07 AM
Post by: Kairon on December 13, 2007, 07:03:32 AM
Post by: NWR_pap64 on December 13, 2007, 07:09:58 AM
I've been reading A LOT of articles about how the Wii "is eventually going to fail" and "the PS3 will be back on top". My question is for how long will analysts keep saying the same thing?
Its been a year already and the Wii is still sold out. Can you recall a game console that is still sold out after a year of release? Truly, if the Wii was a novelty it would've died sooner.
Post by: UncleBob on December 13, 2007, 07:16:15 AM
I wonder if this same analyst would be willing to bet $1,000 on his claim...
Post by: Ian Sane on December 13, 2007, 08:46:00 AM
I just want the third party support because I want those game to be on the console I own. It isn't fair after ten years of putting up with weak third party support to finally have Nintendo be number one again only to have the "rules" changed so that the benefits one traditionally had from being number one no longer apply. The whole reason I wanted Nintendo to be number one was to get the third parties. If the Wii can't do that it's just another Gamecube to me.
Any analyst suggesting the PS3 is going to be on top has no idea what he's talking about. If the Wii slips the Xbox 360 will take the number one spot. The PS3 is irrelevent. Sony made a console that's too damn expensive and they can't afford to lower the price. It's quite clear that no one wants the damn thing and that's just not going to change. Former exclusives are being ported to the Xbox 360. We saw that with the Cube and it means the console is finished. Interest in the PS3 won't pick up if the best games are also on a competing console that's more popular.
Post by: Strell on December 13, 2007, 01:55:08 PM
Gamers hated Nintendo before the Wii.
And they still do.
So not a whole lot has really changed when you consider the "hardcore" sector.
Post by: IceCold on December 13, 2007, 06:03:00 PM
We've known for a long time now that third parties will think of anything to prevent them from developing marquee games for Nintendo consoles. I mean, hell, look at the DS - it sold more than 1.5 million in North America in November alone, yet it's not getting near as much support as it should.
A "major" game from a third party would go a long way for the Wii, and hopefully next year we'll start to see some of those.
Post by: ReverendNoahWhateley on December 13, 2007, 10:23:56 PM
Post by: redgiemental on December 13, 2007, 11:59:08 PM
The Wii is very innovative and opens many possibilites for new game experiences so I'm pleased to see it doing well and encouraging developers to make more games for it and thus giving me lots of wonderful new things to play.
I also have to admit I like Nintendo being on top in the same way a fan of a sports team likes to see their team do well. A kind of very strong brand loyalty so yes I feel very good about it overall.
It is looking pretty good for Nintendo.
Post by: 31 Flavas on December 14, 2007, 02:03:25 AM
QuoteYea, I can agree with your feelings too, the broad acceptance. I'm an optimist though, so my feelings are that this will happen. Broad acceptance. Not only from gamers, but also parents / congress people. The latter will no doubt take longer, but it'll happen. I mean, games aren't the first thing to cause controversy with parents and statesmen. What about Movies and Comic books? My guess is that all this commotion and upheaval that Nintendo has wrought onto video gamers will fade away and we'll still have games like Bioshock and Half-life and that what ever comes to be won't be as bad at all.
Originally posted by: Kairon
I can generally agree with this and it causes me conflicted feelings. I want the same broadband acceptance that the PS2 got, and that's not possible without converting over these supposedly traditional gamers... feh.
Post by: UERD on December 14, 2007, 11:23:37 AM
The 360 and PS3 are ultimately moving towards what is essentially a bastardized version of the PC experience (the PC market is far from dead, by the way...c.f. Blizzard...), at least in North America. Look at the types of things that PS360 games are getting or have become standard recently- map and level editors, online play, patches and map packs- all long-standing PC conventions. They'll always be around for those who can't be bothered or don't have the technical fortitude to set up their computers to play those selfsame games (e.g. BioShock, any XBox FPS, etc), or for those people who want the old 'main-line hardcore' games and franchises- the Final Fantasies, Metal Gear series, and other heavy-hitters that won't move to Wii eventually.
Will the PS360 kill the PC market, or will the opposite happen? I don't think either will happen, for the aforementioned reason. PC gaming will almost certainly have the technological advantage and the superior FPS/RTS/whatever control scheme in the long term, but the PC-contender consoles will always have that 'casual hardcore'/'technically disinclined' sector to draw upon. (Note- I'm not really using 'technically disinclined' as a pejorative term here, I'm using it to emphasize how consoles move along the 'technical capability' - 'ease of use' continuum in order to attract people who wouldn't be playing those sorts of games otherwise.)
