Topic: What Next Gen Console will you get?

[Pale]

So let me get this straight...

You like Nintendo games.

You don't like third party games on other consoles.

You like third party games on Nintendo consoles.

You claim that the reason for this is that Nintendo influences third parties to make better games?

Uhm... what?

If you think for one minute FFVII came out the way it did based off the fact that it was on the playstation... you are completely wrong.  FF VII was on playstation because square wanted it to come out the way it did.

Third parties are going to make games influenced by the games the makers like, not by the games that are on the same system they intend their game for.  

[Spak-Spang]

What he is saying is simple.

Ian supports Nintendo because of their philosophy in gaming and their history of innovating gaming and actually trying to advance gaming not just graphically but in gameplay.  Nintendo looks at gaming as an artform.  

Sony and Microsoft look at gaming like a business.

However, Ian is practical and understands that a console without 3rd party support and a console that doesn't appear to be as powerful as the competition will have a hard time competing...and nobody wants to buy a system that will not garner support in the coming years.

Also the 3rd party debate is more complicated, because Nintendo's philosophy pushes 3rd party developers to atleast try new things.  They attempt to bring new experiences.  Where Sony and Microsoft don't care as long as the game sells and is on their system it could be anything.

I completely understand this logic.

[Pale]

No, it doesn't make sense.  If Ian doesn't think buying a PS2/PS3 is worth it for third party support, why does he care if Nintendo gets it as long as they are still in business?  He tried to explain some bizarre idea that third party games are better on Nintendo systems than they are on other systems and that just isn't true.  There is this do or die attitude that I think is appalling.  If it really does come down to Nintendo or nothing, he shouldn't care whether or not Nintendo has third party support, considering that without barely any third party support the GC can be considered a financial success, which is all that matters if we are only worried about Nintendo staying in business.

I agree that Nintendo's philosophy of games is better and I was never saying otherwise, but saying that and then saying you won't buy a nintendo console unless they whore themselves out more than the companies you hate in order to get more third parties just doesn't make any sense at all.

Like I said, the cause and effect of your argument are backwards.  In an ideal world, third parties will put their games on consoles that facilitate their ideas.  In the current gen, every console was basically the same in concept so it would turn into targeting the audience they thought was best.  If you can sit here and argue that you think a game like GTA or God of War would sell as well on a Nintendo console as they did on the PS2 you're crazy.  Nintendo gamers like different games.  Because the current population of gamers is made up the way it is, Nintendo is definately a niche system.  If you like the niche Nintendo fills, then why would you not buy the console based on lack of third party _non-niche_ games?  If you want to escape Nintendo's niche, why would you not buy a console that gets the third parties.

Ignoring the perfect world described above, currently most exclusivity deals are decided by throwing money at developers.  I hope you don't think this is a good track to be on.  We know Nintendo cannot compete in a bidding war.  Then it comes down to why teams like the Chicago White Sox always suck and the Yankees always compete.

Your melodrama is disturbing.  You are worrying way to much if you really are going to let The Rev's (a single console) third party support decide whether or not you are even going to continue being a console gamer in the next gen.

[vudu]

Quote
Because the current population of gamers is made up the way it is, Nintendo is definately a niche system. If you like the niche Nintendo fills, then why would you not buy the console based on lack of third party _non-niche_ games? If you want to escape Nintendo's niche, why would you not buy a console that gets the third parties.

While I agree with what you say, Pale, your reasoning is a bit flawed.  Your argument seems to say people either like Nintendo games or they don't.  What if they like both?  What if my first love with always be Zelda, Mario and Metroid, but I also have an interest in GTA or Square-Enix games?  Assuming I can only buy one console, if I can't get those on Nintendo, I'm forced to make a choice.  And while Nintendo will definately win my choice, it may not win everyone's.

Quote
But Ninty WON'T drop the ball, so stop thinking like that! :massiveangryfacepunchyouinthegobemoticon:

Fine.  I didn't mean drop the ball.  How about what if Nintendo's corporate headquarters collapses and kills everyone inside?

[jasonditz]

Surely Reggie could hold the entire ceiling up with his sheer force of will until everyone was led to safety.

[vudu]

I'm sure he could.  But for the sake of argument, Reggie was busy saving children from a burning school bus a few miles away, and he couldn't make it back to Nintendo HQ in time.

[Pale]

Quote
Originally posted by: kingvudu

Quote
Because the current population of gamers is made up the way it is, Nintendo is definately a niche system. If you like the niche Nintendo fills, then why would you not buy the console based on lack of third party _non-niche_ games? If you want to escape Nintendo's niche, why would you not buy a console that gets the third parties.

While I agree with what you say, Pale, your reasoning is a bit flawed.  Your argument seems to say people either like Nintendo games or they don't.  What if they like both?  What if my first love with always be Zelda, Mario and Metroid, but I also have an interest in GTA or Square-Enix games?  Assuming I can only buy one console, if I can't get those on Nintendo, I'm forced to make a choice.  And while Nintendo will definately win my choice, it may not win everyone's.

Hmm I guess my original complaint got lost in my argument.  I acknowlege that fact.  If players are forced to choose they need to decide whether or not the Nintendo games are more worth it to them, or the Third party games available on the other console.  Even in that case, there is no reason to not buy any console as some are suggesting in the thread.  My complaints arise from the silly all or nothing, overly serious attitude people are taking when it comes to something that, at its core, is supposed to be entertaining.

[Ian Sane]

"He tried to explain some bizarre idea that third party games are better on Nintendo systems than they are on other systems and that just isn't true."

