Gaming Forums => Nintendo Gaming => Topic started by: bmfrosty on May 24, 2005, 06:09:58 PM
Title: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: bmfrosty on May 24, 2005, 06:09:58 PM
I've been thinking about this for a while.
Lets start with with Nintendo doesn't need the most powerful hardware. A 3ghz version of the Gekko and a high end ATI video solution are enough to get their graphics to where 99% of the population wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and what's being offered by their competition.
It's not "mature" games either. All mature means these days is "Sex and Violence". These games sell because people want to see what all the controversy is about.
What other directions are there for Nintendo to go?
The third parties. Some of these are off limits. Rockstar, Bungie, Hipnotic, Insomniac. Some are not:
Square-Enix Capcom Konami Namco
I firmly believe that Nintendo could have these companies in their pocket.
How?
Outright buyouts would be financially stressful and dangerous.
I think the way is licencing discounts and a contract fee. If Nintendo would first Pay these comapnies a good sum of money (enough to bankroll at least one game) and then turn around and drop licencing fees down to manufacturing cost + 10% for a course of 5 years of 100% exclusivity in the console and handheld market, they could own the industry again.
I think it would work. I don't think it would happen.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: ThePerm on May 24, 2005, 06:15:21 PM
yeah i think nintendo needs to create a new dream team..much like it had for n64..and announce it all at once..this will give and inflated 3rd party support..and it needs to pay for the production of all of these games made by the dream team.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 24, 2005, 06:17:28 PM
Funny how Nintendo's dream teams fall apart each time.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: jasonditz on May 24, 2005, 06:24:13 PM
How much more onboard could Namco or Capcom possibly be? SE is saying all the right things so far, but it remains to be seen if we'll get anything more out of them than subpar FF:CC titles.
Konami seems like a worthwhile target though. What with all the good games they produced for the GBA, it'd be nice to get more out of them on the console side than just Disney sports games and TMNT.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: ThePerm on May 24, 2005, 06:28:38 PM
the n64 dream team fell apart because of cartridges..
the idea is this nintendo needs to attract like 10 developers 5 western and 5 eastern and have them design exclusive games that have their production paid for by nintendo. In doing this they will create a sort of community. It worked temporarilly on n64..but things fizzled out.
heres what i think they need
western Id: Quake IV, Doom 3 Valve: Half Life 2 special edition Lucas Arts: some new star wars game Ubisoft ?
Japanese Square: exclusive(game not total exclusivity) Capcom: exclusive Konami: exclusive Namco: soul calibur 3 revolution(hell just buy the company and get tekken too) ?
if you can spoend say 100 million dollars getting some extra 3rd party support(they give ibm billions of dollars to design hardware that never gets used)
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: jasonditz on May 24, 2005, 06:37:21 PM
Namco already got bought out by Bandai
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: ThePerm on May 24, 2005, 06:49:29 PM
and nintendo might buy bandai
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: LuWoo75 on May 24, 2005, 07:01:41 PM
U know i dont see konami giving the Nrev anything worthwhile just for the simple fact of they havent support Nin since SNES. SE someone metioned it b4 that Dragon Quest would be good title for Nintendo although a port of FF would suffice and not FF:CC unless it was to be re-done and evolved into a real RPG with more realistic Graphix. Capcom and Namco are a given and Activision and EA are given. I have confidence that UBI will be there also. I dont ever forsee GTA on the Nrev.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: bmfrosty on May 24, 2005, 07:05:29 PM
Quote Originally posted by: ThePerm
Id: Quake IV, Doom 3 Valve: Half Life 2 special edition Lucas Arts: some new star wars game Ubisoft ?
Japanese Square: exclusive(game not total exclusivity) Capcom: exclusive Konami: exclusive Namco: soul calibur 3 revolution(hell just buy the company and get tekken too) ?
ID and Valve already have deals with Sony and Microsoft, but I'm sure that Nintendo can get them to make Revolution versions of these three. Lucas shouldn't be too hard to convince to do Revolution versions of *EVERYTHING*. Same goes with Ubi. Maybe Big N can get the adventure games as 6 month or 1 year exclusives, and the warfare games at least day and date. I'm going to add Majesco. Just for Double Fine productions. Psychonauts as a launch title, and their next game as a 6 month exclusive.
