Post by: JonLeung on December 09, 2005, 08:23:58 AM
How likely do you guys think it would be, though, honestly? We can all see that the Nintendo Revolution is something different. But for the first year or so, when people have recently spent multiple hundreds of dollars on an Xbox 360 and/or PS3, they may not feel the desire to put down a couple more for the Revolution even though it's cheaper and revolutionary. There will be enough games on the other two to keep them busy or distracted from Nintendo stuff as well.
Could Nintendo actually get back into first place? Will "Nintendo" once again be nearly synonymous with video games in general? What would that mean to the industry? What would that mean for Nintendo fans? What would that mean for those anti-Nintendo fanboys that refuse to even accept Nintendo's contributions to the gaming world?
I'm a big Nintendo fan, and I would like to see Nintendo at least do better. Maybe I underestimate the revolutionariness of the system or overestimate the stubbornness of the world to continue excluding Nintendo in all their game-related talk.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 09, 2005, 09:28:35 AM
1. The remote really does become the standard Nintendo wants it to be and gaming is forever changed. To pull this off Nintendo needs to ultimate game to sell this concept. Something as significant as Super Mario Bros or Super Mario 64 that influences all games that follow it. This is doable because Nintendo's done it twice before but it's still incredibly iffy just because games like that don't out to often and it's incredibly exception for Nintendo to have even done it twice. To do it three times would undoubtably make them by far the greatest game developer of all time.
2. The non-gamer market embraces the Rev and turns out to be so huge that the non-gamer console sells more systems then the gamer consoles. Though at that point I would consider the Rev as something else belonging to a different market and regardless of sales the PS3 or X360 would be the ideal choice for gamers and would still get most of the "gamer" games. Who cares if one console sells better if its target demo is a group entirely outside of the current gaming market. The existing gamers might as well stick to the consoles where the games designed for them are still made.
I think it would benefit us best if scenario 1 occured. In fact scenario 2 would be no different to me then Nintendo going out of business.
It's probably not going to happen though. I'd say the most realistic postive outcome would be Nintendo going up for a change and increasing their market share. You have to start winning games before you start winning cups. I think Nintendo needs a generation of serious recovery before being a threat to the number one position again.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on December 09, 2005, 09:40:16 AM
Post by: PaLaDiN on December 09, 2005, 10:06:15 AM
Ian I wouldn't worry much about 2 because Nintendo has always made and will always make Nintendo games. You're really being paranoid about this for some reason.
I think the most plausible scenario would be Nintendo using number 2 to hook an unprecedented number of people into playing games... at which point the "non-gamers" would become actual gamers and join the rest of us. The way I see it most people ignore games for completely retarded reasons. Games really need a hook that sells them to the populace at large, that makes them just as much a viable entertainment option as movies or music... and once that happens, the gaming market could expand like never before with Nintendo on top.
Post by: JonLeung on December 09, 2005, 10:09:14 AM
Nintendo knows how to make games - and as revolutionary as their ideals are I believe their games would still have grounding in traditional gameplay. You may feel more as if you're interacting within a game environment if you're swinging your controller around, but it's still going to be a game in any sense of the word.
Try to tell someone that Animal Crossing or Nintendogs are non-games, and they'll be like "so what are they then?" They lack a genre, their goals aren't defined...but that doesn't mean they should be sold in a separate section as games. (There was talk about trying to sell Nintendogs in pet shops, but I've never seen that - but that's only because they believed the dogs were realistic enough and comparable to real dogs.)
I think only the most stubborn gamers would try and lump Revolution games as their own separate entity - but by giving them that honour, they'd also be saying that they deserve their own title, which isn't what they would want.
Basically, what I mean is, if they sell a lot of Revolutions, anyone interested in gaming would have to take notice.
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 09, 2005, 10:14:14 AM
With the Nintendo 64 and Super Mario 64 once again Nintendo affected technology with a great game. Sure Sega beat them to the market with an analog controller, but it sucked compared to the precision that the Nintendo 64 had. Along with that precision Nintendo showed how to make a 3D platformer.
Since then there hasn't been an industry changing game like Mario Brothers or Mario 64. The reason why is because technology hasn't changed. It has stayed the same.
Nintendo is the only company truly set this next generation to come up with that new industry changing event game...because they are embrassing technology change and advancement, and fusing it great new games.
Between the games we all know are coming out. I suggest that Nintendo probably has 3 games that could change the industry direction.
Mario Revolution easily has the legacy to bring about change. With the controller the new Mario game can show how truly engaging video games can be to a whole new group of people, and reawaken that since of wonder and magic, I believe is missing from the current generation of video games.
Metriod Prime 3. Although it is just a first person shooter, it literally could redefine the defination of first person shooter. Finally you are able to actually point and SHOOT, instead of move a cursor over something and shoot. The difference is a major change in feel and satisfaction. This could lead developers to engage in the question, how can I get that new feeling in RPGs, Sports Games, Racing, and so on.
Smash Brothers Revolution: You say fighting games are impossible with this new controller. I ask you, to imagine what it might feel like to have complete control of your attacks in pure 360 degree mayhem. I can easily control my figure with the analog stick and buttons below, and control my fighting with the wand. If the game plays well, and engages players to think outside the box in terms of fighting, it can awaken a new genre of games. Since this is also online, expect players to form their own unique fighting styles and techniques that may not have been dreamed up before.
Revolution is about EXPERIENCING the Game...not just playing it. With that in mind, nothing the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 are doing will ever change the experience of games. And that is what Nintendo did to create its great sphere of influence with Super Mario Brothers, and Super Mario 64 before hand.
Post by: PaLaDiN on December 09, 2005, 10:14:51 AM
The main hurdle I see is that games like Spak-Spang is talking about don't seem to be that far along. I'd love Nintendo to prove me wrong but SSB Rev's development just started recently and I don't want it to be rushed. That means that, just like the DS, the games that first come out for the Rev will probably be mostly experimental games and ports... it won't really shine until the proper games come out a few months later, and by then people will have formed their opinion of it.