What am I saying here? I guess I'm trying to make two points: first, that the divergent foci that Nintendo are trying to emphasize with the Wii represent the right direction for the console's future (same-room multiplayer gameplay, control scheme, etc), and secondly that the few idiot PS3/360 gamers who brag about being '1337 h4rdc0r3' need to STFU.
Post by: ShyGuy on December 14, 2007, 12:42:53 PM
Post by: UERD on December 14, 2007, 03:08:11 PM
I say that in the best way possible, of course.
Post by: Mario on December 14, 2007, 04:03:50 PM
Post by: darknight06 on December 15, 2007, 06:48:23 AM
It's not just the game stores either, their lords, the gaming press as of late has been really interesting to observe. On what I believe is the latest EGM I remember seeing an article title on the front cover saying something around the lines of Wii Crap. Unfortunately I haven't been able to actually read the article, but knowing how EGM/1up have been about the Wii lately I already have a hunch as to where it's going. Game Informer seems to have uped the ante when it comes to anti-establishment games and have managed to become more and more annoying. Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games was shredded to bits, but one section of the review infuriated me to no end. I can't remember exactly what it said but the way it put it sounded something like "Graphics: Primary Colors, HAR HAR HAR! 3." It made me do a double take and had me asking "What the f*ck is their problem?!" And truth be told, this ain't the only title they've done like this either. Paper Mario was trashed because it was supposedly a childs game too, but in both cases I think there was something far more troubling going on. I remember putting the magazines away long time ago because their definition of a great game and mine were so different to the point where the magazines became irrelevant. The thing is, the majority of people reading those magazines were the type of gamers that the industry was primarily catering to so to them losing folks like me was probably no big deal since they still in a sense held the ace card. The thing is, for something like the Wii to take off the way it has means that their very definition of what a game is is being crushed by this new influx of a wide variety of new players. Carnival Games gets destroyed in the mags and yet it's probably killing them inside to see it sell 300,000 copies and is probably looking to inch on into the 400,000 mark. (I'm not saying the game is 10 out of 10 material or anything, but at the same time something about it must be decent enough for it to make those numbers. Ditto goes for Mario and Sonic) It looks to me as if a lot of these guys fear their livelihoods going down the toilet especially with them knowing that Nintendo PURPOSELY sidestepped them to sell the console. What's happening is that these guys are gradually becoming irrelevant. Let the Wii gain even more steam, don't be surprised if within the next couple of years either some of these publications will close down or they will change with the coming times.
Post by: IceCold on December 15, 2007, 08:39:25 AM
Post by: Kairon on December 15, 2007, 08:42:16 AM
... I'm not! I'm drinking this in!
Post by: Maverick on December 15, 2007, 08:55:59 AM
Post by: UERD on December 15, 2007, 09:15:50 AM
Post by: Kairon on December 15, 2007, 09:31:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: UERD
I wouldn't go *that* far, but I think there is a significant difference between 'casual game' and 'crappy game'.
Yeah, that's true.
Post by: Smash_Brother on December 15, 2007, 11:07:15 AM
Give it time, though. I KNOW there are some games on the way that prove that the Wii can not only be a hardcore gaming platform but the BEST hardcore gaming platform.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on December 15, 2007, 11:16:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I think we've yet to see a 3rd party REALLY harness the Wii controller in such a way that truly lives up to its potential. I admit that we've seen some very noble attempts, such as Godfather Wii and Elebits (for as much as I don't feel there was a game there, it did a good job trying).
Give it time, though. I KNOW there are some games on the way that prove that the Wii can not only be a hardcore gaming platform but the BEST hardcore gaming platform.
You forgot Zack and Wiki. I haven't played the game myself but reviews claim its the best use of the Wiimote yet.
Post by: Maverick on December 15, 2007, 11:54:11 AM
Well there was that one part where you use it to "saw" through some logs that I saw in a video review.
Post by: NWR_pap64 on December 15, 2007, 12:03:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Maverick
Don't you just use it like a mouse? Unless there's more to it that I haven't seen.
Well there was that one part where you use it to "saw" through some logs that I saw in a video review.
From what I saw you also used the Wiimote as a flute as well as other motions.
Again, I haven't played the game but reviews kept saying it was one of the few third party games with creative Wii controls.
