Messages

10076

Nintendo Gaming / RE: Manhunt 2 from Rockstar? Whoa...

« on: February 06, 2007, 07:05:15 AM »

It's a port, but at least it's (supposedly) coming out at the same time as the PS2 version. That's a entirely different from getting Scarface or Mortal Kombat Armageddon months after initial release on other consoles. I may hate Manhunt, but this is still good news for the Wii.  

[smash_brother wrote:]

10077

Nintendo Gaming / RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

« on: February 06, 2007, 06:53:51 AM »

I took my forum name from Adrock of the Beastie Boys. If I'm not mistaken Arbok is a Pokemon.

Quote
smash_brother wrote:
However, I should point out that dramatic leaps of faith toward the Wii are already being made.

1. Red Steel is ONE game that wasn't a port. How is this different than on Gamecube? I could argue that Rogue Leader (also rated Teen by the ESRB) was a "mature" title.

2. See, the problem with these ports is that they were released last year on more popular platforms. Most people who wanted to play those games already bought them. Sure, some people who didn't buy those last year may to buy them, but very few are going to buy them again for Wii. That leads to relatively low sales numbers on Wii and those publishers coming to the conclusion that Wii is not a good console for "mature" titles which, in turn, will lead primarily to more games aimed at younger demographics. Those companies are trying to make a quick buck on the popular Wii and the quickest way to do that is through ports. Even with low sales, they are likely to turn a small profit because few resources were spent porting the games. What happens when there are no more last generation games to quickly port to Wii? That's why Nintendo needs publishers to release new games (new IP or established franchise) to "test the waters."

3. I've already said my piece concerning EA. As for Disney, are you referring to Fall Line Studios? From what I gather, they're a sister subsidiary to Disney-owned Buena Vista Games, which happens to support 360 and PS3 as well. To me, that doesn't sound like Wii is getting exclusives, especially given Disney's history of whoring out their franchises. I wouldn't be surprised if they simply developed the Wii version of multiplatform games, same goes with EA. Yes, support is support, I guess. It's better than nothing, but don't act like this is a "leap of faith" since both of those companies support every platform.

And of course both EA and Ubi Soft are going to say they want to be the biggest publisher on Wii. They're not going to say they want to be the second biggest or the third biggest. That's just PR.

Wii isn't targeted toward older gamers and I'm not saying it is or should be. I'm saying that in order for Nintendo to keep expanding its marketshare it needs a wider selection of games, not mostly kid's titles and a few genre games for everyone else. Wii release lists don't point to it changing in the next several months. That leaves the market open for Sony to come back with their big exclusives. Marketshare right now is a non-issue. It seems to me that 3rd parties are still banking on PS3 to deliver, despite Nintendo's early lead. If Nintendo continues they way they are now, the games will come. However, by that time, Sony may hit its stride. A price drop and some huge titles will quickly reverse their fortunes. That doesn't automatically mean doom and gllom for Nintendo. It means that this console race is anyone's for the taking. I agree, Nintendo is doing just fine and I've continually said this. You've been acting like Nintendo is on its way to winning and that Sony is on its way to losing. During the N64 days, Nintendo didn't have that same support that Sony has with PS3 which is why Nintendo continually lost marketshare to Sony. As much as I absolutely despise Sony, I can't count them out. There's no reason to as long as they still have the support they have from 3rd parties. I don't think that's such an outrageous assessment.    

[segagamer12 wrote:]

10078

Nintendo Gaming / RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

« on: February 05, 2007, 05:45:06 PM »

Quote
segagamer12 wrote:
besides that theres also scarface and Mk armageddon, another game GC didnt get, serioulsy dude your losing the argument so nows a good time to get out.

You're coming at me with Wii ports of last generation games. That says more about what Vivendi and Midway think of Wii. Those are total cash-in titles. Yeah, publishers need to make money, but they can make money releasing new titles instead.

Quote
jasonditz wrote:
So are all those kid's titles.

Yes, BUT after the ports, Nintendo still had more games aimed strictly for kids while other platforms get these cool exclusives across different genres, kids games included. Where were the fighting games? Where were the RPGs? Where were the first person shooters?

