Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Kairon

Pages: 1 ... 597 598 [599]
TalkBack / RE:Nintendo February Sales Data
« on: March 18, 2004, 01:04:30 PM »
Simply put, they didn't start production back up soon enough.

Early last year they stopped GC production because they were building up too much inventory, too much stuff taking up space, too much stock they couldn't move at the time. But with this price-drop, holiday season, etc., it seems that Nintendo may not have started up production soon enough to meet demand.

Sure, the GC is obviously selling now. But let's not forget that One GC customer with a GC now is better than Two when that supposed "high-demand-must-buy-GC-now-or-I-will-die" MIGHT (read: won't) happen.

So in essence...Nintendo should've started production sooner and anticipated this.

Carmine M. Red  

TalkBack / RE:Editorial: Don't Leave Me Now
« on: March 18, 2004, 11:20:18 AM »
I'm certainly not criticizing Nintendo on these grounds. In fact, it's because of these grounds that I grow to appreciate Nintendo ever more, whether or not I can walk up to a PS2 Fan and claim "My system has as many third parties as yours does."

I'm just saying that, all things taking into consideration, Nintendo's path doesn't lie along traditionally challenging Sony or MS where their strengths lie. I don't doubt Nintendo's commitment to technology, indeed, I see technology as a major part of Nintendo because they've tied in innovation into their hardware design as well (especially in terms of input devices and controllers). I'd be the first in line to argue that the GC is technically superior than the PS2.

But whether or not Nintendo is up to par technically is NOT the issue. The issue is that Nintendo cannot hope to gain ground by merely getting into a slugging match with Sony and Microsoft on technology specs. In the long run, Nintendo just isn't the type of company that would win that meaningless competition.

And that's really just a sub issue of my major idea that Nintendo cannot hope to survive/compete by merely emulating their opponents: they must also continue the very traditions which make them Nintendo after all: a commitment to quality game design at the expense of all else, a faith that they'll be rewarded marketwise for their unique vision, as opposed to punished for taking the road less travelled.

Carmine M. Red

TalkBack / RE:Pikmin 2 to Support the e-Card Reader?
« on: March 18, 2004, 10:07:02 AM »
Oh please please please please!

Random game maps for multi-player co-op? Any game that includes a co-op mode is immediately twice as alluring to purchase for me!

Oh, and the E-Reader usually IS a gimmick when it isn't being used to expand the game beyond it's original capabilities. Hopefully that's not the case here!

Carmine M. Red

TalkBack / RE:Editorial: Don't Leave Me Now
« on: March 18, 2004, 07:03:09 AM »

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I kind it incredibly ironic that Sony is often credited as being a big technological powerhouse when BOTH of their consoles had considerably "weaker" hardware than the competition.  In fact I don't think I have ever been wowed from a technical perspective by either Playstation.  They seem to attract the graphics whores as well despite consistently having relatively crappy graphic capabilities.

Oh god, I agrere with you sooo much. For some reason, the PS2 has a certain graphical style/quality throughout most/all of its games that I can't stand! ...Same for the DC too...

TalkBack / RE:Editorial: Don't Leave Me Now
« on: March 18, 2004, 07:00:33 AM »
Do you guys seriously envision a future where Nintendo puts out a console generally accepted as more technically capable than Sony or Microsoft?

Nintendo's concentration on game design (whereas both Rare and Factor 5 are technologically-minded), coupled with Sony's and Microsoft's firm presence in the computational and electronics field, coupled with Sony and Microsoft's enormous corporate resources... means that Nintendo cannot expect to simply produce a more powerful system. Why do you think Nintendo has been trying to emphasize innovation or creativity over better graphics recently? They know they cannot survive a dragged-out console war if the only determinant is technological capability (and by extension, computational power).

I'm not in any ways saying that Nintendo isn't capable or that it's competitors haven't made mistakes that lessen their efficacy (So what if the PSX was less powerful than the N64? Nintendo didn't have a technical comfort with the CD format while Sony did... that's why Nintendo had to collaborate with Sony on the PSX in the first place: Nintendo couldn't make a CD based system). What I'm saying is that if Nintendo tried to stand toe-to-toe with Sony and Microsoft in a tech war, they'd be on the losing end.