Post by: Smash_Brother on December 15, 2007, 03:58:30 PM
It would have lost a lot of the appeal, but Z&W could have still be done without it.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 15, 2007, 05:09:04 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on December 15, 2007, 10:39:20 PM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 16, 2007, 04:21:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: darknight06
What do people say about Nintendo being market leader again? Some people have gotten very hostile about it. I know a friend of mine who's still entirely dumbfounded about the idea of Monster Hunter 3 on the Wii. "Okami I can see, but Monster Hunter? That's a load of crap! Why on a kids system?! (this is despite the numerous adults 30 and up that I've seen on numerous occasions come in there to ask for a Wii themselves)" "It won't handle the game well at all" (despite the 7 year old PS2 seemed to have no problem with it) Tell them development costs and all of a sudden they don't want to hear or believe it's the case. This friend is one of many of the Gamestop and EB workers that think and act just like this.
It's not just the game stores either, their lords, the gaming press as of late has been really interesting to observe. On what I believe is the latest EGM I remember seeing an article title on the front cover saying something around the lines of Wii Crap. Unfortunately I haven't been able to actually read the article, but knowing how EGM/1up have been about the Wii lately I already have a hunch as to where it's going. Game Informer seems to have uped the ante when it comes to anti-establishment games and have managed to become more and more annoying. Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games was shredded to bits, but one section of the review infuriated me to no end. I can't remember exactly what it said but the way it put it sounded something like "Graphics: Primary Colors, HAR HAR HAR! 3." It made me do a double take and had me asking "What the f*ck is their problem?!" And truth be told, this ain't the only title they've done like this either. Paper Mario was trashed because it was supposedly a childs game too, but in both cases I think there was something far more troubling going on. I remember putting the magazines away long time ago because their definition of a great game and mine were so different to the point where the magazines became irrelevant. The thing is, the majority of people reading those magazines were the type of gamers that the industry was primarily catering to so to them losing folks like me was probably no big deal since they still in a sense held the ace card. The thing is, for something like the Wii to take off the way it has means that their very definition of what a game is is being crushed by this new influx of a wide variety of new players. Carnival Games gets destroyed in the mags and yet it's probably killing them inside to see it sell 300,000 copies and is probably looking to inch on into the 400,000 mark. (I'm not saying the game is 10 out of 10 material or anything, but at the same time something about it must be decent enough for it to make those numbers. Ditto goes for Mario and Sonic) It looks to me as if a lot of these guys fear their livelihoods going down the toilet especially with them knowing that Nintendo PURPOSELY sidestepped them to sell the console. What's happening is that these guys are gradually becoming irrelevant. Let the Wii gain even more steam, don't be surprised if within the next couple of years either some of these publications will close down or they will change with the coming times.
Great post. This is exactly the sort of feelings I feared some people were still holding on to in regards to Nintendo. I don't fully understand it and I probably never will. This was one of the reasons why I also have quit reading video gaming magazines (the other reason was that this was during the GC era and it was depressing how very few games made it to the GC).
When it comes down to it, the editors of those magazines aren't really any more qualified to give their opinion of a game than anyone else; and if they are reviewing something with an anti-Nintendo prejudice mentality, then that makes their opinion even worse than the average player. We don't really need them to tell us what to play, because we can figure that out for ourselves thanks to online sources such as this, and also from word of mouth.
So they have become irrelevant, and they are becoming just as niche as the PS3 and 360 consoles they show favoritism towards. I think they are bitter about it, but it is karma.
Post by: Maverick on December 16, 2007, 06:43:11 AM
It's like, all of the sudden since Nintendo's on top it's not okay to be like Sony was last gen. I have also noticed a disturbing trend of separating Wii owners into a different group from 360/PS3 owners, like they "don't count".
Then again I've also noticed on here that people constantly refer to 360/PS3ers as a "niche crowd". I don't know what world they live in, but a LOT of people own and enjoy 360s. PS3, I can see, but the impression I've gotten is that the 360 is a powerful force in the market.
Post by: Kairon on December 16, 2007, 06:45:44 AM
Post by: Maverick on December 16, 2007, 09:00:03 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on December 16, 2007, 09:40:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
And video games don't need color TVs. But let's not water down everything here kay.
I'm not trying to suggest that the game wouldn't be awkward and irritating with standard controls because it definitely would.
I'm just saying that there are gaming ideas which require (and I mean REQUIRE) the remote and nunchuk to work but we haven't seen many yet. I think Wii Boxing is probably the best example to date in that moving the fists around with the necessary level of precision would not be possible without the mote+chuk combo.
The concept is still evolving. The first stage will always be retrofitting the controls to known genres. The next step is generating entirely new ones.
Post by: vudu on December 17, 2007, 07:19:36 AM
The same can be said about DS games--most people point to Canvas Curse and EBA as two games that couldn't be done on any other system. The fact is, with some serious gameplay changes both could be reworked for a standard controller.