Quote
Crave wrote:
So my question and frustration is, why is this NOT the starting point for first gen Wii games? Oh they didn't have the dev kits in time...give me a break. Didn't developers just spend the last several years developing for the Gamecube? So we should see some great looking first gen Wii titles, and expect 1st gen Wii control at least. The whole reason for this post was to point out that I see alot of LAZY work, wall filler I call it, being released, and not kind of quality we all come to expect from Nintendo and it's developers. I know they can do better, which is why it upsets me.

Yes, exactly.

Quote
Hocotate wrote:
Well there goes any credibility you could've hoped to have had here.... I'm debating whether I should quote that in my sig or not, but I wouldn't want to crush what little credibility you'd have left from the people who didn't see your post.

Since your taste in games is obviously very different from mine, we'll go by the sales... Tell me how well the PS3 software is selling.

More childish insults...

I understand your point. They're NOT selling especially well YET PS3 is still getting the big name franchises. Maybe they'll get ported to 360, maybe not; the point is moot. If they get ported to 360 and not Wii, Nintendo still didn't get those games. Tell me why Final Fantasy XIII couldn't be made for Wii. Graphics is all I can think of so it's basically bullsh*t why games like that aren't coming to Wii. I think Final Fantasy XII looks PHENOMENAL on PS2. Imagine what they could do with Wii. Nintendo isn't getting those titles though. That's my point. Wii is flatout raping PS3... so why are those games still coming to PS3 and NOT Wii? That is why I don't buy everyone's assertion that PS3 support is dropping so greatly and support for Wii is that much different from Gamecube. Better, but not that much better. I believe Wii is the most attractive console. However, Wii is getting a lot of ass filler games. It's still not the priority to 3rd parties.

I'm waiting for major 3rd parties to step up and choose Wii over PS3 and 360 with games built from the ground up for Wii that won't be ever make it to a competing platform. I'd like to see new games though a major established franchise would also be proof of Nintendo's emerging 3rd party support. I remember when Capcom devoted the entire Resident Evil franchise to GCN... then built a PS2 version of RE4, even going as far as to repeatedly announce exclusivity then announce the PS2 version BEFORE the GCN version comes out. During the course of last generation, Capcom gave Nintendo 2 exclusives Resident Evil Zero and P.N. 03 while also supporting PS2 and Xbox with everything else that never made it to GCN. That's the kind of crap I'm weary of happening on Wii. Do I have any reason to believe otherwise? Not yet.  

10079

Nintendo Gaming / RE: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

« on: February 05, 2007, 12:23:29 PM »

Yeah, but Godfather is on other platforms.

Look, I'm not saying 3rd party support is absolutely terrible. It's improved from Gamecube, but it's no where near where it should be. I think we can all agree that Wii is doing exceptionally well in the market as of today. That being so, I don't think Nintendo's current 3rd party support reflects the recent success. That's why I'm not celebrating yet. Nintendo is still in the middle of a long battle. 3rd parties are watching the console closely, but they haven't really committed themselves to Wii. The largest teams are still being devoted to creating PS3 and 360 titles. I think Wii might see that support eventually, but it isn't here yet so I remain skeptical until that changes.

[Mario wrote:]

10080

Nintendo Gaming / RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

« on: February 05, 2007, 12:08:09 PM »

Quote
Mario wrote:
Variety, piss off. You're saying every colourful game is exactly the same. Guess what, if you replaced Pikmin enemies with tanks, it'd still be the exact same game, it would just have a more restricted audience.

You're getting irritated by posts on an internet forum.... Sigh... Piss off? Whatever, dude.

You're oversimplifying my point or rather changing it entirely. Publishers are putting the same exact types of games on Wii. I fear we'll keep getting more and more of these games. We saw this happen on GCN. 3rd parties released tons of titles aimed at the younger demographic, many of them were ports. PS2 and Xbox got way more exclusives, across different genres. Right now, this hasn't really changed on Wii. I don't mind kid's titles, they play games too. However, a real change would see 3rd parties releasing games across different genres and age groups on Wii for different types of gamers. Wii would get all kinds of games, not just titles clearly aimed at younger gamers. Despite Nintendo's best efforts, Wii is still viewed as a "kid's console." I don't agree with it, but when a company like Konami unveils a game like Dewey's Adventure, I can't help but think back to what happened to Gamecube.