With that in mind, they can only succeed in being more unique and creative (the DS, for example), and instead of challenging Sony or Microsoft on tech specs or whatnot, they must merely remain as up-to-date as possible in that field while at the same time distinguishing themselves as only Nintendo can: through gameplay innovation.

They can only survive by acting like Nintendo, but remaining competitive with their opponents while not becoming clones of them.

Carmine M. Red

TalkBack / RE:Editorial: Don't Leave Me Now
« on: March 16, 2004, 08:46:08 PM »

Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"They don't have the technical know-how of either Sony or Microsoft"

BS.  They don't have the marketing know-how of Sony or MS but they easily have the technical know-how.  I don't see any official wireless controllers for the OTHER consoles.  Plus the Gamecube has virtually no load times.  Hardware-wise Nintendo has made a very good console.  They just suck at marketing their games and making games that fit the current market trends.

BS. There's no way Nintendo can expect to out-spec the almighty Microsoft, or the consumer electronics giant Sony, in any prolonged technical-specification war.

Nintendo has always created it's hardware with more emphasis on design/gimmickry rather than gadgetry. Even the Nintendo DS is approaching the more powerful Sony PSP with only the comparative polygon pushing power of an N64 (The PSP is rumoured to have PS2 graphical capabilities). Nintendo can overcome their comparative weakness through excellent design (sticking to long battery life in the GB series, for example) that others somehow miss, or through good games.

But never, NEVER, will you see Nintendo go out there and say, "We have a more powerful system, technically speaking, than our competitors." Why? Because they don't. They may be par for the course, but there's no way they're leading the computational pack. They always emphasis their design, and their games. (Rightfully so)

What does this mean? That while Nintendo may keep up with Sony and Microsoft in the technical prowess competition, we shouldn't be holding our breath for Nintendo to beat either computing/electronics company at their own game. Rather, like the DS shows, we should expect Nintendo to try to render the tech-race issue moot through sheer innovation. That is, we should expect them to survive by being more and more Nintendo, and NOT trying to become a Sony or Microsoft entity.

Carmine M. Red

TalkBack / RE:Editorial: Don't Leave Me Now
« on: March 16, 2004, 08:42:29 AM »

" But I think Nintendo should be given the respect they deserve from the industry, not only for what they've done in the past but for what they're still doing"

I disagree with this. Respect is an ongoing thing and NINs current state in the console market doesnt warrent any respect IMO, profit or not. THey went from the kings of the market to third for most of this gen, that doesnt deserve respect as far as I am concerned.

I can certainly see how one can not favor a company with your reasoning, but I'd think that whether or not we respect someone should have deeper foundations than "They are no longer number one." Why did they lose the market? Because Nintendo, as a game-centric company built around Miyamoto's ideas and games isn't equiped to lead the modern-day market. They don't have the technical know-how of either Sony or Microsoft, and don't have the ability to blast open the industry to the mainstream. So of course they're no longer number one!

BUT, they keep doing what they are built for, what their mission is. They're not trying to pretend to be hip, or bleeding edge, or something they're not. They're not good at bombarding consumers with ads. But they are good with making great and creative games.

And if one sees that Nintendo's spirit is simply in line with that, one perceives a sort of integrity to what the company's trying to do: surviving as an entity of traditional craftsmanship in a day of automation and mass-producing.

If you're bottomline line is consumer dollars, then you may not respect Nintendo for that.
But you should at least not disrespect them for merely being who they are, for failing to capture market share but succeeding at creating games that only Nintendo can bring forth.

Carmine M. Red

TalkBack / RE:Editorial: Don't Leave Me Now
« on: March 11, 2004, 03:10:38 PM »

"Think about it: Nintendo has been built around Shigeru Miyamoto games. Even when Yamauchi was in charge, his most significant and pivotal action was to create an environment in which Shigeru Miyamoto could create freely."

Incorrect.  Nintendo didn't become "the Shiggy show" until the N64.  Before that there has a much wider variety coming from Nintendo's different teams.  It wasn't until Gunpei Yoki left the company that Miyamoto became the main focus.  Nintendo consoles traditionally were platforms designed to create great games not just great EAD games.  If Nintendo focused on just creating great games period without having Miyamoto get involved in everything they probably have a much wider appeal.