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 09, 2005, 10:31:39 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 09, 2005, 10:31:45 AM
What I mean is that Nintendo makes something so different to attract non-gamers that they end up making a whole new past time different than gaming. So they sell more systems but it's like comparing DVD players to i-Pods. It's like how some people think virtual reality is the same thing as videogames. I wouldn't consider it that. To me it's something different.
Spak-Spang I totally get what you're saying about a change in technology bringing about a change in gaming. The only difference I find though between those examples and the Rev is that the Rev seems forced. Before Super Mario Bros 2D obviously already existed and there were sidescrollers like Pitfall. Things seemed to be going in that direction already and Nintendo just made a big impact that speeded things up. It was the same with Super Mario 64. Polygon games like Virtua Racing, Virtua Fighter and Star Fox already existed and the Playstation came out a year before and was a console specifically designed for 3D games. Everyone already thought 3D was the future.
There however isn't really anything pointing towards waving a wand around as the future. There was the Eyetoy but no one really considered that as anything but a nifty toy. Before Nintendo took what everyone wanted and showed them how to do it right. No one really was asking for the Rev concept until Nintendo showed it to us. Before they took an existing concept and perfected it. Now they're introducing the concept. That's a big difference.
I don't think HD is really the future either, not in the sense that anyone is going to use it in such a way that it will change gaming forever. In fact I don't think anyone can. I'd say the future for console gaming is online play as it has been tinkered with but not fully broken through yet. The demand however is there and it really just needs someone to show us the potential of how it can be used. In other words it needs Nintendo to show us how to do online right.
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 09, 2005, 11:12:19 AM
Once non-gamers begin playing games, THEY BECOME GAMERS.
Some aspects of the Revolution will appeal to people who do not play games (my mother already wants one at the house, and she's lost interest in games since Wave Race 64, up til the DS came out). Others will appeal immensely to gamers. Some will be in-between. It's ignorant to think Nintendo will abandon "gamers". They'll just lead non-gamers to realize they can enjoy "gamer" games.
Post by: Deguello on December 09, 2005, 11:36:16 AM
Its weird where everybody fantasizes that games will one day be like those on the Star Trek holodecks, but will fight and resist every single step towards that goal.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on December 09, 2005, 11:59:28 AM
Quote
Its weird where everybody fantasizes that games will one day be like those on the Star Trek holodecks, but will fight and resist every single step towards that goal.
Your comment is very interesting in that it begs the question why? What is the cause of this resistance?
Is it due to the fear of change?
The fear that it won't pan out well?
Laziness on the part of the gamer, not wanting to put in the effort which may result due to this greater interaction?
Post by: Ian Sane on December 09, 2005, 12:07:22 PM
Once non-gamers begin playing games, THEY BECOME GAMERS."
But wouldn't they only be interested in the types of games that brought them to the table? Like if I'm not interested in games now and require something different to get my attention why would I like the games I was never interested in in the first place? Wouldn't I just want more of the new different non-games that attracted me in the first place? I don't think that those who don't play game are intimidated. I think they're just not interested. Thus they'll never be "gamers" in the sense that they'll have the same tastes we do.
I see it less as getting people interested in gaming as much as changing gaming to accomodate those that currently aren't interested in it.
"It's like playing video games is some sort of club that they don't want the girls or the older people or the people who have been disenfranchised by analog triggers and R3 buttons."
I like gaming. If someone else don't like gaming I don't care. I don't want gaming potentially turned into something I don't like so that those who don't like it can join in. I hate the idea that everything has to accomodate everybody. Screw that. If you don't like something the way it is but a lot of other people do then find something else to do.
Post by: JonLeung on December 09, 2005, 12:22:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Avinash_Tyagi
Laziness on the part of the gamer, not wanting to put in the effort which may result due to this greater interaction?
That could be one factor. I'd gotten into some heated discussions with others. I can point out some of the things I like about Nintendo, but they feel like they don't have to believe me. They have enough to keep them busy with the competition. I can insist on my opinion, and though they may agree that there's not much factually "wrong" about what I say, they say "why can't Nintendo advertise this more aggressively if this is as great as you say?" I'm 25 now, and I've struggled with this most in my high school and university years in particular, as everyone becomes more busy and henceforth can't be bothered to "research" what games are coming out for what consoles. So if it's not put in their face, they've never heard of it. And if all that's put in their face is Pokémon, they're not bound to see what else there is.
I think people are just disenfranchised or whatever with Nintendo. They see Nintendo in last place, so then they see innovations such as those in the Revolution (assuming they've even read anything about it) as an act of desparation. And with a lack of information at the moment, not even screenshots, the laziness of finding what little there is and their disinterest to begin with keeps them from getting excited. The market leader, Sony, probably never considered changing games. Look at their controller. The buttons are the same. They just want better graphics. If not for the "Cell" processor (which could fall by the wayside like the PS2's "Emotion Engine"), you could pretty much say they're sticking with the status quo, and all those who blindly follow them because of their marketing will probably agree that that is fine. Sure, it's boring compared to what the Revolution promises, but it's a "safe" choice - they'll know what to expect from it.
When Nintendo is ready to begin marketing the Revolution, they should probably demonstrate it in as many places as they can, as often as they can. The DS tours in Toys R Uses and Best Buys and whatnot last year were nice, but the Revolution, promising so much, should be put in everyone's faces. Then those who support the Xboxes and PlayStations just because of laziness to follow whatever sounds hot will actually see it as a viable alternative. Once it gets hot enough, then it'll be easier for the lemmings to follow.
Post by: stevey on December 09, 2005, 12:34:33 PM
"What would that mean for Nintendo fans?"
Happy hour
"What would that mean for those anti-Nintendo fanboys that refuse to even accept Nintendo's contributions to the gaming world?"
DEATH!!! to the infidels
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on December 09, 2005, 12:36:57 PM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on December 09, 2005, 01:38:49 PM
Nintendo is like a buffet. There are people with trays offering small but deeply satisfying finger foods to a sea of potential buffet diners. Once these people actually try the food and acknowledge its rarety, the tray people point them to the buffet where they can help themselves to some more.
Now these people head over, and look! There's more just like that guy said, but they can't help but notice the other wonderful foods (that, although different, are just as tempting and even more satisfying.) So out of plain curiousity, the people take a couple of what they had already, but a variety of foods they've never seen.
