497
« on: September 15, 2004, 08:20:34 PM »
I'm reminded of an argument I had way back in junior high during the N64/PSX days. The PSX had come out not too long ago, and the N64 launch was nearly a year away. One kid I knew owned a Playstation, and we were arguing over which system was better.
His reasoning was --and I swear I'm not making this up-- "Sure, all the Playstation games suck, but at least it's not the same old stuff like Mario and Zelda."
I don't believe I had any response to that.
Anyway, I understand Ian not wanting so many sequels. However, I believe it's a misconception that Nintendo is becoming in any way less innovative.
What made Mario 64 so innovative was that it was the first 3D game to not suck. It showed everybody else how 3D games are supposed to be done. Mario Sunshine did not need to deviate significantly from the Mario 64 formula, seeing as how many considered Mario 64 to be the greatest game of all time. However, since it didn't significantly change from Mario 64, Sunshine got criticized by many as being an unimaginative sequel. My point is, Mario 64 didn't revolutionize the game industry because Nintendo all of a sudden decided to be innovative, Mario 64 revolutionized the industry simply because it happened to be first. The first non-sucking 3D game, that is.
I guess what I'm trying to say is... there's less out there to innovate. It's hard to envision a genre of game that hasn't been done already. At least, on the current consoles.
The two screens and touchscreen on DS are already providing completely original content. That's why I hope the Revolution truly is revolutionary, and will allow for games never before possible.