Post by: Procession on December 10, 2003, 10:26:27 PM
I think the article is dead-on and fantastic. From what (little, admittedly) i've seen of Iwata, I don't think much. Although Yamauchi was the butt of many jokes around the internet, he clearly was a shrewd businessman, making Nintendo what it is (was?) today. Although he did perhaps fall away from the times in his last few years, with a few silly mistakes, he seems to have been a strong, great leader. Perhaps they should have looked outside the company for a successor. Nintendo does need to get with the times, and Iwata quote in the article about online makes me think he isn't seeing the big picture - you may not make money off online directly, but knowing it is an option will make more people buy your console, and in the long term I suspect it will pay off for Microsoft (and Sony to a lesser degree). I agree with the slant the author is pushing of Nintendo needing to get with the times, the lack of DVD playback on the Gamecube, the cartridges on the N64, the mini-DVDs (fantastic as they are result in the Gamecube missing some games, i'm sure) as well as the lack of built in networking in the Cube and optical audio output all IMHO, mis-steps. I hope Iwata learns the lesson from this time: people want extra functionality, people want the standard, and people don't like purple. Gamecube may not contain extra functionality because it is meant to play games, according to Nintendo. But it appears people want more than to play games - so they should a) Team up with consumer electronics companies (ala 3DO), b) Start delivering more-in-one, matching Sony and Microsoft or c) Get out of the hardware game.
Anyway, what do others think of the issues this article raised?
Post by: Kyosho on December 10, 2003, 10:54:50 PM
Post by: Ocarina Blue on December 10, 2003, 11:34:07 PM
I agree that constructive criticism is good, but Nintendo's share from the media (particualy the mansteam media) is ridiculous compared to what Microsoft or Nokia get for being extremly unsucessful. It's almost as if some sort of competing company has paid them to slag off their every move.
Post by: Bloodworth on December 10, 2003, 11:52:26 PM
Besides that, this article is little more than a rehash of the same Nintendo criticisms that come up in every other article.
Post by: Mario on December 11, 2003, 12:08:17 AM
Post by: Procession on December 11, 2003, 12:24:12 AM
The article does say: "While those reductions have boosted marketshare and promise to move more units during crucial holiday weeks". I believe the author is talking about a rebound on a wider scale.
"Besides that, this article is little more than a rehash of the same Nintendo criticisms that come up in every other article."
Perhaps, but just because the criticisms are tired, does it mean they are no longer true?
"The day Nintendo conforms to Sony and Microsoft's production values are the day they lose my business. Nintendo makes good games and good consoles. The day they stop doing that, coincidentally, is also the day they lose my business."
As mine. They make superb consoles, with great architecture. As well as being the best developer in the world, period. They could reconsider the form in which they distribute their hardware though...
Post by: WesDawg on December 11, 2003, 03:39:04 AM
Based on his quotes about the N-Gage being a threat to the GBA, I doubt the guy knows what he's talking about, or at least he's got an agenda. Anyways, I think most people's complaints about the Cube are kinda silly. DVD playback has, in about one years time, lost its selling point. I don't know anyone who watches movies on their console, same as no one listened to CD's on their PS1. No consumer I know hated the N64's cartridge format, just some developers, and I haven't heard any of 'em complain about the mini-DVD's. DVD's seem to be used mainly to add movies as bonuses in the end. Yippee! a movie of skating footage. Yeah! The N64's main problem was apparently that it was a pain to code for and its lack of Squaresoft. I figure they'll include built-in broadband on the N5, but I really don't think that Nintendo specifically would have that strong of an online presence even if they had. M$ has spent tons of money building Live in order to make it semi-successful. They've got what <10% of owners have bought it, to say nothing of the number that use it.
Post by: BlackCap on December 11, 2003, 04:41:28 AM
"It does seem weird that, while BigN and M$ are locked in a battle for #2, and Microsoft is loosing money on the XBox, M$ never gets criticised for it."
That's because most people understand that the XBox is a capital investment for Microsoft. Microsoft knew they weren't going to be number one going in, but future returns almost always change things, especially when you have Microsofts money. Even if you count in diseconomies of scale, the current losses are a drop in the bucket for the big boys at M$. For an example, look at Internet Explorer as a browser, back in the early-mid ninties almost no one believe that it would overtake Netscape. Strangely enough, it did.
"In fact, XBox is a success in everyones mind it seems. I hardly think you can call one a success and the other an "unmitigated disaster" when they're both in the exact same place."
Not quite. If you count in who can afford to take more losses (Nintendo is technically gaining profits but losing market share in the long run), Microsoft is actually doing better than most people predicted.
As a side note, to my mind Microsofts entry into the video game market gave it a boost it wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Their excessive advertising drew more people into consumption, even if it may have been for other systems. In Network Economic lingo, I'd say that they "fed the net". Strangely, this observation is almost always absent from mainstream publications like the above article.
Post by: Oldskool on December 11, 2003, 06:33:30 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 11, 2003, 07:39:03 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 11, 2003, 08:33:28 AM
"Meanwhile, other companies, especially mobile-phone makers, are hoping to beat Sony to the punch by converting millions of cell-phone users into game addicts via their handsets. Nokia just debuted its N-Gage phone-plus-games gadget, while many 3G mobile phones available in Japan already rival Game Boy in graphics and playability."