Post by: ShyGuy on December 09, 2005, 02:23:19 PM
Post by: Kairon on December 09, 2005, 02:47:41 PM
Why do Nintendo gamers enjoy Zelda? It isn't merely a videogame, it is an attempt by Miyamoto to recreate his childhood experiences of discovering and exploring underground caves. Why do we enjoy Pikmin? It's an abstraction of the experience gardening! Where did Mario come from? It came from Miyamoto's day dreams of "invisible blocks" in the air above him. What's the allure of Animal Crossing? The communication and community aspects that Nintendo imbued in it.
At the core of every Nintendo game is not a game, but an idea, an experience, an emotion. And these core values are universal. Others may look at the controller and fear that everything they know will be ending. Nintendo fans look at the controller and see a long line of Nintendo giving them the exact same sense of wonder, excitement, magic and excellence throughtout countless years, games, and control methods.
That's why Nintendo gamers need not fear what the future will bring, need not fear what marketshare Nintendo has, need not fear an explosion of diversity and invention and growth... as long as that same future brings them a Nintendo game.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ThePerm on December 09, 2005, 03:58:54 PM
Post by: ThePerm on December 09, 2005, 04:20:19 PM
edit: damnit it was a double post....roar goes back to like 2000...iv been saying roar for double posts since about then
Post by: MysticGohan24 on December 09, 2005, 04:30:02 PM
He used to have something constructive yet witty to say.
Now it's like someone related to stevey, hijacked Perms account
and has made a mockery of perm's formal self.
it's a sad site to behold ladies and gentleman.
God help us all!!
Post by: BigJim on December 09, 2005, 04:43:08 PM
SMB and Mario 3 were killer apps. SMW was good, but didn't really capture the same notoriety since much of the forumla was the same. Mario 64 created the next big change. "3D-done-right." And while the Cube had plenty of solid titles, none of them were over the top successes of the same calibur because, again, much of the formula was the same.
The thing that made SMB and Mario 64 so great was ultimately gameplay. The game proved the technology. If Nintendo makes the case for the controller with a new killer app during this next "paradigm shift," the Revolution can be big.
Post by: King of Twitch on December 09, 2005, 05:22:32 PM
Ian dies of old age and is buried with his Revolution.
Post by: eljefe on December 09, 2005, 05:52:29 PM
Ian, you seem to have contradicted yourself a little. The existence of the Eyetoy (and that X-wand thing by MS) are proof that 3-D motion as a gameplay feature was “an existing concept”. It appears as if Nintendo is trying to perfect it with the Revolution. Whether it will meet with the same level of success as its predecessors remains to be seen.
Post by: JonLeung on December 09, 2005, 05:53:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
What's interesting to me, which ties into Ian's #1, is that Nintendo odd-numbered consoles (NES, N64) have been the systems with what could be considered the paradigm-shift games. The even-numbers systems (SNES and Cube) were just maturizations of the same technology.
I've always said that.
NES = 2D
Super NES = better 2D
N64 = 3D
GameCube = better 3D
Now since we can't get into four dimensions, and virtual, immersive 3D failed with the Virtual Boy, I suppose you could see the Revolution as introducing a 3D controller. As in, it allows easy movement in all three dimensions, not as in the previous controllers were thinner than a piece of paper.
I remember trying to calculate how many Nintendo consoles there would be in my lifetime. Being born in 1980, and assuming I live to be an average age of 73, I'd live 'til 2053, at least. Possibly higher thanks to health care advances, and I think the average age for Canadians is actually above 80 now. Anyway, at a new Nintendo console/generation every five years, there could be 13 or 14 generations before I bite the dust. I used to wonder how good the graphics would be. Now that Nintendo reminds us that there's more to games than just better graphics, you'd wonder what kinds of other paradigm shifts would take place before we're SMASHing and karting each other in the old folks' home, however the heck we'll be doing it then.
We could already be wirelessly online against worldwide opponents in a new Super Smash Bros. game by this time next year, making full use of an intuitive one-handed wireless 3D controller that's supposedly simple enough for anyone to use. It's kind of hard to imagine what could top that for a while. Being psychically connected against people on other planets in a new Super Smash Bros. game making use of instictive brain device controls?
Post by: eljefe on December 09, 2005, 06:07:42 PM
” What I mean is that Nintendo makes something so different to attract non-gamers that they end up making a whole new past time different than gaming.”
“I think it would benefit us best if scenario 1 occured. In fact scenario 2 would be no different to me then Nintendo going out of business.”
“I like gaming. If someone else don't like gaming I don't care. I don't want gaming potentially turned into something I don't like so that those who don't like it can join in. I hate the idea that everything has to accomodate everybody. Screw that. If you don't like something the way it is but a lot of other people do then find something else to do.”
I’m curious of one thing Ian, if Nintendo only makes the EXACT type of games YOU like and stopped all production of so-called “non-games”, would you be happy with the games you bought?
If so, why can’t you just pretend as the games you don’t like don’t exist. Don’t buy them, just enjoy your type of games.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on December 10, 2005, 03:20:12 AM
Quote
I see it this way.
Nintendo is like a buffet. There are people with trays offering small but deeply satisfying finger foods to a sea of potential buffet diners. Once these people actually try the food and acknowledge its rarety, the tray people point them to the buffet where they can help themselves to some more.
Now these people head over, and look! There's more just like that guy said, but they can't help but notice the other wonderful foods (that, although different, are just as tempting and even more satisfying.) So out of plain curiousity, the people take a couple of what they had already, but a variety of foods they've never seen.
Dammit, now I'm hungry
Post by: wandering on December 10, 2005, 04:56:53 AM
Quote
I don't think that those who don't play game are intimidated. I think they're just not interested. Thus they'll never be "gamers" in the sense that they'll have the same tastes we do.
In much the same way that apple couldn't introduce new people to mp3 players with their ipods because everyone who could possibly be interested in mp3 players already used them before ipods, and that sony couldn't introduce new people to gaming with the playstation because everyone that could possibly be interested in videogames already owned a Sega or Nintendo system.
OH WAIT.