Post by: EasyCure on December 17, 2007, 08:45:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
There will never be a game that requires the remote/nunchuk to work. Gameplay can always be sacrificed in order to make it work with a standard controller (e.g. RRR port for PS2). Wii Boxing could easily be simulated with button presses and analog stick movements. It would suck, but it could be done. The best you can ask for is a game that works better with the remote/nunchuk than it would with a standard controller, and so far we've gotten a few of them.
The same can be said about DS games--most people point to Canvas Curse and EBA as two games that couldn't be done on any other system. The fact is, with some serious gameplay changes both could be reworked for a standard controller.
but with "some serious gameplay changes," you wouldnt have either of those titles. I see your point and i know what you're trying to say but the thing is the gameplay of those games you mentioned are what make the games. i can picture wii boxing being controlled with a standar controller* but ya know what? it just wouldnt be wii boxing. it'd be punch out or something. people were blown away by wii boxing (wii sports in general) because of the controls, and the gameplay was ALL in the controls. all you do in the game is throw punches and block. theres no options to mess with. theres no different match types to try out. you just throw punches and knock the other guy out. tahts all the gameplay is, and its fun because of the controls.
*want to know how to get wii boxing to play using a standard controller? i picture it like this: throw punches using L and R triggers while adjusting the aim of your punches with dual analogue sticks. simple no? but its not wii boxing, it wouldnt recapture that magic w/o the motion controls
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 17, 2007, 09:07:06 AM
Post by: IceCold on December 17, 2007, 11:38:30 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 21, 2007, 10:05:47 AM
They try to defend that editorial now
Post by: Kairon on December 21, 2007, 10:18:42 AM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 21, 2007, 12:22:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
This old editorial from Gamedaily is pretty funny to read now!
They try to defend that editorial now
Not only were they wrong, but they don't even realize why they were wrong. I admit I only skimmed through the original article (it isn't worth wasting my time on it) but I noticed them arguing how PS3 and 360 games are going to look a lot better in a few years. Who the heck cares about how much better the games will look than Wii games? They already look a zillion times better than Wii games now, so obviously this is not the reason why the 360 and (especially) PS3 aren't selling as well. Heck, even most last gen games look better than Wii Sports, but somehow Wii sports is insanely popular.
They just don't get it that graphics don't really matter that much. They also said the sound on the Wii is "Gamecube 1.5", but again, who really cares? Most consumers don't have giant home theatre systems with a zillion speakers all over their room; and even if they did, what does that have to do with playing games and having fun?
Being the "experts" that they are, you'd think they'd have realized how little graphics matter in the grand scheme of things. In almost every generation the weaker system has won...
Post by: NWR_insanolord on December 21, 2007, 12:33:28 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 21, 2007, 12:36:15 PM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 21, 2007, 12:58:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: insanolord
The only time the weakest didn't win was with the Genesis and SNES, and the Genesis did a few things better than the SNES, and it could be argued that the Genesis could have won if Sega of Japan didn't force the American branch to abandon it in favor of the Saturn, a move that gave Nintendo an extra couple of years on the market virtually unopposed.
I don't think the Saturn was responsible for the Genesis being in 2nd place, because the Saturn came out near the end of the Genesis' lifecycle, and it was in 2nd place by then (I think). It was actually the 32x attachment and the Sega CD attachment which did the Genesis in. It created a lot of market confusion and consumers lost faith in the Sega brand as a result. This is also why the Saturn failed.
Anyways, the SNES-Genesis battle was really the only exception to the rule of the weaker system always winning, and in this case it wasn't really that clear, because the Genesis may have had worse graphics, but it was faster than the SNES. So in that sense, the Genesis kinda was more powerful. It made games like Sonic (where you need lots of speed) possible. That's why the Genesis did better on arcade games, shoot-em-ups, and sports titles; whereas the SNES did much better on pretty much everything else, especially RPGs.
And the SNES actually got much more advanced as time went on, with things like the Super FX chip which it bundled into games like Star Fox. In 1995 the SNES was kicking out games that looked as good as or better than the Playstation games of the time... I mean, check out DKC or SMRPG.... it is hard to believe those were done on a 16bit system.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 21, 2007, 01:13:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo GhostQuote
Originally posted by: insanolord
The only time the weakest didn't win was with the Genesis and SNES, and the Genesis did a few things better than the SNES, and it could be argued that the Genesis could have won if Sega of Japan didn't force the American branch to abandon it in favor of the Saturn, a move that gave Nintendo an extra couple of years on the market virtually unopposed.