This is where a lot of "mainstream" journalists trip up. They make the assumption that just because one portable has better graphics, and 3D capabilities, and all sorts of extra features that it can compete with the GBA. The Gameboy has beaten several "superior" handhelds over and over again and will continue to do so until someone else clues in on why it has survived so long. There are two very important issues with portable gaming that a lot of people overlook: price and battery usage. Adding all sorts of fancy hardware just raises the price up and this isn't usually a small $30-50 difference, it's much bigger. Big enough to make people choose price over features. And with batteries, well no one cares about graphics when they can only play a game for two hours at a time. In my opinion handhelds have never really taken off. The Gameboy has taken off which is different. One cannot half-ass it (Nokia) and hope their handheld conquers because people don't just accept ANY handheld. The author is making the assumption that by merely adding stuff other companies can beat the Gameboy.
"What people want, Iwata says, are simpler, more accessible games that are easier to play and solve—think thumb candy for dummies."
Iwata has been saying this a lot (though he's likely being paraphrased here) and it's freaking me out because it IS a change in Nintendo's traditional game design and is the sort of thing that would make me lose interest in them. I don't know where this "simple game" crap is coming from because it's a sharp contrast to what has normally brought Nintendo success. Look at some the huge sellers on previous Nintendo consoles: Super Mario Bros 3, Donkey Kong Country, Pokemon Red/Blue, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. NONE of these games are simple. They all are quite complex for the time period and have great graphics and sound (again for the time and hardware). They are all ambitious projects. Pokemon is hugely successful and it's an RPG with 150 creatures each with unique abilities and moves. The game is huge. Now I agree that accessibility is important (it always has been a staple in Nintendo games) but making games easier to play and solve is ridiculous. They're already easy enough and no one wants games with no depth or challenge that can be beaten in a day.
Ironically enough Nintendo seems to be going the opposite route with the GBA, where pick-and-play games make more sense. Sure they released Warioware but this year they also released Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire, Golden Sun 2, Advance Wars 2, FFTA, Mario & Luigi and Fire Emblem. Those are all complex games that appeal more to hardcore gamers. Why are they releasing these game on a portable while going simpler on their console?
If simple games are really the future then why are games like Pac-Man Vs and Tetra's Trackers being included with other games? Because no one will ever pay full price for them on their own. Since Nintendo seems to know that why are they going in this direction? Easy to access games that are hard to master are what make Nintendo great. Simple controls for complex gameplay is what makes Nintendo games great. Simplifying complexity is what makes Nintendo games great and right now it seems Nintendo has forgotten the second part.
Post by: Smashman on December 11, 2003, 08:46:30 AM
The day Nintendo leaves the business is the day I lay board games as my type of gaming. lol.
Post by: eylor on December 11, 2003, 10:17:04 AM
I've never understood how that can make sense, especially considering that in order for the games industry to continue to grow, each sucessive generation of consoles will have to be sold at a lose. The XBox division at MS is bleeding at the seems and Sony, well let's not talk about Sony. And these analysts say Nintendo should get out of the market, for making money in it, and leave it to the so-called "big boys" who are willing to flush money down the toilet without any return. Microsoft and Sony are getting almost nothing out of this industry, except one thing: A new market.
Think about it... In Japanse, DVD sales skyrocketed because Sony piggybacked the hardware into peoples homes in the PS2. MS is trying the same thing with broadband, which isn't succeeding too well but it is creating the backbone of a future online network that they will control. Who cares if they lose money now, as long as in the long run they get what they want. Games are just an afterthough, a means to an end. And when they're done using them to their own means, they'll drop them like a hot potato.
Imagine a few years down the line when the PS4 and the XBox 3 are released, with the abilities to go online, have DVD and CD playback and recording, a built in Tivo style unit, wireless interconnectivity with your PC and any other wired devices in your household. Oh, and it just happens to play games too... maybe. But since Sony and MS make more money off of people paying for their online services and bloated expensive hardware, you won't see them advertising that much, if at all.
It's the dawn of the set-top-box people and even though games are a part of that future, they're only going to hold a minority stock. Or else why do you think Sony and MS don't really make many games of their own?
*end of rant*
Sorry... Had to get that all out. It's just, with these people, logic just doesn't make any sense.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 11, 2003, 10:21:13 AM
Post by: Berny on December 11, 2003, 12:11:39 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 11, 2003, 12:44:27 PM
Quote
As mine. They make superb consoles, with great architecture. As well as being the best developer in the world, period. They could reconsider the form in which they distribute their hardware though...