Square would need to put forward Final Fantasy XIII-XV as exclusive. Everything else gets discounted licencing. Capcom and Konami for 6 month or 1 year exclusives on Viewtiful Joe, RE 5-6, a NEW MGS game, a NEW 3D Castlevania, and day and date for the Bemani games. Namco - Nintendo needs to OWN Pacman.
As for others, Mistwalker seems to have some exclusive deal with Microsoft, but Brownie Brown might be somthing to own.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: jasonditz on May 24, 2005, 07:10:47 PM
Konami has supported the GBA pretty well, and is off to a good start with the DS. They gave the N64 some worthwhile titles... for some reason they gave the Cube even worse support than the Xbox.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: IceCold on May 24, 2005, 07:48:19 PM
I would really love another Tales game or another RPG from Namco - the Rev would really benefit from that. Capcom support will be less I think unless Nintendo does something. Licensing fees definitely have to go down. Square is up in the air. Konami: I don't think so. Western devs? EA is in, Ubi is probably there, LucasArts hopefully
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 24, 2005, 08:18:33 PM
It's all about third party support. Third party support increases market share while market share increases third party support. Some call that a catch-22 which it largely is when you have to start from scratch which Nintendo will be doing. But this relationship also allows for a snowball affect. If one starts increasing the other follows and the two things feed and grow off each other. The trick though is getting that ball rolling. One either has to make some major third party deals or launch a major killer app that sells consoles on it's own and increases the userbase. Ideally Nintendo should try for both.
The first step is Nintendo has to be very very competent. There's no room for stupid little errors that are easily avoidable. The Cube had some problems that limited what a developer could do. No online was the biggie obviously but having smaller discs and memory cards sure didn't help. Having higher licencing fees didn't either. Nintendo so far actually seems to be doing this step. Of course we don't know much about the Rev yet but we do know it's online and that it doesn't yet have any crucial mistakes that will turn people off. There is however the rumour about the Rev being underpowered and that alone could screw this all up. Plus there's the controller which can't be too weird. If it works with all NES, SNES, and N64 games it won't be.
Of course merely being on the ball is only going to prevent third parties from leaving. No one is going to jump ship just because Nintendo doesn't suck unless Sony sucks but they can't base a strategy on that variable. Nintendo has to have an extra incentive for developers to take a chance early on before the userbase is there. It can't just be money because MS can outbid Nintendo. It has to be something Nintendo can give that no one else can. In theory the "revolutionary" feature can help but that will only attract usage of the new feature. There needs to be "normal" third party games as well that don't use that feature. That's important for balance or else the Rev will be seen as gimmicky.
Nintendo's greatest asset is its game design talent so they should offer that. The partnerships with Namco and Sega were okay ideas but the problem was that they resulted in Nintendo games made by a third party. That's not meaningful third party support because it provides no variety. We were going to get an F-Zero game anyway with or without Sega. Nintendo didn't really gain anything with those deals. What Nintendo should do is offer major game developers that value creativity the freedom to create whatever they want with Nintendo publishing, providing advice, and footing the bill in exchange for complete exclusivity for that game (including special editions). So instead of Nintendo getting Metal Gear Port they're getting an original game made by Kojima and Kojima gets to have Miyamoto providing input. Sonic Team gets to make a 3D game without a crappy camera because they have Nintendo helping them out. Basically it's "who wants to work with Shiggy?" Nintendo offers no restrictions on content aside from some reasonable budget and time restraints. Nintendo lends a hand when wanted but doesn't shoehorn Star Fox into anything.
Aside from getting some potentially really great third party exclusives out of the deal it also gets brand new original stuff. This is good because not only does it provide more variety than having third parties working on Mario games would allow but it raises the possibility of a killer app. Killer apps are rarely calculated. It's usually something brand new and brilliant that comes out of nowhere like Pokemon or GTA3. Nintendo won't find a killer app like that if they stick to too many existing franchises. They can however find one by getting some brand new stuff out of the most talented devs in the industry.
