Author Topic: Revolution Article - Advantages, Disadvantages, X-Factors (Read 5619 times)

IceCold · « **on:** August 24, 2005, 11:18:58 AM »

Here

I liked it. It summed up may of the discussions and arguments about the Revolution in a nice little package. Good read.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #1 on:** August 24, 2005, 11:42:33 AM »

That was very well written. Like IceCold said it summed up most of the discussions about Rev. What I really liked about it was that it didn't come across as overly optimistic or pessimistic. It was neutral and realistic. If something had some good point and bad points they mentioned both and they didn't spin doctor anything. That's the of sort of editorial content I like to see as opposed to "Nintendo is doomed" or "Nintendo is perfect in every way".

What's needed is a followup as we get closer to launch. It's fun to speculate but we don't have much to speculate on when we haven't seen any games or specs or the controller. Later when we know more it would be nice to go back to this article and redo it from a more current perspective. It's hard to say if the price for example will make a big impact when we don't know what the price is. Once that info is available it will be easier to say "yes that should encourage sales" or "no that's not going to make a difference."

Rancid Planet · « **Reply #2 on:** August 24, 2005, 08:46:28 PM »

Quote from the piece...heh heh...I said "piece"...

"Nintendo could have easily released a Super Smash Bros Melee sequel (since SSBM is the best-selling GameCube title), and it would have sold a ton. But they didn't. Meanwhile, others including EA and (lately) Ubisoft hammer the market with their titles year after year."

And that makes Nintendo smart why? "DER WUR NINTENDO! WE DON'T LYKE BEING SUCCESFUL AND MAKING BIG GIANT PILES OF MONEY AND GAINING MARKETSHARE!"

KnowsNothing · « **Reply #3 on:** August 24, 2005, 08:48:56 PM »

Melee didn't need a sequal, I play it tons now. A sequal would have been pointless, I would not have bought it. If Nintendo had released a Melee 2 for the GC I would have buy alled all Nintendo products in the future.

That's why Nintendo's smart.

Rancid Planet · « **Reply #4 on:** August 24, 2005, 08:57:52 PM »

Melee 2 for the GCN would have sold like gangbusters. But Nintendo instead made Pikmin 2.

That's why Nintendo's stupid.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #5 on:** August 24, 2005, 08:59:22 PM »

"And that makes Nintendo smart why?"

Because releasing another SSB on the Cube would be spreading the series too thin. A Cube sequel would probably sell pretty good but then Nintendo would run the risk of having people get sick of the series on the Rev. SSB is still special so Nintendo can count on it to get people interested in their new consoles and to sell a lot of copies. If they released too many sequels people wouldn't give a sh!t anymore.

Though Nintendo isn't innocent of rehashing as Mario Party has annual releases like it's Madden or something and Mario is being thrown into every sports games imaginable including EA's. And then there's derivative junk like Metroid Pinball or damaged goods like Star Fox. SSB is one of the few Nintendo franchises that remains completely essential and it reminds me of Nintendo's peak where they pretty much NEVER released games unless there was a creative reason to do so.

Still Nintendo is WAY better at keeping things "pure" than any other developer so it's still an advantage even if it's not as big of an advantage as it used to be.

IceCold · « **Reply #6 on:** August 24, 2005, 09:00:15 PM »

I remember this discussion clearly from quite a while ago Rancid; do you? And my stance is still the same; I would have hated it if another Smash Bros had come out. Saving it to expand and evolve it even more on the Revolution (I read somewhere that they had many more ideas but didn't implement them for Melee) is the best thing they did. Now I am salivating at the thought of SSBR because I want one that is far and away better than Melee, which I am sure it will be. If there had been another Smash Bros for GCN, then one for Revolution just wouldn't be as special. Maybe to you it doesn't matter as much, and that's fine, but I like it the way it is.

EDIT: 1 minute, Ian, 1 minute

Rancid Planet · « **Reply #7 on:** August 25, 2005, 12:09:04 AM »

I remember having this argument yes....well kind of. Bong resin clouds the mind you know. I had forgotten who it was with. But NOW I know who to point my wompin' stick at...heh

Anyway guys, I agree that SSBM might be less special if you release more than one per gen. MIGHT. I'll concede that much. However, I ask this of those who disagree with me...is Zelda TP's very existence going to make WW any less special? (Granted, it hasn't come out yet) but did MM make OoT any less special to any of you?