Nintendo's business practices are perfectly fine, exemplary even- you do realize they've only lost money for one quarter since going public some 40 years ago? Most other companies could never dream of being able to make a claim like that. The problem is, as I have said all along, the third parties. Nintendo makes the best games in the world- even if you don't care for their style, you have to admit their games are some of the best made and most polished pieces of software on the planet- it's not a coincidence they have such an incredibly loyal following. This poses a conundrum for 3rd parties- when sitting on a shelf next to a world class Nintendo game, who's going to want to buy a mediocre 3rd party game that's riding more on image than quality? 3rd party games rarely do well on Nintendo consoles as of late because of the simple fact that most owners of Nintendo consoles would rather lay down their hard earned money for the assured quality of a Nintendo game as opposed to taking a gamble on a 3rd party game, which can range from being true gaming gems to little more than excrement hastily slapped on a disc. This used to not be a problem, back in the NES/SNES/Genesis days, and there's a very good reason for that- the only consoles 3rd parties could develop for were made by extremely talented 1st parties, which forced the 3rd parties to match that level of quality in order to catch the attention of the consumer and convince them to buy their game. Again, it's no coincidence that some of the best 3rd party games ever made were released during those two generations, and the bad ones nearly always floundered.
Then along came Sony- not to disrespect the advancements Sony has made for the industry, and they are improving, but they created a console (the Playstation) completely devoid of a stellar 1st party, or really a good 1st party at all, which meant half-assed crappy games could sell much better than before simply because the consumer didn't have a choice. Conversely, 3rd partiers left Nintendo, whose consoles it was now difficult to garner sales for, requiring at least as much effort as Nintendo puts in their games. When they left Nintendo, all that was left was Nintendo, and, by association, Nintendo fans. Gone were the people who enjoyed a few of Nintendo games but enjoyed the diversity their consoles offered. Indeed, gone was the diversity altogether, gone to the Playstation. It's truly a testament to Nintendo's quality that their hardcore fans alone could not only support them but turn an enormous profit as well. When we moved into the next generation, Microsoft released the XBox, which is based on the exact same principle as the PSX/PS2, that without the high quality 1st and 2nd parties, mediocre 3rd parties can thrive.
That's why I truly believe that it's not competition between multiple consoles that brings the best out in developers, but competition between each other on one console, at the very most two if both have extremely good 1st parties. I say this because it forces the 3rd parties to rise to the level of quality of the 1st party to catch the buyer's eye.
Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that Nintendo is doing all they can do- yes, sometimes they make some bad business decisions, but so does every company (especially Microsoft with the XBox- why no fortellings of doom for the console currently in 3rd place worldwide?), and Nintendo makes far less than most. It's the industry that needs to change, not Nintendo. Sony's 1st parties are gradually improving, but both the PS2 and the XBox are making it okay for 3rd parties to shove half-assed games out the door because they actually SELL. Eventually, though, when image and graphics no longer matter (when the the difference in graphical ability between consoles is indistinguishable), actual game quality will be what drives sales, and it's then when Nintendo will rise once again.
Post by: Berny on December 11, 2003, 12:57:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Eventually, though, when image and graphics no longer matter (when the the difference in graphical ability between consoles is indistinguishable), actual game quality will be what drives sales, and it's then when Nintendo will rise once again.
lol. We await the Return of the One. Or the Return of the King. When Nintagorn will once again weild Mariosil and smite the forces of Morcrosoft and Saurony.
Wow. That took like five minutes to think up. Post by: Luciferschild on December 11, 2003, 01:02:27 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 11, 2003, 01:06:19 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 11, 2003, 01:15:50 PM
"About the color purple though, you've got to be out touch with everything on this earth to make your console purple. What were they thinking?"
NCL over in Japan viewed purple as a regal colour and thus thought it would be a good idea to make that "Nintendo's colour". For all I know purple is a perfectly fine colour in Japan so I don't really have a problem with that. NOA should be blamed for either being too spineless to go against NCL and use a different colour or too stupid for not realizing that such a colour wouldn't be very popular in North America.
"People seem to think that 'more simple' means 'no more complex than a Wario Ware minigame'. Keep in mind that the creators of GTA refer to it [GTA3] as a simple game. I think Iwata doesn't want to simplify the already simple games like Mario but the more complex ones. How many people have you heard complaining about Metroid Prime's controls?"
The way Iwata (and Miyamoto in other interviews) talks about it it's worded in a way that they want to move in that direction. IE: Nintendo games aren't simple enough already and thus should be made even simpler. They also tend to use games like Pac-Man Vs and Kirby Air Ride as examples all the time which suggests that that's the type of game they mean. If they said "we should make more simple games like Zelda" then I'd be cool with it but they don't. They always use a really easy crap game as an example.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 11, 2003, 01:22:15 PM
Quote
NCL over in Japan viewed purple as a regal colour and thus thought it would be a good idea to make that "Nintendo's colour". For all I know purple is a perfectly fine colour in Japan so I don't really have a problem with that. NOA should be blamed for either being too spineless to go against NCL and use a different colour or too stupid for not realizing that such a colour wouldn't be very popular in North America.
I don't know about everyone else, but I certainly don't want Nintendo pansying to people who base their console decisions on appearance. That's EXACTLY what I'm saying is the problem with the industry right now, that image alone can bring success, which is wrong. I see the purple Gamecube more as a weeding out of the insincere gamers, as a means of insuring the people who buy a Gamecube will be open minded and more accepting to Nintendo's games. Maybe I have an elitist attitude, but the day Nintendo plays into the hands of people who care about little more than image and appearance is the day they've lost my business.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 11, 2003, 01:50:50 PM
I have no problem with "insecure" gamers owning the same console as long as Nintendo releases the same quality games. I figure they would so it's not a problem. I want Nintendo to be on top again so I can get a SNES-style variety of games to choose from. If minor stuff like making the case look "cooler" does that I support it.