Nintendo themselves also should try for that killer app. I suggest the ultimate Pokemon game for starters since that has never been done. I'm talking a full 3D RPG with gyms and catching wild Pokemon (none of this snagging junk) plus an online Pokemon league for training and battling. Aside from that obvious franchise game I think Nintendo should concentrate more on original IP for the first little while and release the sequels later on. Retro should give a full on FPS a try before going back to Metroid. Camelot should work on an RPG before Mario Sports. Obviously sequels should still be there but they have to be balanced. I'm thinking 50/50. For every sequel Nintendo tries out something brand new with a new IP. That way fans who want sequels get them but Nintendo provides more variety and sheds the image of a rehasher and increases the odds of a come-out-of-nowhere killer app like Pokemon was all those years ago.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: jasonditz on May 24, 2005, 08:49:12 PM
Isn't Kojima supposedly (I know, its a rumor) working on a Rev launch title with Shiggy already? I seem to recall something about a cross between Ninja Gaiden and Zelda, but you know how these rumors get.
I'm not sure Sega's worth bothering with anymore. Seems like ever since the Sammy acquisition they've been pumping out safe, boring franchise title. Besides, if you whore Shiggy out to too many people he's not going to be able to work on his own titles.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: IceCold on May 24, 2005, 10:03:25 PM
"One either has to make some major third party deals"
Do I hear Resident Evil??? Third parties are the key though, and their support HAS to be locked up any way possible.
Your idea of a few quality franchise games along with original games works well to retain the old fanbase and extend it as well, but these games have long developmental cycles, so we can't expect many.
"There needs to be "normal" third party games as well that don't use that feature. That's important for balance or else the Rev will be seen as gimmicky."
If it's truly revolutionary, that won't be a problem in the least bit.
"Retro should give a full on FPS a try before going back to Metroid. Camelot should work on an RPG before Mario Sports"
Agreed on both counts. Which brings me to another point; please Nintendo, please don't milk Mario for every penny he's worth. Cut back the Party games (too bad Hudson), the sports games and the other cameo games, I beg you. Don't dilute the name Mario, so that there is at least some anticipation and excitement for the next iteration of Mario.
Original IPs don't just appear. They take extremely long to conceive, and the 50/50 idea you have may not be possible. Instead, I would rather they revive some old franchises and evolve them.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: Dryden on May 24, 2005, 11:57:14 PM
So, I think we're unanimous - third party support for the Revolution is good. Nintendo knows it. Big deal. What we don't agree on is how to build the third-party support. I don't care how creative the Revolution is, or how much new content and cool control schemes they'll be able to program, it won't matter if third-party games are financially risky on the Revolution. Brass tacks, folks, these are companies first - profit is king, and if Nintendo doesn't have the tools in place for everyone to make money, it's falling apart before it begins.
What are the tools? For starters, lower franchising fees. Everyone in the industry can tell you that. But what else? Nintendo has to get consoles into homes at launch. Not tough, to be fair, given Nintendo's track record of first-party titles, and the backwards compatibility and free online gaming is very attractive, as long as the system is comparable power-wise to the competition. And Nintendo has to agressively advertise the console, as well as push third-party titles in mags like Nintendo Power. Again, proven track record.
So where else do developers make money? Online. Nintendo has taken an untested road here, one that may lead to their devestation. Microsoft's Live service, though not free, is excellent for any game on the system. Nintendo hasn't outlined their support plans for third-party games, but their first-party service will be free.
On a Nintendo console, am I going to play excellent free first-party games online, or excellent third-party games online for a price? Is Nintendo cutting into the third-party marketshare by offering a free alternative on every game they make? Argue all you want, but the guys at EB Games are going to be telling Moms this, and Holiday-time you're going to see a lot of free online games under the Christmas tree.
To be fair, Nintendo wouldn't make an online plan without consulting with the third-party developers they affect so much, and companies like Square-Enix love Nintendo's online plans, so it's gotta be sound business practice. But again - uncharted waters. If third-party companies are going to start losing money every time the go online with the Revolution, the dream isn't going to last.
As a side note, Nintendo has incredible third party support, but on lower-budget, higher yield Gameboy / DS games. Moving that support to the Revolution, a middle-range-budget, middle-range yield market, is not going to be easy. Tekken is on the gameboy. So is GTA. Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy too. Low-cost, high profit. If the Nintendo Revolution can't hit that sweet spot with the tenacity with which the GBA hit it this generation, don't expect wonders.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: NotSoStu on May 25, 2005, 05:27:42 AM
Dryden pointed out the exact thing that made the NES, SNES, and GBA hits: Low-cost to develop, high profit from the games. And, if I remember the press conference correctly, that's exactly what Nintendo is doing. Remember those indy developer comments? Perhaps Revolution *will* be a comeback for Nintendo.
