Topic: Official Virtual Console Mondays Thread

[JonLeung]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I came to the brutal realization that turn-based RPGs aren't games so much as plot ransoms: you pay for the plot with your time, performing the same action repeatedly so that your stats are high enough to see the next bit of storyline. I've heard Mario RPG is excellent, but at this point, I'm not willing to risk my $8 when I'll likely get tired of the combat very quickly.

"Risk" $8?  Are you homeless or something?  o_0

It's clear you haven't played Super Mario RPG since it really sounds like you don't understand combat.  Try performing 100 Super Jumps in a row on an enemy in that game.  And as for the non-combat, try doing a perfect run in Midas River or Booster Hill.

And I think the argument that RPGs are plot-based menufests is ridiculous when EVERY story-based game falls within so kind of linearity.  Even so-called open-ended sandbox games.  Even LIFE, THE UNIVERSE, AND EVERYTHING itself when you consider that everything is a reaction to the state of everything a moment before and nothing else can happen without a reason.  Face it: there is a such thing as destiny, and all video games too inevitably cannot escape their own worlds.

And even if RPGs are plot-based menufests, Super Mario RPG is one of the best examples of that.  Attack choices that are so much more than just "choose this action" were practically born in that game.  

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok
And that would explain why the NES titles that were directly ported to the GBA sold so well later in the handheld's life?

They were cheap, PORTABLE versions of NES games. Besides that, what's the comparison? The DS's touch screen was nice but it in no way compares to the difference felt in the playing games with the Wiimote.

Quote
Please, are you trying to tell me that if they released Smash Bros (N64) in 2008 you wouldn't get it?

Not if Brawl is out by then, no.

[Smoke39]

SB, I agree that RPGs tend to be repetitive wastes of time, but SMRPG is one that I actually liked.  I think it'd be worth giving a chance.

I don't agree with the "get out your old consoles if you don't like the selection" argument.  I'm away from home going to college, and I don't have my old consoles with me.  My NES barely works anyway.  The VC is a convenience I'm willing to pay for, not to mention all the games I've never even played before and would be willing to try.  The wider the selection Nintendo provides me, the more games I'll buy.  Nintendo's release schedule isn't particularly conducive to this end.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
They were cheap, PORTABLE versions of NES games. Besides that, what's the comparison?

$20 is cheap for a portable NES game? And who was scoffing at the notion of paying $8 for Super Mario RPG? The comparison is that "retro games" stood up to the newer software at 66% the cost of a new game, so I don't see how one could reason that they wouldn't on the Wii when they are even cheaper, portable or not.

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Not if Brawl is out by then, no.

What if Brawl is more of the fast paced Melee style of play?  

[Ian Sane]

At what point should the selection of VC games that presently COULD be released (ie: third party is on board, game was released in North America) be completely available?  Should it be a year?  Five years?  Should we have to wait five years for a first party game because Nintendo wants to stretch the VC releases throughout the entire Wii life?  That kind of sucks.  Ideally I think we want to have a point when the Wii is still a current console and "all" of the possible VC titles are out.  Now there never will be a point where they'll run out of titles.  Third parties that aren't on board now may decide to join up later and Nintendo could always localize some of their Japan-only titles and charge a higher price for them.  Plus they could potentially add other systems like the Gameboy/GBC or Sega Master System.

I think most of us want there to be a point where we have the entire available NES, SNES and N64 library at our disposal and we want that to occur sooner than two weeks before Nintendo's next console comes out.  At the rate things are going this just isn't going to happen.  At best Nintendo is on pace to stretch this stuff out for five years and it's possible that they won't even accomplish this.  Hell maybe the plan is to never fully deliver and just go through generations of Virtual Consoles where the games have to be repurchased each time and a slightly different lineup is available with a vague promise to have everything available someday that is never fulfilled.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I think most of us want there to be a point where we have the entire available NES, SNES and N64 library at our disposal and we want that to occur sooner than two weeks before Nintendo's next console comes out.

As mentioned, it's never going to happen anyway. They will never get even a majority of third parties onboard, and people can probably forget about companies that have folded since or games that were based on licensces. So it's better to stop dreaming that they are going to somehow round up the entire library of even the three Nintendo consoles on there, as it's not going to happen.

I'm really getting tired of all of the whining in relation to the VC release schedule too, and the lack of economical logic applied to why things are done the way they are... I kind of wish Nintendo would just buckshot their titles on there, so at least we could hear people bitching about whatever bugs were introduced due to lack of playtesting after emulation as a change of pace.