Post by: yellowfellow on December 11, 2003, 02:08:57 PM
Quote
I don't know about everyone else, but I certainly don't want Nintendo pansying to people who base their console decisions on appearance. That's EXACTLY what I'm saying is the problem with the industry right now, that image alone can bring success, which is wrong.
i agree with you 100%, is there anyother reason why xobox is viewed as being "the best"... when in so many different ways, its not?
Quote
I see the purple Gamecube more as a weeding out of the insincere gamers, as a means of insuring the people who buy a Gamecube will be open minded and more accepting to Nintendo's games. Maybe I have an elitist attitude, but the day Nintendo plays into the hands of people who care about little more than image and appearance is the day they've lost my business.
here's where i do and don't agree with you. nintendo has always had a little place in my heart for their specific style of games and so long as they continue the trend, i will be a happy happy man. however, iwata was stated several times that the next round they will compete head-to-head and for them to do that they will have to make some serious changes. consumers are fickle and thus a battle will be have to be waged on the PR side as well.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 11, 2003, 02:17:35 PM
Quote
Making a more neutral colour as the base colour isn't exactly compromising Nintendo's views on game development. If promoting black instead of purple results in more sales who cares? You still get the same games and the console is a little more successful which benefits all Cube users.
Saying NOA doesn't have the spine to stand up to NCL and change the color isn't exactly taking the "neutral" position- I don't want Nintendo changing the color of their console for the sole purpouse of getting sales. I want Nintendo to use a design that is visually appealing, yes, but not one that is based upon image. Regardless of whether or not Nintendo still makes the same games, I don't want people buying a Nintendo console because it looks good. I want them to buy a Nintendo console because of Nintendo's games.
Quote
I have no problem with "insecure" gamers owning the same console as long as Nintendo releases the same quality games. I figure they would so it's not a problem. I want Nintendo to be on top again so I can get a SNES-style variety of games to choose from. If minor stuff like making the case look "cooler" does that I support it.
The ends do not justify the means, my friend- I want Nintendo to succeed because people recognize the quality in their games, not because it's "cool" to like Nintendo now. I don't want people buying Nintendo consoles for the wrong reasons, because it means Nintendo has compromised something. Nintendo is perfectly fine the way they are right now, and don't need to change at all to get buyers. It's simply a matter of waiting for the consumers to make buying decision based on quality, not image.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on December 11, 2003, 03:26:22 PM
As for the mainstream guys, I have nothing against them at all. I mean I still have talks with guys about how fun mario bros, mario kart, battle toads, they all love them. Since they have moved onto PS2, assumingly because it was what was cool, but the mainstream can have good taste. It just depends on how well they are led to buy your product.
Post by: teckmoney on December 11, 2003, 04:32:23 PM
Post by: Kyosho on December 11, 2003, 05:00:33 PM
Quote
They ALWAYS want to be different instead of tried and true conformity
For some reason looking back, that is pretty true since the N64 error. I remember I was shocked that they were going to do cartridges, and I kept convincing myself that it will be good. But look what happened...
For the gamecube, I was hoping it would be CDs, but they opted for minidiscs. Look what is happening...
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 11, 2003, 05:04:39 PM
Post by: ThePerm on December 11, 2003, 05:21:18 PM
Also and i more or less bought a black gamecube because it matches my vcr and n64...im thinking about buying a blue pokemon vcr...that way it matches my mario kart phone.
i also have a blak gameboy advance too....
Post by: the_zombie_luke on December 11, 2003, 05:51:37 PM
Post by: Ghost_of_a_Flea on December 11, 2003, 05:51:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: teckmoney
Nintendo is able to make their system dirt cheap mainly because it cant be used as a dvd player. xbox and ps2 keep their prices b/c they are also dvd player and my xbox is a very good one at that...which competes almost better than my sony dvd player. Nintendo tries to innovate, but they are dumb i think. They ALWAYS want to be different instead of tried and true conformity. Honestly, how can you make a game nowadays...with CG, FMV movies...as well as high resolution game content and SLAM it all on a 1.5 gig disk? I don't think you can. Heck, most pc games require that much install space or more. I still like playing my xbox just to see a lot of movies and stuff, something that i have not seen on any GC games ive played (not a whole lot sinse a lot are either party or kid games) Their sales were first hurt by the *fruity* color when it launched which led many college students and teen - adult gamers away and labeled it strictly a kids toy. For a company who recycles SO many of its old franchise games...nintendo should try to focus on older folk like me (21 years old) who used to play the old franchise games when they first started. blah blah blah im tired of typing : )
First, both Xbox and PS2 are horrible DVD players (although the Xbox is better), just buy a dedicated player. It's also entirely possible to fit CG and FMV movies on a 1.5 gig disc, in fact many PS2 games are still on regular CDs. Now that the simple stuff is out of the way...