Oh, and if there's one company Nintendo should buy or get third-party support from, it would be BioWare. I started playing Knights of the Old Republic on PC the other day, and I've been hooked ever since!
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 25, 2005, 06:27:35 AM
Seriously guys, don't expect Nintenod to take first place even if they did everything right. Nothing short of $DEITY himself coming down from $DEITY.LOCATION() and smiting Sony and Microsoft can bring Nintendo into first place. I have my doubts about that happening (smiting Microsoft, okay, (s)he seems to have tried that a few times but Sony?).
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 25, 2005, 07:55:14 AM
"Seriously guys, don't expect Nintenod to take first place even if they did everything right."
True but what about second place? I think Nintendo could take on MS at least. Plus they could at least increase their market share for once. Nintendo's market share shrinks every gen. That's why the Cube is considered a "failure". They ended up worse off than they did with the N64. I think it would be nice if for once Nintendo ended up in a better position than where they started. Hell the ways things have gone I would be reasonably content if Nintendo just stayed where they are for once instead of dropping lower each time. Growth however would be ideal.
Plus I think most of us would be happier to see Nintendo try to become number one and fail instead of doing nothing and slowly fading off into obscurity.
"On a Nintendo console, am I going to play excellent free first-party games online, or excellent third-party games online for a price? Is Nintendo cutting into the third-party marketshare by offering a free alternative on every game they make?"
That's a gamble but I think the plan is more to encourage developers to offer free play. Plus Nintendo in theory can attract a larger userbase with free first party games which will attract third parties. Plus Nintendo is offering flexibility with their option which MS is not. I think it's a pretty calculated risk. Besides I don't think that third parties make tons of money off of Xbox Live. I think MS is largely getting those account fees.
"Original IPs don't just appear. They take extremely long to conceive, and the 50/50 idea you have may not be possible."
Nintendo already is doing half the work of creating new IPs. A lot of their games are still very unique in gameplay. They just throw Mario in there most of the time. So instead of throwing Mario into a Tennis game just make a tennis game with unique characters. It's a little bit more work but the gameplay idea can influence the character design. What logically would have you have in a tennis game? Tennis players! Tennis players are all human in real life and they wear certain types of clothing and use certain types of equipment. Even if they went with a non-realistic style it wouldn't be too hard to design characters.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: nolimit19 on May 25, 2005, 09:10:31 AM
i think theperm is pretty much right.
it would greatly help nintendo if they could get 1 or 2 exclusive games from some big time 3rd party companies. games sell consoles. the hardware, controller, backwards compatibility, and extras are just a bonus.
nintendo needs to be assertive and even maybe help plan release dates for some of these 3rd party companies so that their games are over shadowed by nintendos own games. i buy into the idea that nintendo is its own worst enemy when it comes to 3rd party support. companies just dont like having to compete with the nintendo's quality games.
i think the key will be the revolution launch. they really need a great 3rd party exclusive game(s) at the launch if they want to pick up significant ground in the market share...however, the market share is over rated..."the myth of market share" by r. miniter is a good book on the subject.
i just hope the revolution doesnt pull a dreamcast.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: ThePerm on May 25, 2005, 05:08:24 PM
exactly what me and ian are saying Nintendo needs to spend some money trying to get the third parties to come..there has been some major improvement on the gamecube. With Revolution they have to start over and play the game harder..be more agressive. its correlative. It needs to have more games.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: bmfrosty on May 25, 2005, 09:27:19 PM
The more I think about it, the more it becomes clear. The company that matters most has to be Square-Enix. Final Fantasy fans will follow it wherever it goes, and there are a huge number of Final Fantasy fans.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: Caillan on May 25, 2005, 09:33:45 PM
I agree, to an extent. When SE came about, I heard somebody say that no one in Japan knew who Square was and no one in America knew who Enix was. It was obviously a wild exaggeration, but you get the point. Now those two have merged, they have weight in both markets. That's something that none of the other big five really have on a consistent basis.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: ThePerm on May 25, 2005, 10:14:50 PM
it would be nice if Nintendo threw some money around and got sega up and running the way it should be.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: bmfrosty on May 25, 2005, 11:26:40 PM
Quote Originally posted by: ThePerm it would be nice if Nintendo threw some money around and got sega up and running the way it should be.