[JonLeung]

I had mentioned the possibility of VC titles not being all released within the Wii's life span before...it would be better if they used pure, raw ROM data so that it would be immediately compatible with the next Nintendo console plus whatever features the new VC would have (online play, save states, etc.).  I guess they'd want to prevent hackers with entire ROM sets from hacking the Wii to play the ROMs they downloaded and put on an SD card to have a fuller collection than people who have been buying approved games individually.

But what constitutes "all"?  Every North American game?  What about obscure games?  What about every Japanese and European game, or the Japanese/European versions that are uncensored/have more languages?  What about every system?  What about v1.0s and v1.1s (alternate versions, like the two Ocarina Of Times with different Ganon blood)?  When the next console comes out, will it have an insanely large hard drive and will there be uberbroadband so we can download GameCube games with ease?

I'm guessing "all" would mean all the major games, but they'll want to spread them out.  There may be a year between Mega Man games, just like in the NES days.  Deal with it.

I was going to suggest taking the release dates of the original games, and shifting them the appropriate number of years.  But I guess one of the problems is that no one would play the later games, such as the NES version of Wario's Woods.  At 1994 (I think), nine years after the NES's release, it would then be on the VC in 2015, when we'd be too busy awaiting the console two generations after the Wii, and tearing the streets up with Barbie-pink hoverboards.  

[Koekoenutt]

I would really like to see more titles under Nintendo's ESRB ratings list to show up quicker, just so we have proof that a lot of solid titles will be coming out within the next 3-6 months.

I agree that the VC shop has been lacking, but I also remind myself that the system is only about 2 months old, and that the online system for the Wii is still being worked out. I still wonder if anything else will come with the update coming the 27th for the news channel. I think we will see a steady pace grow when the Wii settles in more, and the production for the Wii and its controllers stops being so choatic for them.

Maybe I have a little to much trust in Nintendo this time around, but I really think things will smooth out 2-3 months from now. Sure there are a lot of quality games coming out to the Wii during the time and right now is a good time to release titles for the VC, but I also think they are giving this time for Sega to get something out of it. As disappointed as I am with the lack of titles so far, I don't think it will really be that bad and I think as time comes it will get more organized.

I really do hope for titles that were never given a chance during their time, becuase another AAA Game was out at the time taking up all the attention. Pilotwings is a game that comes to mind, that I would like to see come available.  

[Blue Plant]

Sheesh...  Count your blessings.

[Caliban]

The newest NP issue seems to indicate that very soon Super Mario World, and Donkey Kong Country will be available, IMO it will be in the next coming weeks until the end of February because they had other games (3rd-party) that were also listed.

[Galford]

According to Nintendo.com today's update is "A Link to the Past".  

Upside- AAA Title released
Downside - I already have this game on GBA.

Well I hope next week is better.

[WuTangTurtle]

I'm so happy right now, i skipped getting the GBA one (didn't feel like dropping $30 for it).

I'm just suprised that as of now it seems only Zelda LTTP is being released this week.

[IceCold]

Donkey Kong Country should be here next week..

[Pittbboi]

I’m frankly sick of people using economics and profit as an excuse to defend Nintendo. As if what they’re doing now is the ONLY way to make a profit. Please. The Virtual Console is almost pure profit (outside of the small fees and server costs). It has gone way beyond keeping everything above the red. Charging premium for crappy games; releasing games at a snail’s pace during a drought to take advantage of the “need to buy SOMETHING now” gamer…this isn’t just Nintendo wanting to make a profit, this is Nintendo bleeding their consumers for as much as they can while giving as little as possible. Nintendo is so focused on profit and immediate returns that in the process of bleeding the fanboys dry with games they KNOW nobody would buy if there were something better, they’re alienating a group a gamers that I suspect is quite large: the gamers that know what they want and won’t settle for anything else.

I don’t know about you guys, but when the virtual console was announced, I made a list of games that I knew I was going to buy. And, outside of the occasional title that I forgot about (which hasn’t happened yet), NOTHING is going to make me buy a game that’s not on that list. However, out of a list of 30-something games only one of my must-have has been released (Mario 64). And, at the rate Nintendo’s going, it’ll be near the end of the Wii’s life before HALF my list makes it to the VC. That’s ridiculous. Nintendo is so busy pinching pennies that it’s missing out on my money which I would freely give. Nintendo would have us biting our nails for these games as if they’re new releases and that shouldn’t be.  When the VC was announced fans everywhere were calling it Nintendo’s trump card. The VC, along with the controller, was supposed to be the aces up Nintendo’s sleeve that made you forget about Nintendo’s shortcomings elsewhere. However, so far Nintendo is sleeping on that bloody massive potential.  And I understand the Wii is still a new console and not everything is going to be shiny right out of the gate, but nothing (no announcement or anything) so far has indicated that change is a-comin’ in the near future. Are we going to be using the “Wii is a new console” excuse a year or two from now?