By your philosophy bands shouldn't create new or innovative music when they can follow the tried and true formula of pop stars and boy-bands who came before them? Why make other kinds of music when we have Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears? That just says something about the state of gamers as a whole; they'd rather buy a system that has a few hardware limitations (PS2) instead of a system that's a "fruity color." If you’d rather buy a flawed system than one with a "fruity color" I don’t think you can refer to yourself as an adult.
I don't hate the PS2 (I've owned one since release), and I don't think the GameCube's perfect, but this is a horrible point of view. Without innovation there’s no progress; it might not always work, but that’s how progress is made. I can thank Nintendo for giving me fresh gameplay instead of the same regurgitated games like… oh let’s say the Final Fantasy series. Pikmin and Animal Crossing might not appeal to everyone, but it opens new possibilities; I guarantee you within a year or two you'll see quite a few games adopting the innovation stemming from both of these games.
A novel idea, to me, is that if you want to see a movie then buy a $15 movie instead of a $50 game that you watch for 75% of the time. I, on the other hand, tend to buy games to actually play the games. Yet you’re complaining about innovation? It’s come to the point where people complain about the being creative… Hey, I know, let’s make another turn-based RPG with a reluctant hero who falls in love and in turn saves the world. We can’t forget to make the game easy for casual gamers and give them bright shiny flashing lights to look at; all the while they’re in complete amazement at the "creative" storyline!
Post by: yellowfellow on December 11, 2003, 07:20:46 PM
Quote
All hope of intelligent discussion just went out the window. :/
it's just a little redundant... it's still good... it's still good
Post by: WesDawg on December 11, 2003, 07:57:21 PM
Quote
I can thank Nintendo for giving me fresh gameplay instead of the same regurgitated games like… oh let’s say the Final Fantasy series.
Final Fantasy has changed more in just about every incarnation released than any other series I can really think of. Not that there isn't a lot of crap released, and bad rehashes, but FF isn't really one of 'em. I don't mind a mix of innovation and rehashing. Miyamoto said in an interview once something about the Mario Kart team deciding that the N64 game was pretty good, and making it their goal to just sorta recreate it with more expansive, immersive environments and stuff. I didn't mind the lack of something real new and amazing there. I just enjoyed getting some more Mario Kart. Same with Super Mario World and with Mario Sunshine. Then theres other times with stuff like Metroid Prime, Pikmin, Wario Ware, or even Luigi's Mansion, where they do something different. Those game have all been pretty high risk though. Anyways, rehashes get a bad rap. If you rerelease a game once every 3-5 years that's one thing. If you do it every year <cough>Madden<cough>TigerWoods<cough> then you suck.
I'll admit your Microsoft's XBox being a capital investment, but I don't seriously see a payoff in the long run for Microsoft. I don't understand what investors see in it that has even a potential for eventual success. I think they'll loose a ton on this generation, and in the next, and probably in the one after that. I don't have any idea what their plan is. What if they eventually do get a set-top box in 100% of the living rooms out there? Are they going to then start charging us all billions of Yen once were dependent. Then we'll all switch. Sorta like the IE thing. I don't get it. They make no money off the thing. It's a horrible product. What is there to be proud of? If they ever try to charge for it, everyone will switch. All I can guess is that a whole lot of people see MSN when their internet starts and they must be making a very small part of their huge fortune in advertising.
I guess I never seriously expect the Cube to become #1. I think these analyists are dead set that they have to be to survive though. I'm perfectly happy being number 2, getting the great games, and letting the general public buy their crap with the occasional golden kernel in it. Now we've even got Namco, Sega, and Capcom making some of their best for our console, and releasing their filler crap for the PS2. It's a great time to own a Cube.
Post by: Luciferschild on December 11, 2003, 08:50:28 PM
Quote
You personally shouldn't be upset- you can play your Gamecube games on your Gamecube. I do agree that the N5 needs to be backwards compatible, though- that was a huge selling point for the PS2.
I am playing my gamecube but I want it to be back-compatible cause I miss some previous gen. games and it's a pain in the butt to unhook gc, hook up n64 and so on and so forth. Plus I like my gc so much that if their next console isn't back-compatible I might just never buy another console. I don't think graphics can get much better anyway, it's all about having a huge library of games now. Oh and my threat about not buying the next console.....I'm bluffing.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 12, 2003, 02:27:01 AM
Don't get me wrong, I think Nintendo will be making a big mistake if their next console isn't backwards compatible, but it's nothing that will affect us Gamecube owners personally. Quote
it's just a little redundant... it's still good... it's still good
You're right, I just got put off with the repetition. :/
Post by: teckmoney on December 12, 2003, 03:15:05 AM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on December 12, 2003, 03:36:18 AM
LOL, I guess that is why my gamecube loads games twice as fast as my x-box does. MS is now using ATI as well, and I am sure Nintendo has no plans on switching to an inferior product.
" Nintendo is able to make their system dirt cheap mainly because it cant be used as a dvd player."
I can get a DVD player that is better than the PS2 and X-box ones for under $50, and I even get the remote for free.