Quote
I enjoy a good debate but this isn't even good, you're just making up things as you go along. It's not going to work anymore because this is my last post in this thread.

You will be missed.

10081

Nintendo Gaming / RE: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

« on: February 05, 2007, 11:18:44 AM »

That's also an opinion.

[Icecold wrote:]

10082

Nintendo Gaming / RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

« on: February 05, 2007, 10:43:20 AM »

I thought I was done with quote wars years ago, but I do enjoy a good debate.

Quote
Icecold wrote:
You seem to keep forgetting the GameCube launch. It was lukewarm at best. The tie-in ratio definitely] proves gamers are coming back, because the GameCube had nowhere near the launch success of the Wii.

Gamecube at least had Melee 2 weeks after launch. If I didn't have a Wii, I could've gotten it's best game on a console I already had.

And can I have a link to this tie-ratio? Does it inculde VC games? And if I'm not mistaken, Wii Sports was sold separately everywhere else in the world and Wii Play is out everywhere except the US. Including Zelda, which according to smash_brother has an 85% tie-in, there's 3 of the 5.

Quote
Hocotate wrote:
Third party support for the PS3 has been a joke, not the Wii. Tell me what is out now for the PS3 that is worth it please.

Resistance: Fall of Man is better than any 3rd party Wii title. Regardless, what is out now is only part of the big picture. 3rd parties are giving PS3 more love than Wii.

Quote
Mario wrote:
Who gives a flying truck? Nobody. If you want blood, seek mental help and/or buy Mortal Kombat Wii.

It's not about blood. Gamecube got an assload of those kinds of titles and very little outside of games that appeal to that demographic. If these are the kinds of games Wii gets, then support hasn't really changed other than Nintendo more rushed kid's titles. Who cares? Any Nintendo fan should. I don't know about you but I wanr variety.

Quote
smash_brother wrote:
It proves that a lot of GAMERS are buying the console, since they're picking up a total gamer game along with it.

I'd buy this argument if it was a 3rd party title or at least a 1st party title that isn't tied to an already established franchise. How does Zelda selling well surprise you? Even Wind Waker sold well and I was like the only person on the eastern seaboard who liked the graphics.

Quote
How many 3rd party titles have YOU played?

I work at a video store. If it wasn't a movie/cartoon cash-in, I played it.

Quote
Guess what? That support probably won't remain exclusive

You don't know that. And besides, if they don't remain exclusive, they'll go to 360 which still means Nintendo isn't getting those games. Both 360 and PS3 are individually getting more support from 3rd parties. How can you argue this?

Quote
What are they bringing to the competition? Are you talking about the promise of MGS two years off? It ain't gonna stay exclusive, trust me.

I tried to ignore this the last 7 times you brought up Metal Gear Solid 4 being 2 years away. It's coming out at the end of this year. At least, Konami has shown the game to the public.

Most 3rd party titles are merely announced for Wii. We have no idea when many of them are coming out. I'm excited over Umbrella Chronicles, but Capcom has unveiled nothing about the game. When RE4 was announced, it took like 3 years for that game to come out. Additionally, we have a short trailer of The Crystal Bearers (despite Crystal Chronicles on GCN sucking every kind of ass there is). When is that game coming out? FFXIII may not be a 2007 title, but from the looks of it, neither is Crystal Bearers.

I'm curious. What are these big name 3rd party exclusives coming out on Wii this year? I can think of Dragon Quest Swords, No More Heroes, and maybe DDR: Hottest Party (though I have no idea when that's coming out). The biggest exclusives are still coming from Nintendo themselves.

Quote
Why dismiss EA? They didn't get to be the largest 3rd party developer in the world because no one buys their games. On the contrary: EA is huge in the American market, a market where Nintendo typically gets clobbered, and yet EA offering such support for the Wii ensures that it will at least have the staple sports games for a game system in NA.

I dismiss EA because they've supported every major console, except Dreamcast. They supported Gamecube and their titles were basically ignored. It's almost a moot point that they're supporting Nintendo because their titles don't perform as well on Nintendo hardware.

Quote
I understand being cynical. What I don't understand is acting like the competition has this tremendous leg up on the Wii when everything I've seen quite clearly indicates that it does NOT.

