"Having the worst version of Madden didn't put the Cube in last place. No it was that combined with no DVD playback, no online games, a restrictive controller, no demo discs, small memory cards, component cables that have to be ordered online, weak third party support & not enough mature games."
I don't think little mistakes like that were the problem. Strong positives trump minor negatives....it's just that GameCube didn't really have any strong positives (except great first party games). GC wasn't the first console out, it wasn't the most powerful console, it didn't have name brand recognition, and it didn't have a killer app at launch. In short, it didn't have anything to make it stand out...except the color purple, which didn't help any.
The situation is ENTIRELY different this time around. Now, Microsoft and Sony are the ones without anything of value to offer. They have improved graphics and underwhelming games. The mainstream doesn't care. No one seems excited by these new consoles. Last time around, when ps2 was unveiled, everyone ate it up. Now, well, the unveiling of the ipod mini got more press coverage than the unveiling of the ps3 and 360.
Now, let's look at Nintendo. Look what they're already offering: 20-year backwards compatability and free online. Huge positives that the competition can't offer....and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Apparently, we're also getting a revolutionary controller, new types of games with broad appeal, an incredible launch lineup that includes Super Smash Bros. ONLINE and a new Miyamoto game, and an affordable price. Those are all huge positives that will register with the mainstream and won't be offered by Sony or Microsoft.
Yes, the 360 an early launch (though I don't think Microsoft is offering enough to convince many to splurge and switch over just yet). Yes the PS3 has the best graphics and the ability to play blue ray movies (which might count for something if the console is actually affordable. I doubt it will be.) But- and maybe I'm missing the boat here - I really think Nintendo has the upper hand.
Quote
The Cube was the second most powerful console. The Rev would be the third. The Rev should be to the PS3 as the Cube is to the Xbox. The Rev is coming out after the Xbox 360 and thus should have better hardware.
I agree that would be ideal.
And I AM worried about graphics. Miyamoto brought up the DS vs. PSP, but graphics don't matter nearly as much in handhelds as they do in consoles. The Rev cannot look a generation behind the PS3. As good as graphics are becoming, people will still be able to see the difference if there's a big enough gap. So, I'm hoping Nintendo doesn't underestimate the value of good graphics as much as, say, Rare underestimates the value of a good framerate.
On the other hand, I don't think I'd mind that much if the Revolution was on par with the Xbox 360 visually, even if some of the innards weren't technically up to snuff. Here's a couple of things to keep in mind: a) ps3's actual graphics won't look nearly as good as they do now, b) the ps2 was underpowered, and c) Revolution's fist party visuals will still likely look better then 360's because of good art direction and such.
As long as the consoles all LOOK the same, as they pretty much do this generation (though hopefully this time they'll be even closer), I'll be happy.
Should Nintendo really pay an exorbitant sum of money just to get a tiny incrcrease in the quality of the visuals?
Yes, mindshare is important too, but I don't think having the 'most powerful' console will mean much this time around. I think we're past the point where people nuts over something just because you tell them it has better specs. The games need to look great and play great, that's all that really matters..... and I think revolution will deliver.
Show Posts