Nintendo wants to be so much like Apple, they need to emulate Apple where it counts.  People saying that the VC will never have full third party support are probably right. But I’m willing to bet that, if anything, it’ll be Nintendo’s fault because, outside of the basic promise of some profit, the Virtual Console really isn’t an attractive service to developers.  Aesthetic in all things counts, and Apples knows this. Do you think that if itunes were just a drop-down menu of a list of albums record labels would have been interested? Most likely not. No, itunes is aesthetically pleasing AND intuitive—providing full album art, industry reviews, customer reviews, samples, an extensive search feature, user-made and celebrity made playlists. The works. iTunes itself FORCED people to notice it.

Nintendo can do the same with the Virtual Console.  Right now the virtual console is about as impressive as, well, a shiny rock. But Nintendo can change that.  Make it a fully fleshed out service; Add all of their content to it as quickly as they can to give it some substance and variety; allow customer and maybe even developer reviews; create Game of the Week and/or The Best Game Never Played features that highlight games that aren’t well known so they aren’t lost in the sea of popular games; create a Miyamoto or [insert well-known developer name here] Game of the Month to make the service more interactive; include a search feature and make the service more aesthetically impressive and intuitive all around.  If Nintendo can do some of these things they will have a service that makes EVERYONE happy. Gamers who know what they want and want nothing else can get their fix on the games because they’ll be there. And, at the same time, employing a Game of the Week type feature will give games maybe people wouldn’t ordinarily pay attention to some time to shine. Also, developers will want their stuff on the VC because it’ll actually LOOK and function like a service that’s worth its salt. Heck, they may even want to create new content for it.

The Virtual Console could be an excellent service if Nintendo just threw a little more faith and weight into it.

(Sorry, didn’t mean to make a post this long.  Just started typing and couldn’t stop.)

[ShyGuy]

I am a Nintendo customer, and I being bled. Bled for money! BLOOD MONEY!

[SixthAngel]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
 Right now the virtual console is about as impressive as, well, a shiny rock.

I agree with you, the vc is pure GOLD.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
I’m frankly sick of people using economics and profit as an excuse to defend Nintendo. As if what they’re doing now is the ONLY way to make a profit.

Maximizing profits. The concept you missed here.

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
The Virtual Console is almost pure profit (outside of the small fees and server costs).

Care to cite your source for this? Do you assume that these titles don't have to be play tested after being emulated? I'm tired of people stating this like Nintendo has these things sitting on a shelf, and that the only cost to them is placing them up... we have no idea what the process is, but it's damn clear that more work is going into this then all of the people whining will give it credit for, which is blantant from Dungeon Explorer being delayed due to errors from testing.

EDIT: Okay, I did some research on this as I'm sick of people complaining based only on their own assumptions, and guess what? It costs, alone, $750-$3,000 (based on speed requested as of 2003) to submit a game to the ESRB for a rating. Companies have to make that up on the Virtual Console. It costs $250 for them to rate a game that they have previously done (covers the N64 games, but not a lot of the older VC content unless it was re-released recently, like "A Link to the Past"). So will people PLEASE stop acting like this is some no-cost operation, as that's only the ESRB part of it.

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
the gamers that know what they want and won’t settle for anything else.

Case in point: me. I have yet to buy anything from the service as nothing posted yet really interests me. I fall into this category... but guess what? The minute Super Mario RPG or something else is tossed up, I will be there. It doesn't bother me that they aren't there now though as there is a reason for it... because third parties would get eaten alive if they opened the floodgate on their own games, as is happening in Japan. I want games like King of the Monsters to appear on the service, but how will one persuade a company to spend the money to staff the testing and emulating of games when their product stands a chance of being totally shunned?

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
Nintendo is so busy pinching pennies that it’s missing out on my money which I would freely give.

And will still give when those games are posted right? ...so wait, how is that bad for Nintendo?

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi
The VC, along with the controller, was supposed to be the aces up Nintendo’s sleeve that made you forget about Nintendo’s shortcomings elsewhere.