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 10, 2005, 08:12:36 AM
Games have been slowly moving towards trying to provide new more emmersive interaction since their creation. One must only look at the constant and failed attempts at virtual Reality games in those helmets, and also the arcade game experiences where you can dance, play drums, box, shoot guns, sword fight or even play Tekken 3 by moving your body.
These games have always been overly expensive, but fun if they are designed well. The home market has never been able to reproduce those games...until now with the Revolution. Nintendo is moving the home market into more of an ARCADE experience.
It may not appear like the people were clamoring for the Nintendo Revolution Controller, but the fact is, the industry has been moving this direction for some time.
Just like Nintendo DS wasn't the first system to provide touch screen games, it was the first system to do manage a touch screen decided system that was convenient to play, and capable of creating well designed touch screen content. It wasn't being clamored for either, but now that we have it...its a create machine, and a great new interface for games.
The revolution will be the same.
Second, Paladin:
You stated that those games listed above won't be out by launch why not? Nintendo has been focused on shortening game development time for awhile.
The have teams that just work on character models and art...They have a new system that will be very easy to design for, that uses the development tools ALL of Nintendo's staff are fluent in, and fimilar with. There is no learning that needs to take place.
Last, Nintendo isn't launching till November. That alittle less than a year to get the games ready.
Mario Revolution is in testing and development phase...discovering how things should feel and play...I am willing to bet by January they will have that completed if not already. Then they are designing the actual game.
Metroid Prime 3. Retro has already experimented with the controls, and they are fast at work programming and tweaking the engine for the Revolution. Then its character and creature designs, as well as level design. I see no problem with that game launching.
Smash Brothers Revolution: The basic game mechanics and designs are already in place. (If they are basing the game after the originals and making it a 2D fighter.) Now it is discovering a control layout that works, and designing levels. Of all the games this one most likely will be delayed.
Now, that isn't even touching Nintendo's other development houses that could be fast at work at:
Wave Race Revolution
Ware Wario Revolution
Mario Party Revolution
and more.
The point is, Nintendo can have great launch lineup that proves the new controller as worthwhile. Also, don't forget 3rd party developers had actual Nintendo support suggesting how to design their popular games around the controller, and I am sure that is helping them create new ideas themselves.
3rd party support will be there this November...and if we buy their games they will be around for the entire generation.
Post by: trip1eX on December 10, 2005, 08:31:09 AM
I think they have a chance because of this state that we're in with hdtv and sdtv. We're transitioning right now. Sony and MS have said hdtv now despite the fact most folks don't have hdtv. So I think Nintendo has a chance to sneak in and do well because most folks have regular tvs. $400 console plus hdtv or $150 Rev with next-gen controller and games for a couple of years?
I think about the 360 and/or PS3, but I'm not going to get one until I grab an hdtv and I don't really want a big ass 27" cheap hdtv. I want a nice slim 50" widescreen. So I'm delaying the purchase so far.
The Revolution on the other hand no one has to think twice about especially if it's $150.
The sad news is the Revolution should be launching sooner rather than later. The longer it waits the more folks will buy hdtvs and thus the other consoles are more attractive perhaps.
Being a big pcgamer I really do think 1st person 3d games will rock with the controller. And being that these are the games folks love in the US I think it's a big plus here. They really need some 3rd party NA developers tho on board with their games.
Nintendo themselves will always release great games and sell well but to attract current gamers you're going to need some hip stuff with blood and swearing and voicework.
ON the other hand I can see lots of families buying the Rev because of it's new way to play games.
Post by: ThePerm on December 10, 2005, 09:32:46 AM
2. More variety than you could shake a stick at.
3. More third party support than I remember for Gamecube
4. A badass controller that everyone WILL fall in love with
5. If 40 percent of people on the other conmsoles buy it as a second console...and then you add the people who buy it as their first or only console it would in fact make it number one.
6. If its cheap as hell as everyone is proclaiming.
7 Mario, Zelda, Metroid
8 First Person Shooters
9 Music Games
10 the conversion factor
i dont think revolution will be an instant hit...but i think it will sneak up like playstation did.
i mean playstation had terrible popup, ugly textures, and horribly low resolution, lower polygons then the already low polygon n64 games...yeah it was plain ugly...yet because of the fmv it was still number 1.
Post by: IceCold on December 10, 2005, 09:37:39 AM
But see the problem is that Mario 128 has been in the "experimenting" stage since Sunshine, and I really don't want to see SSBR or MP3 rushed - even if they're easy to develop, I want them polished and the best they can be whenever they launch.
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 10, 2005, 10:21:56 AM
Post by: PaLaDiN on December 10, 2005, 11:02:09 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on December 10, 2005, 11:08:55 AM
Post by: TerribleOne on December 10, 2005, 01:02:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
I'm of the opinion that Twilight Princess was delayed for other reasons than not being ready for release on the gamecube
I agree... I think it was a big ploy (and gamble) just to shorten the wait for the Rev cuz the game looked very well for the footage we saw ages ago.
This wait is slowly gettin to me... specially with a hdtv in my room beggin to be used properly...
we're like addicts and right now we need our rev hit!!!
Post by: ThePerm on December 10, 2005, 02:48:06 PM
Post by: IceCold on December 10, 2005, 04:59:06 PM
Post by: zakkiel on December 10, 2005, 06:50:19 PM
QuoteAhem. Not all of us have the DS, because not all of us have much need for portable gaming. Just thought I'd point that out.
Those bastards! How could they force us to buy such low-quality titles like Fire Emblem, Mario Kart, and Animal Crossing?
Post by: IceCold on December 10, 2005, 07:18:50 PM
. But Perm could be talking about Nintendo products in general in his post 
Nevertheless, throw Strikers in there too.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 10, 2005, 09:47:03 PM
Post by: IceCold on December 10, 2005, 10:49:50 PM
QuoteAnd the atmosphere and service are not necessarily as good as Sony or MS's restaurants, since they have spent a ridiculous amount of money to make everything artificially seem good. However, in the end, what's more important; the food or the presentation?
Originally posted by: Don'tHate742
I see it this way.