They should scoop up Sega's stars - Yuji Naka, Tetsuya Mizuguchi - as they leave Sammy in frustration and give them their own studios. Then they should pick up Sega's IP and Assets when Sammy eventually has a fire sale when they go out of business.
Can you tell that I'm bitter?
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: BigJim on May 26, 2005, 01:14:19 AM
I've mentioned it before and I think it's still valid. There's a difference between making games for everybody, and making "everybody games".
Nintendo offers the latter, and I think it hurts. It comes down to better 3rd party support. Offer many varied RPGs, not just a few throughout a system's lifespan. Offer great mature games, and not just a handful of token releases. The list goes on.
Most of GameCube's best sellers were games with star power and games that were "safe". The lack of vast support and the release of these "safe" and "everybody" games pigeonholed Nintendo and GameCube into their current state. They need to burst out of that bubble and provide OPTIONS.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 26, 2005, 08:17:20 AM
"There's a difference between making games for everybody, and making 'everybody games'."
No doubt. Nintendo's strategy is that every game should be for everybody. But that's not a good strategy. It results in a very homogenous lineup. If you don't like one Nintendo game odds are you aren't going to like any of them. Though for us fans we end up liking almost everything for that same reason but variety is still needed. Sony makes a console that's for everyone because there's such variety. Nearly everyone can find their own niche on a Playstation.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: couchmonkey on May 26, 2005, 12:34:15 PM
I think Nintendo offers a pretty wide variety. Real variety can only come from third parties, anyway. Nintendo could certainly inject a bit more variety into its own lineup, but to offer a large selection of varied RPGs like BigJim suggests, it has to have help, or else devote 30% of it's resources to developing RPGs. I think third party support is the big key too, and I'd like to see Nintendo be very competitive in that area. It's going to be especially important if Revolution is very different from the other consoles, because that may scare some devs and publishers away.
Other than third-party support, I think the company needs to be aggressive with marketing and avoid slip-ups like the Super Mario Sunshine campaign. Oh yeah, and a great launch lineup would help too.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 26, 2005, 11:19:57 PM
No doubt. Nintendo's strategy is that every game should be for everybody.
I can't think of anything to prove that claim, care to back that up?
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: trip1eX on May 27, 2005, 05:58:49 AM
Nintendo needs to add a few more 'kewl' titles to their lineup. At the same time they need to get the major third party releases to appear on the Revolution without those titles being just an afterthought. Also they need to get some third parties to fill in the holes in their lineup. A racing sim. A GTA-type game. etc. This is what one of Nintendo's execs said. Hopefully they'll work on that.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: jasonditz on May 27, 2005, 06:26:03 AM
Didn't EA provide racing sims? Wasn't True Crime pretty GTA-like (right down to the annoying celebrity voice-overs)?
RPGs are a more pressing issue. The Cube didn't get its first good original RPG titles stateside until last year. That's just not acceptable at all. They need to fashion some money hats for Namco (soon to be Namco-Bandai) because they're the only third party that seems both willing and able to make a decent RPG for a Nintendo console at this point.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 27, 2005, 07:19:23 AM
"I can't think of anything to prove that claim, care to back that up?"
Most of Nintendo's games are family-friendly ie: they are suitable for everyone. Plus they tend to make their games have very mass appeal. You don't see too many really hardcore niche games from Nintendo. Everything is designed to be a million seller. Plus I've noticed they usually go with a medium to easy level of difficulty, again likely to appeal to everyone. Many of their third party deals are also designed for mass appeal. Virtually everything Nintendo makes is a blockbuster.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: jasonditz on May 27, 2005, 08:19:42 AM
Quote Originally posted by: Ian Sane Virtually everything Nintendo makes is a blockbuster.
You've got to be the only person on the planet who can say that as if it's a bad thing.
Seriously though, why does everyone keep equating "hardcore" with the M rating and assuming everything with an E is "mainstream"?
You don't get more "mainstream" than GTA. It gets advertised during prime time on major channels. It sells enormous numbers. Its every bit as mainstream as Madden, or Mario for that matter.