I'm not saying the competition has a tremendous leg up. I just see Wii as still fighting an upwards battle and there isn't enough reason right now to prove that they are necessarily winning that battle. As I said before...

Quote
I wrote:
Nintendo isn't doomed. I'm not saying they're doomed, nor have I ever meant to say that. They're doing fine. It's just not as rosy as you're making out to be. My problem is when people are using early success as an indication that things have changed. I'd say things are in the process of changing but even that could change. As much as people like to brag about Wii doing well and PS3 not doing well, this picture isn't as clear as it seems. My fear is that as great as Nintendo is doing now, it won't last. It's too early.

I'm not trying to put a negative spin on Nintendo's success. They've done a great job so far. However, Nintendo fanboys are clamoring about Wii's success like Nintendo has already won. That's where I disagree.  

[smash_brother wrote:]

10083

Nintendo Gaming / RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

« on: February 04, 2007, 07:59:25 PM »

Quote
smash_brother wrote:
1. The Wii tie-in ratio is something to the tune of 5:1 right now. Either these aren't all non-gamers or non-gamers violate their own nomenclature by purchasing twice as many games as gamers. These software numbers are pretty difficult to ignore as a "novelty".

2. Zelda has an 85% tie-in ratio for Wii purchases, meaning there are a lot more "gamers" coming back than one might think.

I'll have to take your word on that ratio. Still, an awful lot of Wii titles are based on either cartoons or CGI movies. And the tie-in of Zelda to a Nintendo console isn't even a point. This doesn't prove that "gamers" are coming back. Rather, that Nintendo fans love Zelda.

Quote
First of all, the Wii is in the first three months of its existence. NO system "had the games" that early on.

True, but the best game on Wii is also available on Gamecube and the second best game came with the system. Third party titles have been, for the most part, a joke so far.

Quote
Jeezus effin' Christ, what more do you WANT for a console only three months old?

PS3, for all its failings, still has more support. 3rd parties have bigger games and more of them lined up for it. Wii is getting a lot of ports made "new" because they use the Wii Remote. Thanks but no thanks.

And seriously, look at the list of developers you gave me and the titles Wii is getting. Ubi Soft... the same Ubi Soft that shoveled Far Cry Vengeance into stores. The same Ubi Soft that pimped Rayman Raving Rabbids on Wii yet released it on PS2 also. The same Ubi Soft that is rereleasing Two Thrones... and still porting said rerelease to PSP.

I'm assuming by Banco, you mean Namco Bandai. Nintendo owns stock in that company yet Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection  is available on Playstation Network and PSP. Tekken 6 is listed as a PS3 game. What are those 30 titles on Wii? I'm guessing we'll see some Naruto.

Tecmo released an anime styled golf game. That doesn't impress me.

Konami's new IP features a raindrop with a cutesy face. Talk about furthering stereotypes about Nintendo being "kiddie." Before you start tossing company names at me, look at the games they're bringing to Wii compared to the competition. It's not as impressive as you think.

Quote
I know you're trying to paint some doom picture for the Wii here, but I ain't seeing it. The 3rd party support being offered for the Wii is already better than most of the support the GC had and is CERTAINLY leaps and bounds above support being pledged for any console 3 months old.

No, I'm looking at the big picture. Nintendo isn't doomed. I'm not saying they're doomed, nor have I ever meant to say that. They're doing fine. It's just not as rosy as you're making out to be. My problem is when people are using early success as an indication that things have changed. I'd say things are in the process of changing but even that could change. As much as people like to brag about Wii doing well and PS3 not doing well, this picture isn't as clear as it seems. My fear is that as great as Nintendo is doing now, it won't last. It's too early. Most of the biggest games coming out for the platform are coming from Nintendo themselves. Despite Wii crushing GCN during the same time period in its lifespan, 3rd party support looks moderately better at best. Wii may have more games, but many of them are bad games.

I admit I'm cynical, but as a Nintendo fan who's seen Nintendo stumble so many times, I reserve that right. Nothing would make me happier than to see Sony fall (if you really want to know, I'd be happy to tell you). I'm a Nintendo fan and have been one my entire life though that's not the reason I hate Sony. I want Nintendo to succeed, but I'm not going to throw a party because they had a successful launch or because EA announced 15 titles (it's EA... please).