Yeah, because lord knows that Wiis are such a tough sell right now, and just stacked up to the sky on store shelves...  

[Djunknown]

Quote
And, at the rate Nintendo’s going, it’ll be near the end of the Wii’s life before HALF my list makes it to the VC.

'

I feel your pain Pitbboi, but remember that this isn't happening world-wide. Japan's been getting the good stuff for a while, even the euro-gamers are starting to get the good titles. I don't know what NOA is doing, but suffice to say, something's up. The fact that Urban Champion has been given a second chance, while Earthbound may not see a VC release(They haven't bothered with Mother 3 coming stateside, someone at NCL wants this franchise to die IMO), something's not right there.

Quote
However, out of a list of 30-something games only one of my must-have has been released

I know I'm going out of order, but here's a few humble suggestions. Try Gunstar Heroes if you're fan of frantic shmups from the days of yore. Give Bomberman '93 a a whirl if you have some friends to play with. I can recommend those titles in full confidence.

Quote
Nintendo wants to be so much like Apple, they need to emulate Apple where it counts.

One can't deny they've riding Apple's style for a while now, why the two haven't hooked up in an official manner is beyond me. But that's another story.

Windyman (Site director don't you know) theorized that NOA is purposely holding back here because they want the 3rd parties to have their turn. If Nintendo flooded the VC with their hits, even if it was one mega-hit a week, wouldn't you think that everyone would gravitate towards that title vs some forgotten-but-good 3rd party game? Take this week for example. If Bonk's Revenge, Comix Zone, and Legendary Wings was released besides Zelda: LTTP, which one's most likely going to get your money? Think about it...

Quote
Add all of their content to it as quickly as they can to give it some substance and variety; allow customer and maybe even developer reviews;

Good ideas, but then games like Baseball and Soccer would be sitting in the Wii Shop forever

Last week's NWR podcast made a very excellent point. We always talk about how Nintendo is always profitable, but do we the fans see that money back as much as we should?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Of course not.  It takes FORESTS of SPINNACH to feed Reggie daily, and that's not cheap.

[segagamer12]

well just becasue the current selection doesnt satify YOU doesnt mean a damn thing. So far I have TEN VC games and I dont even have enough money for all the ones UP there right now that I want, and I know I am not alone as the Wii cards are so hard to find obviously others out there want these gaems too.

You also HAVE to remember that SOMEPEOPLE LIKE Sega games, and actualyl WANT the Sega games as much as, if not more than, the Nintendo games. So as long as th Sega games keep coming people will buy those also.
Not only that but there was a decent lineup at launch that maybe everyone hasnt gotten around to buying all those games yet. Also its not like the good games ARENT coming and its not like peopel wont STILL buy them when they do.

Keep this in mind, if Nintendo wants to keep wiiconnect24 FREE they HAVE to make profit somewhere, and we ALL KNEW VC was that SOMEWHERE when it was announced, so besides all the points Arbok made, they ALSO have the Cost of keeping wiiconnect24 FREE.

Not to mention that it IS in thier best interst, as in consumers, that the keep the games coming for as long as they can because that way they dont run out of games to sell.

[MorningStar]

If they use the money from VC games towards Wiiconnect24, then, no, Wiiconnect24 isn't free. I paid for it when I got SMB, you paid for it when you got LttP, Joe payed for it when he got Dungeon Explorer. I understand that they need to make money SOMEWHERE, but Nintendo seems to sometimes try to milk us for all we're worth.

As of now, though, I have payed $5 for SMB and can safely say I am totally happy with that purchase. Problem being, though, that I think that's the only game I can say that about.

[Artimus]

Just when Matt manages to redeem IGN regarding Zelda, their Link to the Past review says this:

"The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past is the only Zelda game ever made. It firmly established a formula of adventure game design that balanced out overworld exploration, item acquisition and storyline progression, a formula still followed today. Twilight Princess, Wind Waker, even Ocarina of Time – all just copies of the structure seen here. A Link to the Past is the only true Zelda, and Miyamoto and team simply keep remaking it, over and over."

I have no clue who the reviewer is, never seen his name before, but I hope he's gone soon. Anyone stupid enough to not understand the complexities in bring Zelda into 3D doesn't deserve a public platform to express their opinions.

[MarioAllStar]

More from IGN...

Quote
It's been said that most of our world's storytellers really only have one story to tell. If they find success with it, if they find an audience, then they're finished. Any sequels, any follow-ups will all be unoriginal, as the storyteller can do little more than repeat what they've already said, retelling the tale already told, in new, slightly different ways.