"Nintendo tries to innovate, but they are dumb i think. They ALWAYS want to be different instead of tried and true conformity. Honestly, how can you make a game nowadays...with CG, FMV movies...as well as high resolution game content and SLAM it all on a 1.5 gig disk?"
the last thing I want is a game that forces me to watch 10 minute movies betwwen every stage because they coundnt fill the game with actual gameplay. If I want to watch a movie I will pop in a dvd THANKS.
"Their sales were first hurt by the *fruity* color when it launched which led many college students and teen - adult gamers away and labeled it strictly a kids toy."
I am 33, and I could give 2 chits what color that darn thing is.
"For a company who recycles SO many of its old franchise games...nintendo should try to focus on older folk like me (21 years old) who used to play the old franchise games when they first started. blah blah blah im tired of typing : )"
I wish I was that smart at 21
Post by: Bloodworth on December 12, 2003, 04:34:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: teckmoney
They arent innovating their hardware! Just the looks! The internals of gamecube should have been more than they are. Im not dogging the cube..its great. Too bad when they made the Ati graphics chip ati wasnt AS good as they are now and microsoft already had nvidia.
This shows that you really don't know a lot about what's going on here. The GameCube hardware is FAR more innovative than either of the other consoles. They moved away from designing their system around one all-powerful CPU like the N64 and PS2 are, and went for a balance of architecture that would make it easier to program for and perform better with fewer bottlenecks. ATI didn't get involved until the end, by buying Art X AFTER they had practically finished the graphics processor. Both the IBM chip and Art X chip were custom designed from the ground up for the GC with some startling new technologies at the time. Honestly, I get the feeling that the reason ATI has gotten better is because they've integrated the innovations from Art X in their newer cards. In addition to this, we have the smaller discs using a CAV drive which drastically improves loading times. The "limitations" of the disc only effect developers that don't want to optimise their code since there are tools from Factor 5 that allow you to put tons of sound and video into that space. In addition to this, you have Nintendo's piracy coding, which so far has only been sort of half-hacked through people messing around with Phantasy Star Online. Considering that PS2 and Xbox were cracked by pirates early on, this was a huge and important hardware advancement for Nintendo.
Comparing these things to MS is a joke. MS very quickly threw together a high-performance gaming PC out of parts that were little more than optimised versions of products that are already out there. The ONLY reason the Xbox is technologically better than the GameCube and PS2 is that Microsoft has the money to stuff a bunch of stuff in there and sell it at a price that neither competitor can afford.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 12, 2003, 06:26:57 AM
While I don't agree that Nintendo should completely conform to the way the competition does things I do agree that they try to be different almost all the time and there's no reason to always do so. For example look at how Nintendo releases their demo discs. The "make our loyal fans go to all kinds of trouble for a simple demo" strategy is certainly new and innovative but it's also f*cking retarded. Sony has found the perfect way to distribute demos so in this case copying them is the best strategy. Having a smaller memory card and making Player's Choice titles more expensive than the compitition are also different ways to do things that don't make any sense. I think there has to be a balance of innovation and conformity in order to succeed. Innovate where it improves but don't do things differently than the competition just to be different. A good idea is a good idea even if someone else thinks of it first.
Post by: teckmoney on December 12, 2003, 08:18:47 AM
Post by: Luciferschild on December 12, 2003, 08:47:23 PM
Quote
It's called an A/V switchbox, Lucifer. Don't get me wrong, I think Nintendo will be making a big mistake if their next console isn't backwards compatible, but it's nothing that will affect us Gamecube owners personally.
I'm not that sophisticated. But you have a point, it can be done.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 13, 2003, 12:01:42 AM
I don't know why people complain about the size of the Memorycards, my 251 is about 60% full while holding all my saves from 17 different games. An average file is about 5 blocks. Yes, I heard of games using 59 blocks, but I believe that's just inefficient usage (i.e. devs doing a bad job). Well, the N5 will use modified SD-cards, anyway. And probably WLan and wireless controllers...
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 13, 2003, 03:27:15 AM
Quote
The ONLY reason the Xbox is technologically better than the GameCube and PS2 is that Microsoft has the money to stuff a bunch of stuff in there and sell it at a price that neither competitor can afford.
Even that may not be so true- no console game has yet to surpass Rebel Strike or Rogue Leader in technical ability, and the latter was a Gamecube launch title made in less than a year. Only one XBox game, I believe, has even matched Roge Leader in sheer number of polygons, and it's only running at 30 fps as opposed to RL's (nearly) locked 60fps. It's possible the XBox is more powerful, but we sure haven't seen it.
And on the subject of extra features, I think a hard drive is vital, and in my opinion is one of the smartest things MS put on the XBox. It doesn't have to be massive, but it should be functional. Additional memory cards should be offered for those who want to transport around a saved game (which isn't anything extra since you were going to be buying a memory card even if the hard drive wasn't there). It's not that I think memory cards are too small (the 59's sure are, but my 251 is a hulking behemoth), but it's awkward having to constantly switch out all my memory cards, finding which one has what game, and what other one has that custom data- I much prefer the days of yestergeneration when we could save without worrying about space and could be comforted in knowing our save file would always be there when we come back.