Besides, the point I'm making is that Nintendo need as many big hits as they can muster. They can't always afford to "keep things special". They need to start keeping things real. REAL SUCCESSFUL. And being more productive from a development standpoint with their BIGGEST selling game, would be a good start.

couchmonkey · « **Reply #8 on:** August 25, 2005, 06:41:04 AM »

I think the Zelda series is on the cusp of becoming less special. Luckily, Wind Waker, Four Swords and Twighlight Princess are all different enough in terms of gameplay, graphical style and the usual elements that they can coexist peacefully. I think Super Smash Bros is a different case because it's a fighting game. I believe adventure games can get away with more sequels because they rely more on plot and level design. A new Zelda game could play and look exactly like Wind Waker and it would be worth playing for a lot of people to experience the new story and tackle the new levels. Unless they change the fundamental gameplay of Super Smash Bros, all they can offer are new characters, items and levels - not bad, but I think they've already achieved a lot in those areas in Melee. Why not give it some time so new characters and changes to old ones can be added?

I liked the article as well. I don't remember enough to comment right now, but it was good. I agree with Ian on it being a good, neutral editorial.

BlackNMild2k1 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 25, 2005, 06:53:56 AM »

AS for the whole SSBM debate, they didn't have to release a "new" one, but they could have taken a page out of the Capcom book and pulled a Street Fighter 2 on a much smaller scale.

They could have released a special edition that was basically the same game but with updated characters, new trophies, a couple of new levels and mini game challenges. This would make the game new to the late adopters that are not likely to look into an "old" game and also give origianl buyers another reason to play the game again. Sounds like a win/win situation to me.

KnowsNothing · « **Reply #10 on:** August 25, 2005, 07:14:04 AM »

Quote
it reminds me of Nintendo's peak where they pretty much NEVER released games unless there was a creative reason to do so.

Dude, do you realize how many useless Mario games there were back on teh SNES? There was Mario's Time Machine, Mario is Missing, Mario Picross, and THREE MARIO PRESCHOOL GAMES where the peak of excitment was finding the goose.

Nintendo's using Mario just as much nowadays, except he's being used in better ways, such as in awesome sports titles.

As for Metroid Pinball, it'll be awesome, shut up

Sure, they could make a normal, boring pinball game, but the Metroid motif will make it rad, you'll see.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #11 on:** August 25, 2005, 07:44:14 AM »

"is Zelda TP's very existence going to make WW any less special? (Granted, it hasn't come out yet) but did MM make OoT any less special to any of you?"

In a way yes but Zelda has traditional come in pairs so it's expected at the very least. Plus it's a story-based game and it's easier to have more sequels for something like that. SSB is pure gameplay like Mario Kart or F-Zero. In games like that there tends be a lot of repetition in sequels because you're largely doing the same exact thing every game with some improvements each time. Zelda's narrative adventure design makes it easier to make a game unique because all it takes is new dungeons, items, and a special gimmick like time travel or shrinking. I do think Zelda is getting a little overexposed though with stuff like Four Swords and how they now seem to have two series: one on consoles and one on portables. The portable/console seperation is making Metroid lose a bit of steam too so they might want to switch to one sequel per platform like they did with A Link to the Past and Link's Awakening or Metroid II and Super Metroid. We'll suffer in the short term but Zelda will be able to stay fresh for a lot longer as a result.

Dirk Temporo · « **Reply #12 on:** August 25, 2005, 10:10:27 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Rancid Planet
Quote from the piece...heh heh...I said "piece"...

"Nintendo could have easily released a Super Smash Bros Melee sequel (since SSBM is the best-selling GameCube title), and it would have sold a ton. But they didn't. Meanwhile, others including EA and (lately) Ubisoft hammer the market with their titles year after year."

And that makes Nintendo smart why? "DER WUR NINTENDO! WE DON'T LYKE BEING SUCCESFUL AND MAKING BIG GIANT PILES OF MONEY AND GAINING MARKETSHARE!"

Because they're not Koei, and they realize most of us don't want to pay fifty dollars for the exact same game with little to no improvements.

vudu · « **Reply #13 on:** August 25, 2005, 10:26:11 AM »

Quote
However, I ask this of those who disagree with me...is Zelda TP's very existence going to make WW any less special? (Granted, it hasn't come out yet) but did MM make OoT any less special to any of you?