In fact, notwithstanding their preferred rating, everything you said about Nintendo could be said about Rockstar. Everything they make is either a blockbuster (GTA) or something they hoped would be a blockbuster and wound up sucking (virtually everything else). They're not targetting niche gamers either, nor do they make their games particularly difficult.
There's a reason for that. Games cost a lot of money to make now (a lot more than they used to). You can't profitably make a game that targets 5,000-10,000 potential customers anymore (at least not on a console).
I think the funniest thing about all this though is that when I think "hardcore niche game" the only Cube title that springs immediately to mind is Ikaruga. And that got a *gasp* E rating.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: nemo_83 on May 27, 2005, 08:40:55 AM
Quote Originally posted by: Ian Sane "There's a difference between making games for everybody, and making 'everybody games'."
No doubt. Nintendo's strategy is that every game should be for everybody. But that's not a good strategy. It results in a very homogenous lineup. If you don't like one Nintendo game odds are you aren't going to like any of them. Though for us fans we end up liking almost everything for that same reason but variety is still needed. Sony makes a console that's for everyone because there's such variety. Nearly everyone can find their own niche on a Playstation.
You read my mind. Nintendo needs to stop trying to make every game for everybody. The best way to offer a game for everybody is to offer a variety of games. Thus everybody can find a game they like. I can't believe it took them between Goldeneye and RE4 to figure out that all kinds of games, including mature games, could be profitable on Nintendo systems. Yet now they have gotten rid of SK; and now I have a reason to buy a 360. More and more the REV is looking like the old games delivery machine, subtitled, "we don't have anything new left." It is the ultimate system for game collectors; but what about game players?
I don't want to see the future of Nintendo's software be melted down to games you only play with (toys). Most games today only allow you to play the game (more linear and movie like). I find the most popular games are games that allow you to do both like GTA, Halo, Goldeneye, and Zelda. Those games are balanced in that you play the game, but you also can play with the game. Those games reach across borders.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: 31 Flavas on May 28, 2005, 12:48:31 PM
Quote Originally posted by: Ian Sane
They can however find one by getting some brand new stuff out of the most talented devs in the industry.
And Nintendo itself is below these "most talented devs" ... ? Or are we putting Nintendo on its own pedestal free from compairison.
Quote I'm talking a full 3D RPG with gyms and catching wild Pokemon (none of this snagging junk) plus an online Pokemon league for training and battling.
Do you even play pokemon Ian? I'm just curious.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: SgtShiversBen on May 28, 2005, 03:23:47 PM
Pokemon wouldn't work on an online level. With that, you'd get cheaters galore with Action Replay's help. Not to mention to whole aspect of Pokemon was to be able to battle and trade. Battling would be great, but the cheaters would flock there. Trading wouldn't be great becuase you could start out the game, meet some person who'll give you every last POkemon for Wurmples and Caterpries.
An online Pokemon is an illusion, something that can't be achieved realistically if they try to maintain the way that we play it on the Game Boys. Find a way to solve those problems and it'll be bliss for Pokemaniacs everywhere.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 30, 2005, 07:18:48 AM
"Trading wouldn't be great becuase you could start out the game, meet some person who'll give you every last POkemon for Wurmples and Caterpries."
Can't you just do this now? When Ruby/Sapphie came out I played through the beginning multiple times so that due to Rattita trades my brother and I could start the game out with all three starters. If you don't want to do that you don't have to.
"And Nintendo itself is below these 'most talented devs' ... ?"
I meant most talented third party devs.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: SgtShiversBen on May 30, 2005, 09:24:44 AM
You can, just with it being online it'd be MUCH MUCH easier for everyone. With me, no one I know play Pokemon (any color) so I'm stuck with having to fend for myself. Whereas if it was online, I woudln't even have to try.
Also, the whole experience of seeing the person that you're trading/battling with is gone. And that's just sad.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: Arbok on May 30, 2005, 10:17:35 AM
Quote Originally posted by: SgtShiversBen Also, the whole experience of seeing the person that you're trading/battling with is gone. And that's just sad.
