Quote
Originally posted by: DjunknownOddly enough, he didn't leave an E-mail address...
You can always find a writer's e-mail on the staff page.
Quote
One of his points was during the 16-bit era involving Mortal Kombat. No doubt Nintendo was playing Censor during those days, but has long since changed their tune.
Wrong. Nintendo, though not censoring their games, are still marketing their "family friendly" attitude. The article was explaining the different approach Nintendo took BACK IN THAT DAY. The article made no mention that Nintendo continues to censor today. perhaps you read way too far into it. But, if you feel that Nintendo themselves are any more mature because of... what, Eternal Darkness? You are kidding yourself. They are as family friendly now as they ever were.
Quote
His Gameboy argument is easily shut-down by simply looking at the record: Game Gear and Lynx did have color but it was too bulky, too expensive and not enough games. The Gameboy line is still around with nary a scratch it can't lick. eventually when the technology was affordable did the Big N press on (Game Boy Pocket, Game Boy Color.) Now if he said something like how Nintendo cannabalized the GBC for the GBA (3 year difference), is up for debate, he simply didn't get that angle.
This particular editorial is obviously geared toward those who understand WHY the Gameboy suceeded as long as it did. Every other handheld you mentioned (and others) were far more competent and sophisticated competitors, but with less money and marketing know-how than Nintendo. Not bulk. The amount of games WOULD be a good argument, except that Nntendo's competition wasn't around long enough to build a solid portfolio of games, making the point moot.
Quote
Sony being a newcomer? That's half true. Someone needs to inform him that Sony's PS1 was a culmination of Nintendo and Sony working together to bring a CD based-system. Again, he could've picked a valid argument that Nintendo got greedy (The argreement would have that Nintendo wouldn't get the lion's share like they were use to in the NES) and went with Philips to make the abomination that was the CD-i, lending some of Nintendo's franchises (Though Nintendo didn't develop for it.) That didn't work out well; Sony took the research it was working with Nintendo and went on their own, releasing it a couple of years later.
Wrongo, sir. It's fully true. Sony was a newcomer to the console market when the PlayStation arrived. The PSX was Sony's first console. Working together with Nintendo in the past has absolutley nothing to do with the article, OR the writer's arguments. Actually, the PlayStation was built and finished just to take on Nintendo after the company dropped the deal with Sony at the last minute. The CD-based "PlayStation", that was actually meant to be an add-on to the Super NES, never surfaced. But again, even if it did, that doesn't tie-in to the article at all, or the author's point.
Quote
The writer could have mentioned the delays in releasing the Nintendo 64, but he missed that boat. Oh, and Mario 64 wipes the floor with all the Tomb Raider games on PS1 combined but that's bordering on fanyboyism...
Again, your unneccesary history lesson doesn't even tie in to the article at all, and your above statement crossed the line of fanboyism already. Though I agree there is no Tomb Raider that could ever outdo Mario 64.
Quote
Mini-DVD? Granted the file sizes are small but the Writer forgot the mention that its almost unhackable, Xbox and PS2 emulators are plausible, but Gamecube Emulator is virtually IMpossible. Simple case of Covering Your Ass after being ridiculously being hacked (GBA probably being the last link) since the NES. This is another argument he could've brought up but that pumpkinhead ain't feeding him the right info.
The writer of this editorial has absolutely no reason to mention the anti-piracy benefits offered by mini-disks because again, the argument is moot. The writer is mentioning the mini disks to make readers realize that, thanks to the file size, there are actually games that aren't even possible on GameCube. Did you know that a relatively simple-made game called Max Payne isn't possible on the GC? A very linear game can't be done because the Cube's storage management actually LIMITS what the GC could otherwise handle with ease. The anti-piracy disks DO help Nintendo, but they certainly don't help gamers.
Quote
Going Online? Even Gamer Mags have it that Nintendo is denying the existance of Online play. They gotta go back to reccent interviews and get the facts straight. They will get there, and if pulled off correctly, they will get there with the last laugh. I will give him the connectivity argument; there's not much improvement in that area, but I believe Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles will show the best of GCN-GBA connections.
Uhh... you offer nothing to counter an online argument. Nintendo is not only dissing online play for this gen, online may not come into fruition until well into next gen either. Instead, the company is pushing GC/GBA connectivity; a poor substitute, and NOT what Cube owners want. They want to play Mario Kart online, not Pac-Man.
And, even if your claim that FF will fully realize the possibilities of the GC/GBA connection were to happen, why should any gamer have to go out and buy a GBA in the first place? Because it's a self-serving way for Nintendo to make more money for themselves. "Buy both systems, and you'll be able to connect them with a cable that we also make you buy". Ask 90% of Cube owners, and they'll tell you they'd rather have online than GC/GBA connectivity any day. But despite the cries, Nintendo will ignore, instead pushing this cheap, poor man's substitute on gamers. Fact: the real gaming industry (i.e. the gaming industry beyond Nintendo fanboys) could care less about connectivity.
Quote
The whole Rare story is Soooo 2002 and no need to go over it. Just look at this years E3 for proof: Nintendo's counting that cash and making good use of it.
I agree the Rare story is old, but no less true. And you can fill me in anytime as to where that cash is going, because they've done nothing with it yet.
Quote
And what kills the writer's credibility was that whole "gotta make deals with 3rd parties" B.S He simply rolled over the fact that realizing that the "Colaborations" is almost Brainchild Heaven. Its the best minds of the business getting together and guess what? Its exclusive.
Ironically, what little credit you gained has been obliterated right here. 3rd parties are abandoning the console by the day. Nintendo PAID Capcom to keep Resident Evil exclusive. Nintendo PAID Konami for the rights to re-build Metal Gear Solid (and did you know that Kojima has absolutely NOTHING to do with the project? He won't even be overseeing the game, though some members of the MGS team will supervise. Even still, Nintendo had to get one of their own development houses -- Silicon Knights -- to actually develop the thing!) Nintendo PAID EA to make 20 games that will utilize the GC/GBA connectivity. Are you starting to see a pattern here? Though you've gotta hand Nintendo credit for putting their money where their mouth is, they shouldn't have to pay 3rd parties money just get them on the platform.
All this being said, at least you argued your points one by one instead of what most do. Unfortunately, your points do little to actually counter the article. You actually bring up things that the article has nothing to do with. Though I don't fully agree with the article myself, I can at least recognize that every single piece of factual content in that article is 100% true -- even if it doesn't suit your tastes. After all, this is a Nintendo-loyal mesage board. A truly unbiased opinion will be quite rare.
Show Posts