The worry isn't that too many sequels will make old games less special, it's that it will make new games less special. You can certainly argue that Majora's Mask put a damper on people's need for Wind Waker. Likewise, Wind Waker has probably put a (small) damper on Twilight Princess.

Too many games too closely together make a series feel stale. I guarantee you Soul Caliber 3 won't sell as well as the second one (on PS2). I'd be surprised if Halo 3 sold as quickly as Halo 2 did (which will probably be impossible due to their releases within their respective consoles' lifetimes). Viewtiful Joe 2 didn't sell as well as the original. Neither did the Fire Emblem Sacred Stones. If you release too many sequels without significant improvements the series becomes stagnate and consumers lose interest.

Rancid Planet · « **Reply #14 on:** August 25, 2005, 08:03:58 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Dirk Temporo
Quote
Originally posted by: Rancid Planet
Quote from the piece...heh heh...I said "piece"...

"Nintendo could have easily released a Super Smash Bros Melee sequel (since SSBM is the best-selling GameCube title), and it would have sold a ton. But they didn't. Meanwhile, others including EA and (lately) Ubisoft hammer the market with their titles year after year."

And that makes Nintendo smart why? "DER WUR NINTENDO! WE DON'T LYKE BEING SUCCESFUL AND MAKING BIG GIANT PILES OF MONEY AND GAINING MARKETSHARE!"

Because they're not Koei, and they realize most of us don't want to pay fifty dollars for the exact same game with little to no improvements.

And where exactly in my kick ass post did I say that Nintendo should've made a sequel to SSBM with "little to no improvements"? I totally meant that they should have made a kickass super happy fun tree sequel to SSBM.

Anyway, as to the "less special" argument. That's fine. I disagree, but opinions are like noses, some people have one and some people don't...ahem.

What I mean is that Nintendo need to worry less about making sure that they only release a select few games from a series in order to keep it special and wonderful and start worrying more about their shrinking marketshare. When the whole industry collapses and Nintendo are the only ones left standing THEN they can keep it down to one good game per generation for all I care.

Jesus people we're talking about a crappy fighting game (SECRET HEART REVEALED!!!) not anything particulary special. It was a fluke that SSBM sold more than any other game on the GCN in the first place. SSBM 2 wouldn't have sold nearly what SSBM did but it would have sold a few more systems and put Nintendo back on the map just a little bit more. (That was stupid. You're either on the map or you aren't. Ah screw it, I may have the energy to write cute little crap like this at the end of my post but I don't have the time to go back and change anything.)

KnowsNothing · « **Reply #15 on:** August 25, 2005, 08:10:58 PM »

Crappy fighting game? NOTHING SPECIAL?!

I hat u

Rancid Planet · « **Reply #16 on:** August 25, 2005, 09:12:59 PM »

Yeah I better duck out of here for a few days before one of you wangs me on the head with an XBOX or something.

ThePerm · « **Reply #17 on:** August 26, 2005, 06:07:04 AM »

smash bros would be crappy if you had no friends...but i have friends so i don't have that problem.

Its not hte biggest budget game...and for some reason i think its directly related to kirby and the crystal shards....but its damn fun.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #18 on:** August 26, 2005, 07:04:34 AM »

Smash Bros is no worse than any other fighter (except OMF2097) when you're playing alone.

Hostile Creation · « **Reply #19 on:** August 26, 2005, 02:14:29 PM »

And it's better than every other when you're playing with friends

KDR_11k · « **Reply #20 on:** August 26, 2005, 11:46:20 PM »

Depends on your friends. Most people don't seem willing to play it, Soul Calibur 2 takes the lead there.

darknight06 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 28, 2005, 11:50:28 AM »

Despite the fact Soul Calibur 2 was a really crappy game when compared to the first or especially Virtua Fighter 4 Evolution.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #22 on:** August 29, 2005, 01:01:54 AM »

Heh, VF4e is known for its deep and difficult fighting system. Maybe better for singleplayer but absolutely pointless when you're playing with friends that don't have the game themselves (like, oh, everybody I know). As for SC1, why is it better than SC2? Please don't come with crap like "it was a bigger step aheadfor the franchise".

News:

Author Topic: Revolution Article - Advantages, Disadvantages, X-Factors (Read 5619 times)