"Better" is relative.  In my opinion third parties make better games when they're designed exclusively on Nintendo consoles.  I can spot the difference even if you can't and since it's MY decision to pick Revolution or nothing what do you care?  Each console has a slightly different audience.  There's a lot of crossover but it's pretty clear to me that the Cube, Xbox, and PS2 each provide different experiences and cater more to different types of gamers.  Therefore third parties design exclusive games using that same philosophy.  Sega is the most obvious example since they intially made completely different games for each of the three consoles.  Sometimes (most blatantly on the Xbox) they didn't quite get what the audience wanted but the differences were clear.  If Nintendo has crappy third party support then there are less third parties making the types of games I want to buy.  They won't be targeting me.  They'll be targeting the Sony and MS audiences.

If you don't notice the difference then good for you but don't get into a pissing match with me because I notice the difference.

[Pale]

I guess I'm still confused... I think we are in aggreement over the different target audiences but I still dont' see how this affects your decision on whether or not to buy a Nintendo console.  I guess it still comes down to the argument over what is chosen first, the game concept, or the console it will appear on.  When money isn't involved, I'm pretty sure it's the game concept.  If game makers are making a game that targets Nintendo fans it will turn up on a Nintendo console and you will be happy.  If they are making a game that targets an MS gamer, they will release it on the X-Box but you wouldn't like it anyway so what do you care?

Are you asking that Nintendo shell out the money to force companies to make gamecube/rev games which in turn forces them to target us as gamers?  That doesn't seem like its very good for the industry either.

[slacker]

My decision boils down to the price of the system and the price of the games.  If the price of the games is more than $50 for all 3 systems, I am through with gaming.  Its getting too expensive and I rather put my money in some other form of entertainment.  With that said, I am taking a wait and see approach.  I guess I'll get the revolution about 6 months  after the launch or when the first price cut take effects, whichever comes first.  I really like the look of the revolution.  However, the first console to sell for sub $200, then I'll get that system so long as it looks like its succeeding.  Of course it all come down to the cost of games.

[mantidor]

omg... I... actually... agree with Ian *gasps!*

Nintendo consoles are really about the games, ms and sony's consoles are about some sort of "cool" attitude that I find inmature and annoying, and its true that its reflected in the games. Its harder to notice right now because the ps2  became so extremely popular that it seems all third parties develop for them, even the one with original titles that put the "fun factor" above the "cool factor".  Games like Okami or Katamari Damacy doesnt seem to fit with the ps2 philosophy, but since the ps2 has the biggest market, the devs prefer to release those type of games in sony's console instead of Nintendo's, pretty much for their own demise, as the Viewtiful Joe sales in GC and ps2 proved.

[Chode2234]

I plan on buying a rev at launch.

...I don't want to put words in Ians mouth...

...but I agree I don't want to buy another system, I hope the rev is able to meet all of my needs.  From third party gems, to even the ones that you just want to pick up and rent for the weekend, I really want a variety of games.  I know the first party games will be good, but I don't want to feel like I am missing out on anything by not having all three systems.  I somewhat feel this way now, and I think that Nintendo needs to work on getting more third parties, for the variety to keep me entertained so I don't have to get multiple machines.  Is it to much to ask for nintendo to make a machine that allows nintendo to make great first party games, yet is attractive to thrid partys who make the supplemental great hits?

I really hate the trend that that you need multiple machines to get a good all around gaming fix.  That is what made the SNES so wonderful.

[Pale]

I think we all hate that trend, but the fact of the matter is it isn't Nintendo's fault.  There are three very serious competitors in the market and none of them are leaving.  Each one has to make their console look worth the purchase.  Because of that exclusives will be had.  Nintendo won't shell out teh money to buy exclusives at the same level as a MS.

Buying an extra console isn't really THAT bad of a thing.  This gen I own a PS2 and a GCN and I am overwhelmed with titles to play.  I can't keep up with them.

The only time buying multiple consoles can really turn into a raw deal is if MS continues to shorten the life span of consoles.  Just hope the next gen lasts 5 years, and a second console is definately worth the investment.

And be happy that all three consoles aren't required purchases... (at least not imo) =P

[Ymeegod]

"Better" is relative. In my opinion third parties make better games when they're designed exclusively on Nintendo consoles"

LOL---falls out of my chair.  Yeah I guess P.N. 03, Custom Robo, Tube Slider, and don't forget Diehard Ven on that list are all great Exclusively developed titles :0.  

Making an exclusive game really doesn't mean much, it's the talent behind the game that make all the difference.  

My biggest gripe is still with Big N--to sell they have to get BACK the publishers/developers they lost.  They finally gotten around to getting some loving from Square/Enix but they really have to go for the big score--FF XII or Dragon Quest VIII (both of those series sell millions).  MS must have paid a king's randsom to get GTA but there's plenty of small fries for Big N to go after without handing over  handfulls of cash.  For example would be the Burnout series (there's not alot of arcade racers on the GC that are worth a damn), it's not exclusive and it's nothing the GC can't handle and it's popular.    

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ymeegod
LOL---falls out of my chair.  Yeah I guess P.N. 03, Custom Robo, Tube Slider, and don't forget Diehard Ven on that list are all great Exclusively developed titles :0.

Hey, I liked Custom Robo... last time I checked, it wasn't a third party game either (hence the trophies from earlier games in the series in SSB:M).

[Deguello]

And Ian did say it was in his opinion, guy.

Quote
LOL---falls out of my chair.

Who is LOL? Why was he in your chair?  And why did it take three pauses for him to fall out of your chair?

[Ymeegod]

*rollseyes*

I do realize it's his opinion but I'm just pointing out the flaws with that statement .

[Dirk Temporo]

Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello
And Ian did say it was in his opinion, guy.

Quote
LOL---falls out of my chair.

Who is LOL? Why was he in your chair?  And why did it take three pauses for him to fall out of your chair?

LOL internet caveman. LOL no like LMFAO. LMFAO bad man.