[smash_brother wrote:]

10084

Nintendo Gaming / RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

« on: February 04, 2007, 01:43:44 PM »

Quote
smash_brother wrote:
Meanwhile Nintendo, last gen's loser, still can't keep their system on the shelves. How badly did the GC tarnish the reputation of Nintendo systems? We won't find out until the Wii actually stays on shelves so we can see how far the demand goes.

I think the last two generations did some considerable damage to Nintendo's credibility in the market. Nintendo used to be synonymous with "videogames." Now, Playstation is. A lot gamers look unfavorably on Nintendo, despite how well Wii has some thus far. I agree that we'll have to wait and see. It's too hard to tell if these new gamers can make up for the gamers Nintendo lost over the years or if Nintendo can get them back. But I still think Wii is selling as a novelty right now. It's intriguing because it's new.

Quote
That's the point: despite having terrible graphics by comparison, the PS2 still won because it had the GAMES.

But Nintendo doesn't have the games. That's my point. The 2 best games on the system (Wii Sports and Zelda) are made by Nintendo. PS3 and 360, despite being more expensive hardware, still have significantly more 3rd party support than Wii. Developers aren't jumping ship, they're allocating less exclusives. Be that as it may, PS3 still has more higher profiles titles in the pipeline than Wii, namely Final Fantasy XIII, MGS4, Devil May Cry 3, Lair etc.

Quote
I didn't say they don't matter, but they have NEVER decided the winner in a console war, ever.

Yes, you did. I even quoted you saying that graphics don't matter.

And my point isn't that graphics decide the winner of the console war. I'm saying that graphics matter and they matter because publishers and developers care about graphics. Console power influences the decisions of 3rd parties. Factor 5 and Silicon Knights are no longer developing for Nintendo (well, SK might be, but Too Human is gone). Regardless of what you think of their games, the truth is that Nintendo just lost support from 2 developers who were staunch Nintendo supporters. Major 3rd party publishers are still supporting the competition more. It is about the games, but Nintendo is often getting the shaft.

Quote
t's easier to market a graphically-impressive game, but the problem is, it's harder to sell a more expensive console because the internal hardware costs more and it's harder to convince developers to develop those games in HD when it increases development costs exponentially.

I don't think they undercut the power on the Wii intentionally: I think the Wii is definitely capable of some very beautiful visuals, but the games that will push that envelope just aren't here yet.

Microsoft doesn't seem to having any trouble selling an HD console at a semi-reasonable $400, except in Japan because it's Japan and MS is an American company. If it's hard to convince developers/publishers to support the platform and release games in HD, why does 360 have significantly more support than Nintendo? Why are they getting higher profile games.

I agree that Wii is capable of beautiful visuals. As I've said in several topics, I support the importance of art direction above sheer power.  

[denjet78 wrote:]

10085

Nintendo Gaming / RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

« on: February 04, 2007, 11:36:17 AM »

Quote
denjet78 wrote:
...could everyone who actually thinks this is an honest and useful argument please put on tinfoil hats so we can recognize you as the idiots that you are from afar?

Are insults really necessary? Are you really that passionate about this? Dude, you're on an internet forum discussing videogames, for sobbing out loud......

Anyway...

Quote
smash_brother wrote:
Like how Sony's first place finish last gen is clearly what's carrying the PS3 into first place this gen?

PS3 is also $600. Regardless, Sony's coming in first place is one of the reasons anyone is even bothering with PS3. People trust that the Playstation brand will have the titles they want to play. The previous generation always counts. PS2 had nothing its first year, but people bought it and 3rd parties supported it. If Sony hadn't won last generation, they wouldn't have the 3rd party support it does now?

Quote
And the PS2 titles looked IMMENSELY dated no less than a year after the GC and Xbox launched, and clearly, that's what did the PS2 in, right? I mean, it's not like it went on to have a 50 million console lead over both its competitors despite having inferior graphical capability or anything...

Oh please. Sony also had almost every 3rd party eating right out of its ass. If Nintendo had that kind of near universal support from big name publishers, graphics wouldn't matter. But they don't, so their hardware is working against them.

Quote
Graphics don't matter: it's ALL about gameplay. Historically, graphically inferior systems have won the console war EVERY SINGLE TIME! If what you're saying was even remotely true, Wiis would be gathering dust all over store shelves and PS3s would be impossible to find.