I don't think the Saturn was responsible for the Genesis being in 2nd place, because the Saturn came out near the end of the Genesis' lifecycle, and it was in 2nd place by then (I think). It was actually the 32x attachment and the Sega CD attachment which did the Genesis in. It created a lot of market confusion and consumers lost faith in the Sega brand as a result. This is also why the Saturn failed.
Anyways, the SNES-Genesis battle was really the only exception to the rule of the weaker system always winning, and in this case it wasn't really that clear, because the Genesis may have had worse graphics, but it was faster than the SNES. So in that sense, the Genesis kinda was more powerful. It made games like Sonic (where you need lots of speed) possible. That's why the Genesis did better on arcade games, shoot-em-ups, and sports titles; whereas the SNES did much better on pretty much everything else, especially RPGs.
And the SNES actually got much more advanced as time went on, with things like the Super FX chip which it bundled into games like Star Fox. In 1995 the SNES was kicking out games that looked as good as or better than the Playstation games of the time... I mean, check out DKC or SMRPG.... it is hard to believe those were done on a 16bit system.
Wasn't NES stronger than the Master System?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on December 21, 2007, 01:21:01 PM
Post by: darknight06 on December 21, 2007, 01:30:51 PM
Quote
No, the Master System had the benefit of being developed a couple years after the NES, it was technologically superior to the NES. And it got less than 10% of the market.
That's not how it happened in Europe...
Post by: NWR_insanolord on December 21, 2007, 02:35:02 PM
Post by: darknight06 on December 21, 2007, 04:06:36 PM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 21, 2007, 05:13:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: Chozo GhostQuote
Originally posted by: insanolord
The only time the weakest didn't win was with the Genesis and SNES, and the Genesis did a few things better than the SNES, and it could be argued that the Genesis could have won if Sega of Japan didn't force the American branch to abandon it in favor of the Saturn, a move that gave Nintendo an extra couple of years on the market virtually unopposed.
I don't think the Saturn was responsible for the Genesis being in 2nd place, because the Saturn came out near the end of the Genesis' lifecycle, and it was in 2nd place by then (I think). It was actually the 32x attachment and the Sega CD attachment which did the Genesis in. It created a lot of market confusion and consumers lost faith in the Sega brand as a result. This is also why the Saturn failed.
Anyways, the SNES-Genesis battle was really the only exception to the rule of the weaker system always winning, and in this case it wasn't really that clear, because the Genesis may have had worse graphics, but it was faster than the SNES. So in that sense, the Genesis kinda was more powerful. It made games like Sonic (where you need lots of speed) possible. That's why the Genesis did better on arcade games, shoot-em-ups, and sports titles; whereas the SNES did much better on pretty much everything else, especially RPGs.
And the SNES actually got much more advanced as time went on, with things like the Super FX chip which it bundled into games like Star Fox. In 1995 the SNES was kicking out games that looked as good as or better than the Playstation games of the time... I mean, check out DKC or SMRPG.... it is hard to believe those were done on a 16bit system.
Wasn't NES stronger than the Master System?
I don't know what the deal was with the master system since I never owned one, knew anyone who had one, or ever even seen one until I seen pictures of it online.
That said, the system might have been technologically better or worse than the NES, but it didn't have much market presence at all so it really can't be looked at as being competition. In that generation the NES had what was essentially a monopoly on the industry. Everyone who cared at all about video games had one, and it was even featured in a lot of the movies from that time... Ghostbusters is a good example. Look at how they controlled the statue of liberty with the NES controller...
Actually, from what I've heard, the Sega Gamegear is really nothing more than a portable Mastersystem. If that's true, then I owned a master system and never even knew it.
But even in this portable form, it wasn't terribly successful...
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 21, 2007, 05:19:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: darknight06
The SNES/Genesis deal isn't true if you count the Sega CD and 32X, which very much did play a big role in that generation. One could say that a lot of the reason for the Genesis sliding down had everything to do with them trying to outdo the SNES in HARDWARE, even when it wasn't practical. Sega theoretically could've just kept the Genesis the way it was and it would've been far better off in the long run. It's not like they couldn't pull some slick looking effects off, hell most of that systems lineup did everything in it's power to make the SNES look like it wasn't that hot (look at everything games like Gunstar Heroes did and tell me they weren't trying to prove a point) and truth be told the Genesis was THE place for sports games, with titles like Madden and the NFL 9x series.
That's a very excellent point...