Lucifer: Oh, A/V switchboxes are awesome!
I don't know what about them I like so much, but I love them.
Post by: Deguello on December 13, 2003, 10:52:18 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 13, 2003, 10:53:35 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 14, 2003, 02:29:44 AM
Post by: Smashman on December 14, 2003, 02:49:11 AM
Nintendo is the true greatness that will live forever!
Just like the old, crappy Atari systems (pre-NES) which were over-flooded with games, I think VG's these days (PS2 and X-Box) will sooner or later go that way, as well- a passing fad! Nintendo, however, will live forever! Sony is just doing what Atari is doing back then, and getting millions of people to buy their system (fads like Pokemon cards, Titanic, Beanie babies, and pogs).
Titanic was a crappy movie! Look at the big phenomenon(although someone will certainly disagree)!
Does anybody else get my point?!?!
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 14, 2003, 06:47:00 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 14, 2003, 07:06:44 AM
Post by: Darc Requiem on December 14, 2003, 10:10:43 AM
Darc Requiem
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 14, 2003, 10:26:50 AM
And KDR, regardless of triangles or whatever, Rogue Leader was a launch title made in less than a year, and the only XBox game to match it graphically was released 4 months later. So as of now only one XBox game has matched Rogue Leader and none have surpassed it, while on the Gamecube one game already has surpassed it, soon to be two (I'll be damned if Resident Evil 4, arguably the best looking console game to date, isn't more advanced than RL).
Post by: KDR_11k on December 14, 2003, 07:29:25 PM
I think I'll use math:
15 *10^6 Triangle Sec^-1 / 30 Frame Sec^-1 == 15 * 10^6 Triangle / 30 Frame == 5 * 10^5 Triangle * Frame^-1
15 *10^6 Triangle Sec^-1 / 60 Frame Sec^-1 == 15 * 10^6 Triangle / 60 Frame == 2.5 * 10^5 Triangle * Frame^-1
There. Feel free to disprove that.
Post by: codyy on December 15, 2003, 10:58:15 AM
Amen KDR_11k:
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius, and a lot of courage, to move in the opposite direction." --Albert Einstein
Sound familar?
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 15, 2003, 11:23:03 AM
KDR: It doesn't matter if the triangles magically have 8 sides, I've already explained to why I brought up Rallisport Challenge at all.
Post by: RyanL on December 15, 2003, 11:40:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: teckmoney
...but nvidia is also incorporating 3dfx technology.
Just what we need. A game console that has 16 graphics chips operating in parallel and draws 400 watts of power. It'll be the anti-Gamecube.
Seriously, what impresses me most about the Gamecube is the amount of power they managed to pack into such a small package. Insanely good job by Nintendo's engineers.
-Ryan
Post by: Don'tHate742 on December 15, 2003, 03:20:09 PM
I don't understand why you guys argue with each other for such an insignificant topic. Who cares if Nintendo is "inferior" to the Xbox. Why do you feel compelled to fight for a company in some stupid argument that's probably been brought up over the globe a million times. As long as you get to play great innovative games why the hell do you care about if a company's hardware doesn't sell well. Do you feel warm inside for having the Nintendo brand symbol by yourside, or do you prefer the manlyness of the Xbox instead. Is it becuase you've had a Nintendo since you were 2 and are OldSkool to stick with it. You guys need to stop saying your "open-minded" and really step back and see why people buy "fad" games. Maybe they want to play as the Terminator in Terminator 3, and what if they don't like the innovative new zelda.....are they automatically shunned as "stupid casual gamers." Am I the only one who understands that even if Nintendo stops making hardware, we'll still get the great games we always wanted. Or even if Nintendo stops making games, the people within the company well dispurse into other gaming companies....making the better probably. So why the hell are there fanboys, it makes no sense to me. Enjoy games period.
PS: I'm not hating, I just want you guys to realize how meaningless some of this stuff is.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 15, 2003, 03:24:42 PM
Post by: Darc Requiem on December 15, 2003, 07:53:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
DR, MC: The point that I was trying to disprove was that 15MT/s at 60FPS is better than 15MT/s at 30FPS since MT/s just determine how high the FPS will be at a given number of triangles.
I think I'll use math:
15 *10^6 Triangle Sec^-1 / 30 Frame Sec^-1 == 15 * 10^6 Triangle / 30 Frame == 5 * 10^5 Triangle * Frame^-1
15 *10^6 Triangle Sec^-1 / 60 Frame Sec^-1 == 15 * 10^6 Triangle / 60 Frame == 2.5 * 10^5 Triangle * Frame^-1
There. Feel free to disprove that.
I'm disputing what you are saying KDR. I'm just saying that Mouse's point was that X-box should be capable of much more given its cost and the constant BS Microsoft spouts off about its power. A more current example of X-box versus GC that I find interesting is Prince of Persia Sands of Time. The GC version looks the best. The X-box version does have the highest polygon count on the player models but the GC version has better textures and effects. Given what MS states. The X-box version of PoP should complete destroy its PS2 and GC counterparts.