Nintendo is like a buffet. There are people with trays offering small but deeply satisfying finger foods to a sea of potential buffet diners. Once these people actually try the food and acknowledge its rarety, the tray people point them to the buffet where they can help themselves to some more.
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on December 10, 2005, 11:00:56 PM
Post by: PaLaDiN on December 10, 2005, 11:21:24 PM
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on December 11, 2005, 04:11:58 AM
EDIT: Focus isn't a good word...their goal should be to force MS to pull a Sega.
Post by: Kairon on December 11, 2005, 05:37:29 AM
Microsoft will NEVER run out of money.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: ThePerm on December 11, 2005, 07:50:08 AM
i wish the government had broken them up
Post by: KDR_11k on December 11, 2005, 08:04:47 AM
Post by: JonLeung on December 11, 2005, 09:56:18 AM
Nintendo's come this far with practically just games (playing cards, toys, and Yamauchi's love hotel and other past things aside) and so just looking at the competition's game departments only, supposedly Nintendo is very much the winner.
The Nintendo fan in me wants Nintendo to be the winner in the hearts and minds of gamers besides just the investors, though.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 11, 2005, 10:20:11 AM
Post by: Kairon on December 11, 2005, 11:37:49 AM
If you're expecting Microsoft to get cold feet... well, think again.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on December 11, 2005, 08:21:59 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 12, 2005, 07:35:05 AM
It's an existing concept yes but it's not one in demand like 3D was. Being like three years old at the time I can't say for certain how things were when Super Mario Bros came out but in the mid 90s 3D was THE thing. There was a lot of demand for it. There isn't really demand for the Eyetoy. No one takes it seriously. When games like Star Fox and Virtual Racing came out those who played them were like "yeah, I want more of this". I don't think anyone feels that way about the Eyetoy.
And I agree with anyone who said that DS games don't count when you're talking about the Cube. They don't. It should never be assumed that someone owns both systems. Hell Nintendo doesn't even think the two crossover. Numerous times they've released a really major game on both the Cube and the GBA at roughly the same time. If they felt the two userbases were the same then they would probably space things out and not release Pokemon and Zelda a mere week from each other.
Post by: couchmonkey on December 12, 2005, 08:27:47 AM
Whether or not Nintendo will take first place is very much up in the air, I think this is a big gamble, but I think it offers a much better chance of a big improvement in marketshare than releasing another traditional system. I agree with Ian that must-have games will be key to the system's success. Quality marketing will also matter, especially if Nintendo is to capture non-gamers. My guess is that the company will see a good improvement in marketshare, but probably not to first place. If Nintendo did come in first, even if it was heavily on the backs of non-gamers, I think we'd still see better traditional game support than the Cube. I think there will be a big enough group of hardcore gamers on the system to support traditional games no matter what.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 12, 2005, 09:05:21 AM
You're right. I forgot about arcades because, well, there aren't any in my town anymore. It hasn't been really tested out much on consoles yet, at least not like 3D was, but yeah there is some precedence I overlooked.
Though I really don't like the direction arcades have taken and really don't want consoles to do the same. Considering how arcades have practically fallen off the face of the Earth in North America I'm probably not the only person who feels this way and this brings about a whole new Japan vs. North America discussion. In Japan this stuff is huge but not so much here and imagine there's a reason for that.
Arcade vs. console plays a big part in it too. In arcades you want a quick fun experience. You want something longer with consoles. Ever play a game you used to love in the arcade on a console and found it boring beyond belief after five minutes? A whole console feature designed around the current arcade experience runs the risk of getting boring too soon.
Is there some demand? Yeah there is and I see that now. Is there some demand for it in consoles? That depends. Are you thinking "man I want to play this all the time" or are you really thinking "man I wish I could play this for free for a little while"?
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 12, 2005, 03:13:25 PM
Now if you take the same arcade experience and flesh it out you will get a console game. Think about it. Racing games used to be played solely in the arcades, but now they are a staple for consoles. So were fighting games, and still developers were able to flesh out the experience and make it worth playing at home.
Arcades didn't die out because people didn't want to play arcade like games anymore. They died out because home console systems caught up with the technology of arcade systems with graphics and such...then surpassed them with easier and simplier control.
Arcades have slowly made a come back with more interactive experiences. Dance, Dance Revolution, Guitar Hero, Police 911, The boxing game, The Sword Fight Game, 2 Player Time Crisis 3. All these games can't be enjoyed at home, in the same manner you can play them in the arcade.
Until now. The Revolution can simulate many of those same experiences with a simple wand controller (or two.)
The company doesn't have to make them simple games either, just borrow the mechanics of the arcade game and include them into an epic console game.
Post by: couchmonkey on December 13, 2005, 06:00:03 AM
Can they find a way to translate these experiences to home consoles and keep them interesting? Well, if any company can do it, it's Nintendo.
I also think it's a question of personal taste. I really enjoy a lot of arcade-like games. I don't have the time I used to for videogames, so something I can pick up and play for 20 minutes actually appeals to me as much a huge epic nowdays. I still want the huge epics, though, and I'm willing to bet Nintendo can produce a good one. I have my fingers crossed for Super Mario 128 to turn out to be something really special.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 13, 2005, 06:38:50 AM
It's a strength for a game that is only meant to be played for a few minutes but it's a huge flaw for a console game. Console games need length. If you can beat a game an hour after buying it you feel ripped off. Length can come from replay value but that only works if the game is difficult enough that you can't beat it in one try. Arcade design is fine if the game is built like an NES/SNES game: challenging and with no save points. Modern game design tends to give games like that unlimited lives and save capabilities and as a result the game is ridiculously short. It can be done but considering that Nintendo keeps making their games easier I don't really trust them to do it right. Judging by a lot of games these days I hardly trust any developer to do arcade-style games right.
And while these games can be very fun you need more than that. The console can't just be designed for games like that. You also need epics. You need games designed in such a way that you stay up all night the day you get it.
Personally I stopped going to arcades because everything started costing a dollar to play. Screw that. I could buy a chocolate bar for that and know that I'll like it. If I don't like this game or I suck at it I waste a whole dollar. One advantage about quarter games is that as a kid I couldn't really buy much else for a quarter so an arcade felt like a good deal. Plus the prices have quadrupled! When I was a kid chocolate bars cost $0.75 Canadian. Using arcade game inflation it would cost $3 now!