If we consider the Sega CD and 32x attachments as being a part of the Genesis, then when you put them together that really does make the Genesis a technological juggernaut compared to the SNES.... therefore, the Genesis would really be the more powerful system, and that would mean this would not be an exception to that rule of the weaker system always winning, because with those additions the SNES really was weaker...
Post by: DAaaMan64 on December 21, 2007, 06:43:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo GhostQuote
Originally posted by: darknight06
The SNES/Genesis deal isn't true if you count the Sega CD and 32X, which very much did play a big role in that generation. One could say that a lot of the reason for the Genesis sliding down had everything to do with them trying to outdo the SNES in HARDWARE, even when it wasn't practical. Sega theoretically could've just kept the Genesis the way it was and it would've been far better off in the long run. It's not like they couldn't pull some slick looking effects off, hell most of that systems lineup did everything in it's power to make the SNES look like it wasn't that hot (look at everything games like Gunstar Heroes did and tell me they weren't trying to prove a point) and truth be told the Genesis was THE place for sports games, with titles like Madden and the NFL 9x series.
That's a very excellent point...
If we consider the Sega CD and 32x attachments as being a part of the Genesis, then when you put them together that really does make the Genesis a technological juggernaut compared to the SNES.... therefore, the Genesis would really be the more powerful system, and that would mean this would not be an exception to that rule of the weaker system always winning, because with those additions the SNES really was weaker...
BUT BUT what about Mode 7 GRAFIX?
Post by: ThePerm on December 24, 2007, 01:42:20 AM
Instead of making all those addons and dedicating programming teams to making marginally better graphic 2d games Sega should have just made more crappier looking FUNNER games
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 24, 2007, 03:33:19 AM
That way they would have had a 32bit CD based system which was also backwards compatible with the popular Genesis. They also could have made the Saturn actually be those things merged together into one model so people who didn't already own a genesis could go that route. If they had done this, then they would probably have dominated the 32bit generation instead of Sony.
Post by: Nick DiMola on December 24, 2007, 03:59:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
If they had done this, then they would probably have dominated the 32bit generation instead of Sony.
It would've really been fantastic to have Sega as Nintendo's big competitor rather than Sony/Microsoft. Sega was so similar to Nintendo in terms of innovation and character/IP creation that this industry would be leaps and bounds better had it turned out that way. Unfortunately we have two juggernaut companies that don't primarily deal in gaming trying to dominate yet another industry. I would really love for Nintendo to acquire Sega and make their empire that much more dominating over Sony and Microsoft. It probably won't happen, but hey it would be nice.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 24, 2007, 11:05:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. JackQuote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
If they had done this, then they would probably have dominated the 32bit generation instead of Sony.
It would've really been fantastic to have Sega as Nintendo's big competitor rather than Sony/Microsoft. Sega was so similar to Nintendo in terms of innovation and character/IP creation that this industry would be leaps and bounds better had it turned out that way. Unfortunately we have two juggernaut companies that don't primarily deal in gaming trying to dominate yet another industry. I would really love for Nintendo to acquire Sega and make their empire that much more dominating over Sony and Microsoft. It probably won't happen, but hey it would be nice.
I agree. Sony and MS are in it to control your living room and/or to push proprietary media formats on us. Nintendo is the only purely gaming company left since Sega pulled the plug on their hardware division. We must make sure Nintendo doesn't go the way of Sega (unlikely now, but who knows what things will be like in a few years).
Sega was the only other hardware company which also made great innovative games to go with it. There have been other hardware companies (such as Atari) but they didn't have the same level of game innovation. Sega and Nintendo are the only companies like this, and they are probably the only ones like this there will ever be so we need to hang on to Nintendo dearly, because they are the last true gaming company left. If they ever leave us, then its just soulless media centers from then on...
However, I guess it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that Sega could get back in the hardware business someday... you never know. I can't see it happening now, but then again how many of us could see Nintendo being on top again?
Post by: darknight06 on December 24, 2007, 02:44:58 PM
Post by: Mario on December 24, 2007, 09:06:25 PM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on December 24, 2007, 10:01:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Well if Nintendo can bounce back after GameCube, anyone can start fresh from anything.
The GameCube's predecessor wasn't way too expensive and hard to develop for, and prior to that predecessor Nintendo didn't make two expensive add-ons to their 16-bit machine that made next to no significant contributions to the console's software lineup.
Post by: redgiemental on December 24, 2007, 10:12:46 PM
As for the 16 bit machines the lack of similar add ons for the SNES wasn't for lack of trying. PlayStation says hello.