I like Miyamoto and I like EAD but I don't want EVERY game Nintendo makes to feel like a Miyamoto game.  I think a lot of other people feel the same way and that's pretty much Nintendo's diversity problem in a nut shell.

That's a good correction, but the point still stands that even if Nintendo hasn't always been built around Shigeru Miyamoto's game design philosophy, it is now.

Shigeru Miyamoto has always been a major (if not the) driving force behind Nintendo, even in the NES era. And Yamauchi's heavy-handed ideals during that generation (like encouraging quality over quantity by limiting companies to only a set number of releases each year) easily became absorbed with Miyamoto's pursuit of excellence. Even Yokoi seems a distant second when counting Nintendo's marquee games. AND, with the N64's utilization of cartridges, we see that Miyamoto has really becoming an integral aspect of the company. There were many reasons for the cartridges, but surely one of them is that Mario 64 would not have been possible with 1996 CD technology. Add to this the fact that Miyamoto is even tied into hardware design with the N64 and GC controllers... and Miyamoto's modern dominance of Nintendo thinking is apparent.

Now, new voices are always a good thing.
And we can judge whether or not Miyamoto is dead weight. We can decide for ourselves whether Nintendo is held back or not, or whether pursueing market numbers and dollars is worth forfeiting support for Miyamoto's visions.

But I don't think we should criticize Nintendo for being something they aren't. They aren't Sony, they aren't a consumer electronics company, they can't win the tech-spec battle. They aren't Microsoft, they can't network as well and they can't market as savvily. They can try, but in the end they are only Nintendo, a company driven by Miyamoto's game design, a company that's being ever more marginalized because of it.

I personally expect Miyamoto to get credit for the next Nintendo controller. That's how integral he's become with Nintendo's work. I expect Nintendo to continue pursueing the hardware market for some time, because Mario 64 exemplified how Miyamoto was needed hardware & software innovation simultaneously. But I don't expect them to become the market share leader, because I don't think Miyamoto cares about marketshare as much as he does innovation or fun games.

I expect Nintendo to do exactly as they think they should, as Miyamoto thinks they should. Nothing more, nothing less. And if this means they don't take the marketshare position again... I expect that that's never been what Miyamoto's philosophy is about...

And as a Nintendo fan, I guess I can't help but respect that level of integrity.

Carmine M. Red

TalkBack / RE: Editorial: Don't Leave Me Now
« on: March 11, 2004, 01:40:54 PM »
This has got to be the most balanced editorial I've read about Nintendo's situation in some time. Why? Because of the very important acknowledgement of a particular value system in the way we may look at Nintendo. At one point the author states that, "If Nintendo wants to regain ..."

That "If" is very important, because it acknowledges that all of these ideas that Nintendo fans have of worldwide domination, all these concepts of marketting, mindshare, and money... these are based on the assumption that Nintendo, at their core, is a company solely focused on winning the marketshare war.

Which, if you instead consider Nintendo a company built around Shigeru Miyamoto's legacy... it isn't.

Think about it: Nintendo has been built around Shigeru Miyamoto games. Even when Yamauchi was in charge, his most significant and pivotal action was to create an environment in which Shigeru Miyamoto could create freely. And Shigeru Miyamoto doesn't care about marketshare, he doesn't care about appealing to just adults, or in winning any image war. He doesn't care much about how many third parties Nintendo has... Shigeru Miyamoto, and Nintendo by extension, has just one core value: creative, high-quality games which are not dependent on graphics or gameplay. (This is opposed to SquareEnix, whose games are built wholly around graphics and storylines, with gameplay as a less important topic)

Looking at Nintendo this way, it's apparent that Nintendo will never have as many third-parties as Sony, and will enver have as cool an image as Microsoft. It becomes apparent that Nintendo's true philosophy is one that propels it towards creating the next Pikmin, or next Mario Kart... not the next awesome commercial or the next all-inclusive piece of home media center hardware.

And perhaps...when Nintendo Fans truly accept Nintendo as a company not meant to lead in terms of marketshare, but meant to lead in terms of visionary game design... perhaps THEN Nintendo fans will learn to appreciate their chosen company fully...

And perhaps they'll appreciate Nintendo enough to stop trying to turn it into Sony or Microsoft.

Carmine M. Red

Pages: 1 ... 597 598 [599]