Post by: animecyberrat on December 20, 2005, 06:56:57 AM
its the saem with sports games peopel like to sit down and playa 15 min match for fun others like to play for teh full length and simulate a real game. the only Genere that SHOULD take forever to play is RPGS and even sometimes you want a quick rpg to fly threw just for a good story or whatever.
Just cuz a game is a home console game doesnt mean it should take hours to play or have extreme difficlulty. I like some games to be long and otehres to be short. I like how I can sit down and BEAT sonic the hedgehog start to finish in about an hour or so. Cant do that with Zelda but who would want to? Also I recently retried Mario 64 on my N64 and quess what, its short enough to play in a single day too, once you figure out how to use the controls and get confortable. Yet thast hailded as oen of teh reatest games of all time. Some games are just better off short fast and fun esperiences while others need deptha nd challenge and such, but to say EVERY game should be long and hard and ahve a deep story is missing alot of the point, after all we are talking about GAMES not lifelong quests. Sorry for the rant but I hate when peopel say video games should be long and need substance cuz thats BS.
I want teh rev to get some good games taht yo can pick up and playf or a few minutes and have fun, but I also want games that will have deptha nd story and such, there needs to be a balance and yu need to balance your time playingi games as well, noone needs to make playing a video game his or her life.
Post by: JonLeung on December 20, 2005, 08:43:16 AM
There's no advantage to a shorter game. If you don't want to play it for long, then don't play all the modes; no one's making you play it all.
It's not BS to say you want games to be longer, since games can be resumed a later time. I would personally want more gameplay for my money. My film studies teacher was complaining that other people were complaining that some movies were too long these days. When we're paying $15 (Canadian) for a movie in a theatre, why would we complain about an extra hour of movie? At least unlike movies you can save your game and come back later if it's a matter of scheduling. I don't know how I'd feel about a 300-hour RPG but since very few games are even a tenth that and still feel short I don't think I need to worry about them getting too long anytime soon. I don't think anyone would program a game that long if it was story-based...a good chunk of my 200+ hours in Pokémon Ruby was watering berries so that I'd have a hundred of each. Oh yeah, and also catching them all.
Post by: Caterkiller on December 20, 2005, 09:08:19 AM
Post by: animecyberrat on December 20, 2005, 10:08:24 AM
Not every game should have hours of reply sometimes yu just want to sit down and playa fast game. It depends on the type of game though. I like RPGs to be long and emmersive as with adventure games, but I like some games to be just pick up and play and not have to worry about saving cuz I knwo I can sit down and finish it in one sitting if I chose to.
But I understand different peopel have different tatstes but to say a game is bad just cuz its too short is not a good point in my opinion, sometimes agame should be short. take TMNT for example, I beat that game first day I played it and it was still fun to reply with friends. It wasnt about unlocking extras or getting threw teh story it was just about beating peopel up and aving fun, there is a demand for those types of games and tehrea s demand for games like Zelda and Pokemon where you spend hours a day trying to get everything there is. Thats fine too I never said its not I just said that some gamers like quick games and therefore teh gaming industry needs to keep making games for those people instead of say making every game long and deep and force peopel to sit threw a long boring game.
Soul Cxaliber was a game I chose as an example to make tehs ame point to did, if you want teh extras they are there but if you just want to fight to get to teh end you have that mode also, tahst fine for some gamers. But if a game is justa straight fighting game that pits you against difficult foes whast worng with that I ask? My favorite fighting game of all time is MK 2 and theres no extras to unlcok its just 12 fighters in like 7 different backgrounds and tahst about it but Its fun to sit down and have tournaments with friends and to go back and redo all the finsih moves, but it takes fifteen minutes to beat the game if you want to get to teh end. Sometimes I like short games but liek them to have enough content to justify teh purchase, but me i dont mind waiting for a game to go down in price to buy it because very few games are ever worth 50.00 to me cuz I know that its hard to satisfy every body.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 20, 2005, 07:32:07 PM
2. Of course games can be shorter. Short games are nice. As long as I didn't pay 60 Euros for them.
Post by: animecyberrat on December 21, 2005, 06:49:46 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on December 22, 2005, 05:27:31 AM
What "modes" do you ignore in an RPG? With that genre it's an all-or-nothing proposition, and while RPGs used to be my favourite, right now I've got both Tales of Symphonia and Skies of Arcadia collecting dust in a cupboard because I don't have 60 hours to invest in them. You can shorten an RPG by skipping some mini-games and side-quests, but usually you can expect at least 30 hours of play time.
In the end the answer is to offer a mixture of long and short games. And yeah, give people a better price on the shorter games.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 22, 2005, 05:54:28 AM
Post by: Kairon on December 22, 2005, 06:00:57 AM
Basically, quality over quantity.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on December 22, 2005, 06:51:55 AM
Post by: jasonditz on December 26, 2005, 05:57:06 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 27, 2005, 10:44:40 AM
I want to play a game that is great and the length is worth the purchase, but too long and I am going to get frustrated and possibly never finish the game. My time is valuable.
I think a great length for an RPG is between 25 and 50 hours. Depending on how deep you want the story. I hate RPGs that force me to spend tons of extra time leveling up to beat a boss. If I fight all the monsters in the area then I should be ready to fight the Boss. And I don't want regular monsters that force you to use too much magic or items to beat them which forces you to waste more time and money.
The same applies for other types of games. Show us your cool concepts and slowly expand upon them, but don't waste my time giving me 5 levels of the exact same level design just to expand the game's length.
Post by: animecyberrat on December 27, 2005, 01:41:42 PM
You know regarding the ps2/GC and Rev/PS3 market I was thinking abut what i have noticed with my friends and a lot of people I know. See every single person I know has two or three PS2 consoles, especialy after the price went down they bought more, some cuz its like a dvd player and cuz yo can play your games no matter what room your in, some just cuz they wanted the slime line and teh regular and others because their first broke down. Basicaly I was thinking if every one who bought a PS2 actualy got two of them than SOnys actual userbase is HALF what the sales would indicate. so Why didnt GC owners buy multiple consoles sicne tehya re so much cheaper and it woudl have been nice to get systems for freinds to get them to play. anywyas maybe we shoulddo that for REV. Buy our own and then when christmas rolls around get one for your best friend and then encourage him/her to do teh same and then out sell Sony using thier own tactic.
justa random observation but not every body has money to burn I guess. Damnit though cuz I did want to buy more GC for my nephews and such but NO thier parents thought PS2 was better. Ok sorry if this dont make sense just ramblingon .