Post by: Ghisy on December 24, 2007, 11:09:33 PM
As for Europe and Japan, the Megadrive/Genesis got its ass kicked by the SNES/SFC. Everyone I knew here in Europe had a SNES.
Nintendo had the awesome idea to put add-ons in their carts (i.e. Super FX chip) instead of releasing hardware based add-ons that people didn't really wanna buy, considering the lack of games using them.
It's too bad this isn't possible anymore with disc based-games.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 25, 2007, 12:00:51 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 25, 2007, 12:06:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
From what I head the N64 WAS harder to dev on than the PS1. Not more expensive tho, except for the games.
Yeah I seem to recall N64 being a pain, but that may have been because of the cartridge limits (Not sure though). It is with the Gamecube that Nintendo had a system far easier to develop for than Sony's PS2.
Post by: NWR_insanolord on December 25, 2007, 12:16:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: redgiemental
Well there was the GameCube broadband adapter....... If we're talking about GameCube add ons that added almost nothing to the software line up.
As for the 16 bit machines the lack of similar add ons for the SNES wasn't for lack of trying. PlayStation says hello.
The BBA can't really be compared to the Sega CD and 32X, No game required it (PSO came close). As for its contribution to the console, well it's Sonic CD versus Phantasy Star Online and LAN play for a handful of games (I've never done it myself but everyone who has seems to think LAN MK: Double Dash is the greatest thing ever). I am aware of the Nintendo PlayStation and the stories behind it, it may be the single most influential thing in gaming since its beginning and yet so few really know about it. Nintendo was smart enough to not release it, which Sega wasn't for either of its Genesis add-ons.
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
From what I head the N64 WAS harder to dev on than the PS1. Not more expensive tho, except for the games.
The N64 wasn't anywhere near as hard to develop for as the Saturn. The Saturn was designed as the ultimate 2D machine, but when Sony and Nintendo came out pushing 3D they added another processor for 3D stuff, and to really get things working you had to use both, which was difficult. It also launched at $400 to Sony's $300 and Nintendo's $200 or 250, I can't remember which offhand. (Hard to develop for because of multiple processors, more expensive than both its competitors? Where have I heard that before?)
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 25, 2007, 05:33:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ghisy
I love how this thread has become an old school system-talk!
As for Europe and Japan, the Megadrive/Genesis got its ass kicked by the SNES/SFC. Everyone I knew here in Europe had a SNES.
Nintendo had the awesome idea to put add-ons in their carts (i.e. Super FX chip) instead of releasing hardware based add-ons that people didn't really wanna buy, considering the lack of games using them.
It's too bad this isn't possible anymore with disc based-games.
That's one advantage of cartridges; however, I remember (especially around 1995-1996) how new SNES and N64 games were EXTREMELY expensive compared to the disc based games of the Playstation. I remember new SNES games were $70 or more and there were even some N64 games that tipped over $100!
That situation didn't last long, because the competition forced the prices down... but it wasn't all price gouging, because cartridges are very expensive to manufacture. Especially when they have special enhancement chips built into them. But this is probably why CD based systems don't have as long lifecycles as the cartridge based systems of the past. With a cd system the games are limited by the hardware and can't add new chips to it, but they are much cheaper at least.
Post by: darknight06 on December 25, 2007, 05:42:04 AM
Funny thing is, the cartridge prices were actually part of the reason I ultimately abandoned the N64 for the PS1, which I then abandoned for the PC for quite a while. To be honest with you IMO the 32/64 bit era was a load of crock that I never want to see repeated again. Last gen wasn't that much better either.
Post by: Kairon on December 25, 2007, 06:34:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: darknight06
It might not have been as hard as the Saturn, but it was still an uphill technical battle compared to the Playstation even if you took the cartridge space out of the equation. That and there was also the high licensing fees that Sony corrected to a point as well which was probably the biggest reason for the mass exodus. Sega wouldn't have been a good place to go for that either, in fact when Sony was third party to both companies it was one of the big things that they studied up hard on before releasing their system.
Funny thing is, the cartridge prices were actually part of the reason I ultimately abandoned the N64 for the PS1, which I then abandoned for the PC for quite a while. To be honest with you IMO the 32/64 bit era was a load of crock that I never want to see repeated again. Last gen wasn't that much better either.
T_T The N64 era defined me. It was my golden age... *sniff*
Post by: darknight06 on December 25, 2007, 06:49:30 AM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on December 25, 2007, 06:57:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: darknight06
It might not have been as hard as the Saturn, but it was still an uphill technical battle compared to the Playstation even if you took the cartridge space out of the equation. That and there was also the high licensing fees that Sony corrected to a point as well which was probably the biggest reason for the mass exodus. Sega wouldn't have been a good place to go for that either, in fact when Sony was third party to both companies it was one of the big things that they studied up hard on before releasing their system.