I hate the "graphics don't matter" argument. They matter. You can't say they don't. People care about graphics. And it's not all gameplay. Otherwise, crappy games wouldn't sell, but they do. People buy crappy games all the time.... often because they look good.

Wii is selling because it's new. PS3 isn't selling because it's $600. This has nothing to do with graphically inferior consoles winning the console war. There is no connection there. That's like saying that all a company has to do is release a graphically weaker console to win the console war. You can't reduce any console war to a graphics battle because there are too many factors to consider.

I'm not saying that if Wii was more powerful, it would suddenly change everything. I'm saying it would help. Publishers are embracing this so-called HD era. Obviously, there's money to be made otherwise no one would make high-def games. It's easier to market a graphically impressive game. That's one of the reasons publishers push graphics so hard. Now, I've already said Wii didn't need HD and I still stand by that, but undercutting Wii's power was not the best thing Nintendo could have done.  

10086

Nintendo Gaming / RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

« on: February 03, 2007, 07:15:56 PM »

I don't like the Wii/DS comparison. Nintendo has never been anything but number 1 in the portable market. That changes the entire comparison. Wii against 360 and PS3 is a totally different scenario than DS against PSP. Nintendo is coming off of last place. A company's placement in the market cannot be ignored. Despite the similar philosophy (attract new gamers, innovation and so on), such comparisons are unfair.

Wii is not in the same position as PS2 was. Using DS or PS2 as proof why Wii didn't need to be more powerful is extremely misguided. GCN may have been more powerful than PS2, but Nintendo basically didn't everything they could to make the console a hard sell to both consumers and 3rd parties.

Nintendo is still playing catch up. Having inferior hardware is working against them. It only doesn't matter when you're on top. Publishers will release games on inferior hardware if there's money to be made. Wii is getting more support, but it's still pretty lacking. 3rd parties are wary of the platform because Nintendo has dropped the ball so many times and they were last place. Wii is selling well now which is great. This will hopefully lead to more support.

A more powerful console is a more attractive money making endeavor. Graphics are the first thing consumers see. If publishers can't use that to sell their games, support is likely to wane. If 3rd parties can't make the games they want to make on the console, support will decline as well. Wii titles look dated now, in the next year or so they'll look even more dated next to PS3 and 360. If Nintendo isn't on top or close to it by then, it's going to be tough for them.

10087

Nintendo Gaming / RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

« on: February 03, 2007, 09:26:55 AM »

I've been using developer and publisher interchangably since I'm referring more towards the big developers like Capcom or Konami who develop and publish their own titles. I apologize with the confusion.

Yes, I understand Japan prefers small systems. Wii could have been bigger allowing the console to be more powerful and still be considered small.

Nintendo still very much appeals primarily to their core audience of Nintendo fans. That's what I mean by niche. Right now, Wii is still selling off of its newness because the lineup isn't really all that impressive. I don't think you can make the claim that Nintendo has expanded the market yet. Wii may have piqued the interest of non-gamers, but they're not necessarily buying consoles.

I'm not saying a more powerful console is the absolute solution to all Nintendo's troubles. It would've helped though.

10088

General Gaming / RE: Dracula X: Rondo of Blood, Castlevania: SotN to PSP

« on: February 03, 2007, 08:08:12 AM »

Sigh.

There's no real connection between character art and gameplay. However, there's more to a game than gameplay.

10089

Nintendo Gaming / RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

« on: February 03, 2007, 07:56:46 AM »

According to this, Blu-ray was developed by the BDA. I don't know how that translates to Sony getting most out of the deal.

Things like controller ports still cost money. And I didn't say they were expensive, I said they weren't necessary. Without them, Nintendo would still save money because they aren't being manufactured. And size isn't inherently tied to sleekness. Wii didn't need to be the size of 3 DVD cases to be sleek. It costs money to make a chipset smaller. For example, DS Lite was probably possible in 2004, but it wouldn't have cost $130. Nintendo sacrificed power for size. Wii didn't really need HD graphics, but Nintendo definitely aimed too low. If high-def graphics require something like 3 times the processing power, Wii could have been somewhere near the upper crust, non-HD area at $250 with Wii Sports still included. Nintendo managed to create Gamecube which is significantly better hardware than N64 and at the same entry price. In 5 years since GCN launched, Wii could have been far more capable. The technology is there, it just depends on which technologies you spend money on.