Yep, A Link to the Past is the only original "story" ever told by Miyamoto. Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros., Pikmin, and any other series that Miyamoto took part in developing are all rehashes of ALttP. (I know the reviewer is not specifically calling Miyamoto out, but he is the natural "storyteller" of A Link to the Past.)

Sure, there are common elements between all Zelda games. There has to be something common between them if they are to be considered part of the same series. I think this reviewer grossly exaggerates the similarity between Zelda games. Who played Ocarina of Time and thought, "cheap rehash"? Majora's Mask, although not directed by Miyamoto, was a radical shift from the norm. I'm not going to go through every game on the list, but the series certainly is not just clone after clone.  

[Spak-Spang]

You know awhile back I searched Nintendo's archive of AAA titles from NES, SNES, and Nintendo 64...and I found that the Nintendo has less than 100 (much less) truly absolutely classic games that everyone will want to buy.  Sure there are other games that people will fondly remember but they are not the true classics.

People are asking for all their favorite games to be released all at once, and I can understand the desire for those games to come out, however, you must understand that Nintendo has to look at the business structure of the virtual console to create interest for the Wii for 5 years, AND also bring revenue for the virtual console and Nintendo's online structure for at least 5 years.

Do I think that Nintendo's prices may be a bit on the higher end of acceptable for their virtual console catalog.  Yes, I do.  However, I believe only minor adjustments for convince are necessary.  Personally I would make all SNES and Genesis games cost 600 points, and bring the Turbo Graphics 16 games to 500.  I would make the NES games 200 points each.  Finally, I would bring the Nintendo 64 games to 800 each.  I think this creates a much better balanced scale for you money.  

Right now my biggest complaint with the virtual console isn't the games available, or the costs...but the inconvenient pricing structure of the games.

With 2000 points, you can easily evenly spend your points...for instance.

I buy 2 Super Nintendo games, and I am stuck with 400 Points that I can't spend, because of price structure.  Why not adjust that structure so you buy 2 Super Nintendo games and you can still buy a Nintendo 64 game...or 4 NES games.  

My pricing structure for the most part fixes those problems keeping everything at a 200 point scale, except Turbo Graphics 16 games, would could be lowered to 400 points to keep that structure even better...instead of 500.  

However, with that said if Nintendo decides to give us that cost structure I think we would be given a blessing from Nintendo because the prices would be much more than fair.  Specially when you remember that Nintendo is probably using much of the profit from the Virtual Console to keep its online gaming structure and community free for the Wii users.

Remember we are getting a free weather service, news service, and online gaming service this generation with the Wii.  That server space, partnerships with news and weather organizations cost money.  

Incidentally, I do believe that the later in the life of the Wii console (potentially as early as late this year) I expect the Virtual Console pricing structure to change.  It will be partially, because of competition with Xbox Arcade, a much larger Wii user-base to help keep the costs down, and finally a need to adjust the price structure with original virtual console games needing a new price level, and updated classics/enhanced classics eventually coming to the seen of the virtual console.

   

[NWR_pap64]

Quote
Originally posted by: MarioAllStar
More from IGN...

Quote
It's been said that most of our world's storytellers really only have one story to tell. If they find success with it, if they find an audience, then they're finished. Any sequels, any follow-ups will all be unoriginal, as the storyteller can do little more than repeat what they've already said, retelling the tale already told, in new, slightly different ways.

Yep, A Link to the Past is the only original "story" ever told by Miyamoto. Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros., Pikmin, and any other series that Miyamoto took part in developing are all rehashes of ALttP. (I know the reviewer is not specifically calling Miyamoto out, but he is the natural "storyteller" of A Link to the Past.)

Sure, there are common elements between all Zelda games. There has to be something common between them if they are to be considered part of the same series. I think this reviewer grossly exaggerates the similarity between Zelda games. Who played Ocarina of Time and thought, "cheap rehash"? Majora's Mask, although not directed by Miyamoto, was a radical shift from the norm. I'm not going to go through every game on the list, but the series certainly is not just clone after clone.

I agree as well. This is an example of how people take a beloved, classic game and exaggerate its impact and value to the point where anything else is worthless.

I personally haven't played LTTP (yes, shocking, sue me...), and will likely play it via the VC when I feel like it, and I understand that this is one of the most popular Zelda games ever, but to deny the games that came after it, which brought their own additions and improvements to the Zelda franchise? I'm sorry but that's retarded right there.