Post by: JonLeung on January 02, 2006, 08:48:55 AM
They should count controller sales, not console sales...
Post by: odifiend on January 02, 2006, 09:15:10 AM
Post by: Ceric on January 02, 2006, 10:04:42 AM
If it takes us an hour to beat we just paid a dollar a minute to play a game. Wow that stinks
So how long would it actually take to get are "money worth." If we go by the mantra that time is money, .... therefore girls are evil
, then we can simplify this. Lets assume we all make minimum wage. For simplicity sake then I'll say we make $5.00/hour American, after taxes and everything this is what it about works out to. So we paid $60 dollars for the game and at are current rate of $5 an hour we have sunk 12 hours into that game alread by just buying it. To make up for this "lost" time we therefore need to get 12 hours worth of gameplay out of this game.So there you go. For me at least if I don't get 12 hours out of the game then the purchase was fiscally unsound. That is unless I am willing to pay a premium for it but that's opinion. Now if we also take into account food in the time period and electricity I'm fairly sure that would bump the game up by at least an hour so the true magic number is probably somewhere around 13 hours. So if you don't hit your 13th hour, spooky hay, then you've been gipped, fiscally wise, by the power that be.
(Ironically enough this could become even more complicated if we used oppurtunity cost.)
Post by: jasonditz on January 02, 2006, 10:24:43 AM
I'd love to see some RPGs that push 100 hours of gameplay with 100 hours of actual content. Might and Magic 2 for the Genesis was a perfect example of this. I got easily 100 hours of original gameplay out of this, doing side quests... exploring obscure dungeons off the beaten path, creating extraneous parties to explore certain dungeons that were off limits to my race/class combos. I paid $70 for it when it came out, and I got every dime out of it and more. If there was a current game like that, for any system, I'd gladly do it again.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 02, 2006, 10:50:36 AM
Post by: IceCold on January 02, 2006, 11:07:09 AM
But then you'll "lose" 12 MORE hours by playing the game
Post by: JonLeung on January 02, 2006, 02:23:00 PM
Like, opportunity cost makes things scary. Like buying lottery tickets. By the law of opportunity cost, where maximum value is concerned, that means every time I'm NOT choosing a winning number, I'm losing an average of a few million dollars. o_0
But yes, time of playing the game could be considered a "waste", as much as I often think otherwise.
I really like Pokémon and Animal Crossing because of the hundreds (or couple hundreds) of hours of play time they can give me, but for most people my age (mid-20s) they wouldn't even look at them. That's another issue altogether, of course, but I'm not sure they can justify some of the purchases they've made in the past - skipping class to buy and play The Bouncer, and then finishing it in one sitting? Come on. I still often wonder why more people aren't like me - playing the majority of games I ever play on rentals since a rental is all it takes to finish most games, even 100%. Now that Blockbuster has one-week rentals on even new games and the elimination of late fees, and various online rental alternatives, why even buy games that you have the slightest chance of getting bored with at any point? But not buying games is also another issue.
(Funny thing is, I live in Canada, so when you say $60, if I'm, thinking 60 Canadian dollars, that sounds to me like a normal price of a game. Or at least, not a ridiculous amount. The two North American dollars are much closer now than they have been so it is now on the high end, but that used to be the average NES game. Or maybe I was getting ripped off.
)Most of the game library I have bought is comprised of first-party games. Though I hope that third-party developers can create something on the Revolution that will encourage me to throw money at people OTHER than Nintendo themselves, as much as I love to, and if Nintendo moves higher up in marketshare/position/whatever, those developers will hopefully make more games for the Revolution than recent Nintendo consoles and be more experimental instead of by-the-book genre clichés, which is of course aided by the fact that it has a unique controller and who-knows-what-else in store, if anything.
Post by: denjet78 on January 02, 2006, 08:50:47 PM
After the first SIX HOURS of trying to figure out how to hook the damn thing up and my sister had her turn first because she was the oldest, I finally got my chance with Mario. As simple as it seems today it was still incredibly complex to my tiny mind. I could go left, I could go right, I could run, I could jump and I could even jump while running? Who's brain could think at that speed??? Still, it was an incredible experience and magnificent just to be. I didn't feel anything like that again until Mario 64.
So I spent a while stomping Goombas and kicking around turtle shells as I got the hang of the controls. Finally I reached the end of the first level. Slowly I climbed the stairs and then lept for the flagpoll. And do you know what I did to try and help Mario to reach the top? I slowly raised the controller above my head. It wasn't a conscious action at all. If you had asked me about it I probably wouldn't have even realized what I had done let alone known why.
After 15 years I can look back and understand why now. It was instinctive. Afterall, the controller was used to control Mario. It just made sense that if I wanted Mario to jump higher that moving the controller up would lead to that. I didn't know that the controller couldn't recognize that motion, I just assumed that it would instinctually. It took years for me to breed that trait out of my actions. I had to learn how to limit MYSELF to the technology on hand.
And now here comes Nintendo, 15 years later, with the controller that I wanted all along. Anyone who thinks this controller is a dead end or a gimmic, just watch a child play a game for the first time. They'll wriggle the controller around all over the place as if moving it will actually cause something to happen. This isn't a gimmic. This is where nature has been telling us to go. Buttons and control sticks, they're merely limited representations of true motion, it's like a baby learning how to crawl. And now we're finally about to take our first true tentative steps.
...
Now that that's all out of my system: As for game length I think we can all agree that good games are too short and bad games are too long. And now that I've made a completely vague comment that can only make sense in the context of an individuals own perceptions I will take my leave.