Good games today are about vision. The big publishers release games with great vision. If Nintendo wants support and they'll need it to attract gamers outside their niche, then it's their job to make sure developers are as happy as possible.

[nitsu niflheim wrote]

10090

General Gaming / RE:Dracula X: Rondo of Blood, Castlevania: SotN to PSP

« on: February 03, 2007, 06:55:51 AM »

Quote
nitsu niflheim wroteAyami Kojima is overrated.  The two DS Castlevania games proved that she isn't neccessary.  I mean, she worked on both PS2 games and they both sucked in comparison, so...

How did they prove that she isn't necessary? Those games had boring anime art. And her designs have nothing to do with the gameplay. So.....

10091

Nintendo Gaming / RE: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

« on: February 02, 2007, 09:13:31 PM »

Exactly, so they aren't paying Sony. They'd be paying Panasonic who provides the drives for them. And they're still paying to use DVD and even if they technically aren't since it's DVD based, then why couldn't the same be done with Blu-Ray.

It's established that Nintendo makes money on Wii, but developers are generally disappointed in the power of the hardware. The question is: could they have sacrificed those earnings for a more acceptable chipset? I'm not all together convinced that the Gamecube controller slots were necessary. I remain skeptical because of the digital click on the classic controller. Wii is also really small. I think we all appreciate the console not being a PS3-sized behemoth, but did Wii have to be that small? That costs extra too. Nintendo spent money on certain things in the Wii that could have been spent elsewhere.

Taking a major loss on a console is risky business and that isn't Nintendo's model. Still, Nintendo makes most of their money as a publisher. I think Nintendo could afford to make $0 per console if it meant developers were happier with the hardware. It's not just "a few more effects or a couple more polygons." The numbers might not mean much to you. Then again, you're not making the games.

I think Wii is capable of amazing games, just as I still think GCN is. But I'm not a 3rd party publisher/developer. I don't think it's necessarily about laziness or commitment. 3rd parties have a right to their own vision. If Nintendo can't help them realize that vision, that's Nintendo's problem because no one has to settle since they can take their business elsewhere. Nintendo can probably support a console by themselves, but they'll never reach past their niche without more support.

[KDR_11k wrote:]

10092

General Gaming / RE:Dracula X: Rondo of Blood, Castlevania: SotN to PSP

« on: February 02, 2007, 08:24:57 PM »

Quote
KDR_11k wrote:
I strongly disagree, the painterly portraits may look nice on a screenshot but they fail to communicate the character's emotions at all. In the GBA games each character had between one and three expressions and usually they were just "normal" and "gone insane". In Dawn of Sorrow the character portraits actually show the emotional state of the characters and feel much more dynamic. It was outright silly in AoS when Graham stabbed Yoko that her portrait was still the same exept all she could say was "........".

Ayami Kojima only designs the characters. I think someone else draws the portraits in the game. Regardless, some artist at Konami could have used the source material and drawn a different facial experession for the game.

I had a hard time taking the generic anime facial expressions seriously in both Dawn of Sorrow and Portrait of Ruin. There's nothing unique about them. And if you want to talk about silly, look what they did to Dracula's design in Portrait of Ruin. What the hell happened there?

10093

Nintendo Gaming / RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?

« on: February 02, 2007, 08:07:32 PM »

Why would Nintendo have to pay Sony for Blu-Ray technology? Nintendo gets their disc drives from Panasonic who, from what I understand, happens to be on the Blu-Ray Association Board of Directions.

And cartridges? Are you serious? As if Nintendo didn't have a hard enough time getting 3rd party support.........

Wii doesn't need HD or Blu-Ray. However, developers constantly bellyache about how technologically inferior the system is. That sucks. I agree that Nintendo has to look out for itself, but they make an awful lot of selfish choices and they only change when they screw up. Would it be so hard to listen to what consumers and developers want? It's give and take. You can't make everyone happy, but you can meet half-way, you make compromises. Spending money to make money isn't the only long-term plan. Nintendo doesn't need to do that. At the same time, could Nintendo have made a better console for $250 with WiiSports and still broken even? I'd say no doubt about it.