I have yet to see any X-box game that surpasses Wave Race Blue Storms water effects. I could go on. The Gamecube is a Corvette Z06 and the X-box is a Dodge Viper. The Viper has 500hp to the Vettes 405hp. The Viper beats the Vette to 60 by 0.3 seconds and in the quarter by 0.2 seconds. Now you take the both cars out to the racetrack and the Vette beats it everytime. My point the X-box does have the the most powerful GPU, but the GC gets the most power out of its GPU.
Darc Requiem
Post by: Oldskool on December 16, 2003, 05:58:18 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 16, 2003, 06:15:56 AM
Anybody who has owned an NES or SNES has an answer to this question. When a console sells better it gets MORE GAMES. Therefore you want your favourite console to sell the best so it gets the most games and thus you get the most bang for your buck. The NES and SNES were the ultimate consoles for a Nintendo fan because they had both Nintendo first party titles and tons of exclusive third party games. You can't get that type of situation if the Gamecube isn't selling well. To some it might be a pride thing but for me it's about getting a wider variety of games.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 16, 2003, 06:40:01 AM
Post by: jaz013 on December 16, 2003, 06:43:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Don'tHate742
This message is not only for this topic but in general...
I don't understand why you guys argue with each other for such an insignificant topic. Who cares if Nintendo is "inferior" to the Xbox. Why do you feel compelled to fight for a company in some stupid argument that's probably been brought up over the globe a million times. As long as you get to play great innovative games why the hell do you care about if a company's hardware doesn't sell well. Do you feel warm inside for having the Nintendo brand symbol by yourside, or do you prefer the manlyness of the Xbox instead. Is it becuase you've had a Nintendo since you were 2 and are OldSkool to stick with it. You guys need to stop saying your "open-minded" and really step back and see why people buy "fad" games. Maybe they want to play as the Terminator in Terminator 3, and what if they don't like the innovative new zelda.....are they automatically shunned as "stupid casual gamers." Am I the only one who understands that even if Nintendo stops making hardware, we'll still get the great games we always wanted. Or even if Nintendo stops making games, the people within the company well dispurse into other gaming companies....making the better probably. So why the hell are there fanboys, it makes no sense to me. Enjoy games period.
PS: I'm not hating, I just want you guys to realize how meaningless some of this stuff is.
Amen to that, I used to be one of those fanboys, until some day I find myself arguing how
much better was the N64 over the PS one due to Zelda, with a guy that changes systems like underwear. Since then, I decided to get the system with the games I wanna play (in this case GC because of Metroid, F-Zero and Zelda) and PLAY. The guy I was arguing with?, well he has a PS2 "because the 'cube has those little discs and the Powerpuff Zelda". He brouhgt his PS2 almost 3 years ago (before the cube even had a name), but he insists in the reason above, and when we see a GC game, he always find something "awful" (what almost made laught was when he said F-Zero GX was a crappy game "because the music sucks"), and just the last week, he keep saying that I-Ninja rocks, and we I say "Well, I suppose, maybe I'll get it too", he change his oppinion. This kind of fanboys is what generates this kind of arguing, useless by the way.
Post by: WesDawg on December 16, 2003, 07:03:15 AM
Post by: the_zombie_luke on December 16, 2003, 07:51:01 AM
Post by: Smashman on December 16, 2003, 08:48:54 AM
Just my 1.9 cents. You got a cent to spare.
Post by: Shadow Fox on December 16, 2003, 01:56:44 PM
QuoteKnow this, KDR- a higher framerate (regardless of how many per frame) is always more taxing to the CPU/GPU combo than more polys at a slower one.
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
DR, MC: The point that I was trying to disprove was that 15MT/s at 60FPS is better than 15MT/s at 30FPS since MT/s just determine how high the FPS will be at a given number of triangles.
I think I'll use math:
15 *10^6 Triangle Sec^-1 / 30 Frame Sec^-1 == 15 * 10^6 Triangle / 30 Frame == 5 * 10^5 Triangle * Frame^-1
15 *10^6 Triangle Sec^-1 / 60 Frame Sec^-1 == 15 * 10^6 Triangle / 60 Frame == 2.5 * 10^5 Triangle * Frame^-1
There. Feel free to disprove that.
Think for once- the PS2 can do 66 million polys/sec- at ONE FRAME PER SECOND. Put it at 30 and you'll nosedive to 19.8 assuming no other calcuations (physics, AI, etc) are computed at the same time.
So it's not the point of what's done in the same frame, it's the fact that Factor 5 could've turned the 15mps at 60fps into 30mps at 30fps instead. To bring RSC to 60fps, it would have to draw twice as many polys per second.
Plus, Factor 5 wouldn't be able to use ALL effects that Rallisport lacks (motion blurs only capable at 60fps, radiosity/environment bumpmapping, self-shadowing on every object, 8 simultaneous texture layers, 8 hardware lights). Xbox is only capable of displaying 4 texture layers per pass for these effects, and any more added would slow performance being done in software. That is the case, and comparison here.
MS's console may be capable of this same 30mps at 30fps as well, but as everyone else has stated here- it ain't around now.
-Official Ninja of PGC
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 16, 2003, 02:01:09 PM
Post by: the_zombie_luke on December 16, 2003, 03:51:30 PM