So wait, you still can't trade face-to-face with someone? You are acting as if adding online play would force them to remove the current methods of trading from the games... Online play would be an addition, they wouldn't have to canabilze current features to add it.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: jasonditz on May 30, 2005, 10:17:36 AM
If Nintendo did do a MMO Pokemon they could always do a server-side inventory and insist that all trades be somehow balanced (i.e. you can trade your lvl 49 Charizard for a lvl 44-54 Blastoise, but not a lvl 3 Geodude).
Of course MMO probably implies per month fee, and Nintendo doesn't want to do anything like that...
I dunno, with bandwidth and storage and processing power prices coming down, and a Pokemon MMO game without monthly fees probably good for 5 million sales worldwide at a minimum, maybe its possible?
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 30, 2005, 10:37:14 AM
"If Nintendo did do a MMO Pokemon"
Don't anyone assume my suggestion is an MMO. I'm suggesting a kick ass single player RPG that has online multiplayer for battles and trading. This would require no fees and no sh!tty MMO gameplay. It's Gameboy Pokemon in 3D with the link cable features expanded to allow online play.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: PugGTI on May 30, 2005, 09:43:37 PM
IMO they need to expand internally with a few more first-party developers, either by starting ground up or buying out other teams. This way they could concentrate on "new" games and genres as compared to games like Mario Party 12.5. Exclusivity and uniqueness are the key.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: pudu on May 30, 2005, 09:56:58 PM
Quote Originally posted by: PugGTI IMO they need to expand internally with a few more first-party developers, either by starting ground up or buying out other teams. This way they could concentrate on "new" games and genres as compared to games like Mario Party 12.5. Exclusivity and uniqueness are the key.
I have to agree. One of the best things about any Nintendo console is the AAA exclusive games they make for their own consoles. While I love the sequels and the nostalgia and that comfortable feeling that comes along with them I also would like Nintendo to focus more on creating new and exciting game franchises. They make a couple more great buyouts like they did with Retro, grab some good tallent to expand their current studios, and then focus on knocking everyones socks off with a brand new franchise using a brand new controler/interface and there is going to be something the non-Nintendo console owners are going to envy.
Capitalizing on the one-two punch of excellent quality exclusive games AND the play experience only capable on the Revolution will draw in the masses. Throw in some franchises for different age groups and even "non-gamers" like they are talking about and they might just have something here
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: bmfrosty on May 30, 2005, 10:23:20 PM
I'd love to see them get Q entertainment and Mizuguchi. Absolutely great developer.
Title: RE: What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on May 31, 2005, 11:23:26 AM
Nintendo needs to bring the next interface to the table.
The gap between you and the your virtual self is dewindling. As of now, controllers are needed. Still, those games that make the controller "transperant" and feel as if your in the game, are by far the most fun.
In SSB, an elite who wants to roll and dodge, doesn't think about pressing R and the direction....No...they just do it as if were a reflex (like walking is). If the controls aren't intuitive enough, then it takes far longer to reach that point (and ultimately, enough time to make most people lose interest). This is where Nintendo has to suceed. Making a controller that is very inuitive and that also allows for a degree of control not seen yet, is a key or essentially a bridge that makes gaming all mental.
When a game is all mental, your virtual self does exactly what you'd do in any given situation. Battling someone else who has reached that same level allows for a battle of wits to take place. Strategy is the basis of all games, so when your strategy succeeds it is very fulfilling.
I think Nintendo knows this, and it is the exact reason as to why they are down-playing graphics. Games like Contra, though very simple, were incredibly addictive. It was intuitive, and from the get go I was the person jumping, running, and shooting. I was put through hell where I attacked villians to save my own life, and because it was me who was playing, it felt very rewarding when I came out on top.
Nintendo's launch game is going to be intuitive heavy, but that doesn't mean it'll be simplistic. Contra wasn't simplistic in the time it was made. However, the same level of pick-up and play will be there.
Once they drop the controller bomb, I think we'll know exactly how games will incorperate both deep orginality and intuitive gameplay.
Title: RE:What needs to happen for the Revolution to take back the marketshare.
Post by: jasonditz on May 31, 2005, 11:33:25 AM
Quote Originally posted by: PugGTI IMO they need to expand internally with a few more first-party developers, either by starting ground up or buying out other teams. This way they could concentrate on "new" games and genres as compared to games like Mario Party 12.5. Exclusivity and uniqueness are the key.
Nintendo isn't making the Mario Party games anyhow, you can thank Hudson for those.