Nothing is as easy and simple as people make it seem. Companies make choices every day which range from good to bad. I see many of Nintendo's choices with Wii somewhere in the middle.

[DeadlyD wrote:]

10094

Nintendo Gaming / RE:Nintendo online argument

« on: February 02, 2007, 03:07:42 PM »

Quote
DeadlyD wrote:
whats that got to do with nintendo kids saying "online gaimg sucks, i demand nintendo dont do it" attitude?

It doesn't. That's just my opinion on online games... unrelated to the line I quoted from you hence why it's in its own separate line... Jeez, chill...

Quote
Ian Sane wrote:
Online gaming is not that new of concept. Other consoles have done it and it's been done on PCs for years. Nintendo is behind. They should be using the experience of other companies to their advantage. But instead they're doing it their way even though it isn't needed. They're doing something weird for no reason. I just wish that in situations where Nintendo was the follower they just did things as people expect instead of always being different.

We don't want to use friend codes. Somehow online gaming in it's numerous forms has not required this so quit making everything screwy.

I agree with that completely. I'm sure there are ways to improve upon what the competition (namely MS) has done with online gaming, but Nintendo sure as hell hasn't improved a thing with their friend code system. With Nintendo parading their philiosophy of simpler games and ease of use, I wonder why they'd settle for such an asinine online structure.

10095

General Gaming / RE:Dracula X: Rondo of Blood, Castlevania: SotN to PSP

« on: February 02, 2007, 02:41:50 PM »

I love Castlevania and this is an amazing deal, but I wouldn't buy a PSP for it. And it looks like IGA's team still can't get 3D graphics right.... in the second dimension. At least Ayami Kojima is doing the character art. The DS games were sorely missing her artwork.

Also, what's up with slow Richter? They can't make him slow again after Portrait of Ruin.

10096

Nintendo Gaming / RE: Iwata: have to make good Wii Software like they eventually did for DS

« on: February 02, 2007, 02:37:45 AM »

Didn't they unveil Phantom Hourglass at last year's GDC? I'm hoping for another surprise or 2 this year. We likely see a new Brawl trailer at the very least.

10097

Nintendo Gaming / RE: Nintendo online argument

« on: February 02, 2007, 02:31:39 AM »

The Internet Channel was also made by Opera under Nintendo's own specifications. Also, it's not connecting to another Wii. And I'm assuming if developers could get around it they would. Don't 3rd party DS games still rely on friend codes?

I just don't see how Nintendo can be so strict with the games yet provide the trial version of Opera for free. Isn't that just as dangerous? I've been told that you can access myspace and porn. I'm too lazy to test it out myself because typing "boobs" on google is too much of a hassle for me using the Wii remote and if I really wanted, I have a computer right here anyway. I just don't know what the friend codes do anything except hassle everyone.  

10098

Nintendo Gaming / RE: Nvidia says Nintendo is talking nonsense

« on: February 02, 2007, 02:17:58 AM »

I recall Satoru Iwata saying something like "specs don't matter" which people construed as the company's stance on graphics.

Wii didn't need HD graphics, but they definitely aimed too low. I've read that the general rule of thumb is that high-def graphics require something like 3 times the processing power. It would've been nice if Nintendo was somewhere near upper crust, non-HD area. Still, I'm a believer in art direction. I don't care how nice the textures look. If the art is sub-par, the game doesn't impress me graphics wise.

[DeadlyD wrote:]

10099

Nintendo Gaming / RE:Nintendo online argument

« on: February 02, 2007, 01:59:34 AM »

Quote
DeadlyD wrote:
I hate when people say "online play sucks"
Its like people who say "I own 10 DVD players, glad wii doesnt have that feature"

Congratulations, you make sense (not sarcasm).

Online isn't necessary, but if done right, it can only make a game better.

10100

Nintendo Gaming / RE:Nintendo online argument

« on: February 01, 2007, 06:33:04 PM »

Nintendo's online structure doesn't necessarily need to be as deep as Xbox Live. It just needs to be better than it is now. I don't think anyone likes friend codes. Even if I only used my Wii address book and could play with everyone on there, it'd be a step up. At least I'm not inputting a different code for each game.