Funny thing is, the cartridge prices were actually part of the reason I ultimately abandoned the N64 for the PS1, which I then abandoned for the PC for quite a while. To be honest with you IMO the 32/64 bit era was a load of crock that I never want to see repeated again. Last gen wasn't that much better either.
I agree. I got an N64 not long after it came out, and I only ever purchased two games for it because they were so damn expensive. Less than a year later I got my first PC, so I stuck with that for a long time and I only got back into console games in 2002 or so when I got my Gamecube. I figured I would give Nintendo another chance and hoped they learned from their past mistakes, and I think they did. They seem to be doing their best to court third parties into developing on their system, and I am also glad the cartridge format is gone forever.
Don't get me wrong; the games Nintendo made for the SNES and N64 were high quality gems the likes of which we seldom see today, but they were just too damn expensive. If you were a kid or a teenager in those days, you could only afford a small number of cartridge games a year. Now, thanks to the disc games, you can afford slightly more per year...
But what we see happening now which is quite interesting, is that 360 and PS3 games have brought the price UP again. It was an old tradition for console games to be $49.99 which began in the NES era, or perhaps earlier... but now they are $59.99 or maybe more in some cases. I applaud Nintendo for keeping the price of their new games at the traditional price point, and I think this is one of the keys to their success that is going to help them along in the years to come. I imagine there are more than a few Sony and/or Microsoft fans who are disenfranchised by the high price of those companies consoles and games, just like I was with Nintendo back during the N64 era.
Post by: Stogi on December 25, 2007, 12:33:43 PM
Sometimes, when we don't have sh!t to do, my friend will convince me to bring the Wii over to his place. I'll rent a couple of games, and he'll by the liquor. We'll then invite some broads over and that'll start the night till it's time to do something else
.In all honesty, the Wii is a major success with my friends that loved the PS2 and XBOX. My buddy with a PS3 is always telling me to bring over the Wii so he can play it. I just keep forgetting. To give a little perspective, my friends also love the Monkey Ball mini-games (especially Monkey Boxing). And while they like good graphics, there all about good hilarious gameplay.
Point in case: They'd rather play Winning Eleven on the PS2 then Fifa 08 on the 360 (which looks f*cking gorgeous).
People are willing to give Nintendo a chance. They just need something that appeals to them.
Post by: Plugabugz on December 25, 2007, 10:31:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KashogiStogi
People are willing to give Nintendo a chance. They just need something that appeals to them.
So therefore: everyone please buy Pro Evo on Wii and DS so Konami finally get the hint.
Post by: Gamebasher on December 26, 2007, 06:10:17 AM
Point in case: They'd rather play Winning Eleven on the PS2 then Fifa 08 on the 360 (which looks f*cking gorgeous).
People are willing to give Nintendo a chance. They just need something that appeals to them."
Yes, something which isn´t too complicated. Something which is straightforward and easy to go to. Nintendo, like Sony, studied the market well before designing their next console (Wii), and understood suddenly the abundant need for something which was simpler, something which people could grasp easy and quick. Because the easier you can grasp it, the easier you can play it, and enjoy it. Nintendo understood that people nolonger have the time for complicated games with a steep learning curve. They knew that people would drop it the instant it got to be too much for them: money left on the table.
Nintendo is also very good at surprising people with new and fresh content, which is a huge difference compared to the ubiquitous samey-types of games that are filling up the market these days. The real eye opener, the head-turner, is defined by three keywords: simplicity, exciting and rewarding! That is the real reason why so many people wants a Wii.
Post by: Kairon on December 26, 2007, 09:34:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Gamebasher
Nintendo is also very good at surprising people with new and fresh content, which is a huge difference compared to the ubiquitous samey-types of games that are filling up the market these days. The real eye opener, the head-turner, is defined by three keywords: simplicity, exciting and rewarding! That is the real reason why so many people wants a Wii.
I've been playing Nintendo games since I was 3, but that isn't why I'm a Nintendo fanboi. I've been buying their games for years, but even if I wasn't a fanboi I'd still do that because they're quality games. These things are what make Nintendo products worth buying...
... But I'm a fan for exactly what you wrote there Gamebasher. I'm a fan because Nintendo has it in them to keep surprising me. Keep sending me on adventures. Keep on exceeding my expectations and dreaming beyond my ability to dream. Good games are worth playing, no doubt. But Nintendo games are worth believing in.