Post by: BlkPaladin on January 02, 2006, 08:52:27 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 03, 2006, 12:15:58 AM
Post by: Spak-Spang on January 03, 2006, 08:01:33 AM
1)Purchasing a $60 game. Lets assume that the single player experience gives you 5 hours of enjoyment, and if you play multiplayer lets assume it is good enough for 10 hours of enjoyment.
So you just spent 60 dollars for 15 hours of enjoyment or That is only $4.00 an hour. Or about 10 cents a minute. Now lets go around and see if you can get that deal with other forms of entertainment.
Going out to eat you are looking at $10-$20 a person if you are on a date that is $20-$40. Going out to eat usually lasts 2 hours but it gets bonus points for feeding you body. That brings the total to $10 a hour for a date or expensive dinner minium.
Going to a movie. If you forgo the mantinee prices then you are looking at 8-10 dollars without a date or food. Double that for a date, and add 5 dollars for food of each. The average movie is less than 3 hours long. But with trailers we will assume 3 hours. I will assume $15 dollars trip. 5 dollars an hour or about 8 cents a minute.
Although this is a cheaper return on investment, you are still only getting 1 movie to enjoy.
I am sure you can play with the numbers more. But there is one more thing I need to place into the equation. Replaying the game. I have beaten Super Mario World, 5 times, and will probably play and beat it again. The same is true about Zelda A Link to The Past, the GBA Metroid Games, Yoshi's Island and more. I have two reasons why I have played these games so much. 1) They are fun to play. 2)They are short enough to beat quickly and still enjoy. A Link to The Past took me about 8 hours to beat the very first time (along time ago) Now it takes me about 4 hours or less.
I guess the real point is when you start playing with numbers to qualify worth of a product you realize that A) nothing is worth your money or B) to even attempt this cheapens the product or experience into a false quanitification of your joy.
Post by: JonLeung on January 03, 2006, 08:27:42 AM
There so many alternatives to buying new games (ie. buying similar old games, renting games, borrowing games, and, GASP, pirating games). You can't rent/borrow dinner. You can't rent/borrow a movie until it comes out on DVD. And you shouldn't rent/borrow a date. And just as with anything else, people want more value for their dollar whenever possible. A game may be a good deal comparing it to other forms of entertainment but $40-$60 all at once isn't something people are willing to part with all at once. Plus I think people are more willing to spend money on a date, and most people still don't consider playing a game a date activity.
It's hard to say how many people don't finish their games but enjoy them, or how many people replay games and how many times they do. So in that sense it's definitely hard to quantify. But I still think a longer game is better than a shorter game, and I don't need numbers (specific ones, anyway) to know that.
I've heard that you can't use numbers to quantify joy, as much as one of my favourite university courses told me (PHIL 325 - Risk, Choice, and Rationality...all about assigning numbers to choices to deduce what the best choices are). Or shouldn't, anyway. However, sometimes when I do, it just makes me want to spend more money. It just depends on how I look at them.
If I can buy two games with a day's worth of wages, anytime I want to buy a game and see a $50 price tag, I go, "oooh, that's half a day of work." If I think I had a recent half day of work that was pretty easygoing then I'd be tempted to think it was a good deal. Well, as I said, I don't buy games that often but that raises the temptation. If I think, "oooh, that's half of a tenth of a thousand bucks" then I wouldn't want to buy it. Though that's more numbers...maybe you're right, numbers can't quanitfy joy, but rather dilutes it.
Maybe ECON 101 (opportunity cost) and PHIL 325 (assigning numbers to choices) aren't courses to totally live by, interesting as they are.
I don't know if I made any good points or counter-points there.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 03, 2006, 08:32:28 PM
PHIL 325 - Risk, Choice, and Rationality...all about assigning numbers to choices to deduce what the best choices are
Sounds a lot like Artiicial Intelligence. Well, actually it's exactly what AI is doing.
Post by: Ceric on January 04, 2006, 03:31:54 AM
Post by: jasonditz on January 04, 2006, 08:16:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Baldur's Gate series? Planescape: Torment? Fallout series?
Those're all great games... fallout in particular is along the vein of the type of games I want (games where you can lose yourself for 5 hours just dicking around and not accomplish anything germane to the overall quest).
I'd like to see something modern, particularly for a console though, something about playing a console based game I enjoy more.
I should've pointed out that in the several hundred hours of gameplay I got out of M&M, I never managed to beat the game, and indeed at the point when I stopped playing (god... probably 5 years after I bought it) I wasn't even really all that close, at least that I could tell.
It wasn't a straight quest the way Planescape was... it was like... you get a vague sense of a higher quest, get dropped off in a city and then it's an immersive experience of doing whatever. That's what I want again... and what doesn't seem to be on the market in newer games.
Post by: Spak-Spang on January 05, 2006, 12:46:47 PM
That is the thing, when you are tight with game design and create an enjoyable experience you can revisit a short game, because each level had a unique experience not filled with boring filler.
I personally can't play those free roaming do whatever you want games, because 70% of those games are filler and boring. So no matter how good Grand Theft Auto is, I won't enjoy it. Its just not my type of game.
However, I can play Super Mario World and beat it 10 times and enjoy it each and every time. Because each level of Mario World is alittle different offers unique challenges around a basic theme and is enjoyable.
Post by: Kairon on January 05, 2006, 01:12:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditzQuote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Baldur's Gate series? Planescape: Torment? Fallout series?
Those're all great games... fallout in particular is along the vein of the type of games I want (games where you can lose yourself for 5 hours just dicking around and not accomplish anything germane to the overall quest).
I'd like to see something modern, particularly for a console though, something about playing a console based game I enjoy more.
I should've pointed out that in the several hundred hours of gameplay I got out of M&M, I never managed to beat the game, and indeed at the point when I stopped playing (god... probably 5 years after I bought it) I wasn't even really all that close, at least that I could tell.
It wasn't a straight quest the way Planescape was... it was like... you get a vague sense of a higher quest, get dropped off in a city and then it's an immersive experience of doing whatever. That's what I want again... and what doesn't seem to be on the market in newer games.
What's your opinion on Morrowwind I wonder?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Ceric on January 06, 2006, 10:45:22 AM
I guess what I'm saying is there shouldn't be anything in a game that doesn't advance the game itself in someway. That is all.
