User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » AppleOutsider »

Will the Nintendo DS fail? I think it will.


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Will the Nintendo DS fail? I think it will.
Page 5 of 10 Previous 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9  Next Last Thread Tools
bassplayinMacFiend
Banging the Bottom End
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 
2005-05-16, 09:54

I just picked up a Sony PSP last Friday and this thing is really cool! Not only does it play games, but I've loaded all the pics I've taken of my son onto it so I have a virtual photo album with hundreds of pics with me at all times!

My next attempt will be to transmogrify some of my home movies into a format the PSP will understand so I can show those off too.

Considering that I almost bought a digital picture frame last Christmas for $300, the PSP is a bargain. Plus, I have an awesome little gaming system to keep boredom at bay during my bus rides to/from work.

What I do think is funny though is that with all the wiz-bang graphics and 3D wizardry that is capable with the PSP, so far my favorite game by far is Lumines. I'm a total Tetris-a-holic so I knew this game would be my downfall before I bought it.

Still, Twisted Metal is fun too. Now I just have to learn to control these cars better so I can actually survive a round or two.
  quote
groverat
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
 
2005-05-16, 14:31

Over 5 million sold. Total failure.

Oh Nintendo, when will you ever learn?
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2005-05-30, 00:54

Played with my nephew-in-law's DS tonight. It was fun. I want one. Any other impressions of it?
  quote
morningstarrising
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
 
2005-06-02, 09:05

It's going to be a good year to have a DS over a PSP(Specially with GTA being in 2006 and such)


Here's many reasons









Nintendo fanboy first, Apple second
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2005-06-02, 09:17

My DS just arrived! Woo hoo! Gotta get a game for it. Which should I get first?

(Damn the studying! I'm going to play some games!!!)
  quote
Mac+
9" monochrome
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
 
2005-06-02, 13:04

tori kid at heart ... I picked up a run out GBA SP last year and only loaded Namco Museum on it - Dig Dug and Ms Pac Man, among others ... does me fine for now.

"Old skool rools"

All I want is a simple life
twitter
  quote
Wrao
Yarp
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
 
2005-06-02, 13:24

I've been pretty interested in the DS lately, I'm thinking about getting one. I cannot justify spending so much money on a portable gaming system, that I would never buy a PSP, though it does look radical. The DS looks far better suited for "toss in the car and forget about unless you're bored" which, I imagine is exactly what I'd do with it.


(edit: yes I know, based on my prior posts in this thread that's astounding, but heck, the DS is looking pretty cool to me lately)
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2005-06-02, 19:34

Wrao,

If you've got the money, you should definitely get one. I bought two games earlier today. Mario DS (of course) and this funky game "Feel the magic". That one is just absurd.

The thing about the DS is that it's not the same as a mini console. It's a different experience. I've got a console already and a BIG tv. Why do I want a smaller version of it? The DS is just *different* despite what Eugene says. It's pretty cool.

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.
  quote
Wrao
Yarp
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
 
2005-06-02, 19:38

That's kind of how I feel about it too. The DS looks like it's a fun little toy that will actually be fresh and interesting. The PSP looks like a portable PS2, which, I already have a PS2, and I barely use it anyway.
  quote
morningstarrising
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
 
2005-06-02, 20:42

Absurd? what's absurd about goldfish in the stomach?
  quote
omem
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Portugal
 
2005-06-02, 20:45

DS looks like an old cheap tetris system. Would never buy it!
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2005-06-02, 20:56

Quote:
Originally Posted by omem
DS looks like an old cheap tetris system. Would never buy it!
Dude, Tetris rocked. It STILL rocks.

@morningstar: My favorite so far has been cleaning the woman. Completely off the wall. And it really makes use of the DS' unique features.

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.
  quote
Mac+
9" monochrome
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 🇦🇺
 
2005-06-02, 22:39

Tetris does indeed rock ... especially on a colour iPod! Woot! (thanks AI)
  quote
Wrao
Yarp
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
 
2005-06-02, 23:12

Oh man, tetris rules. I played too much damn tetris last summer.
  quote
Carlos Net
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Send a message via AIM to Carlos Net Send a message via MSN to Carlos Net  
2005-06-03, 14:06

Okay, time for me to do an overblown post outlining my opinions on everything that has been said in this thread, I guess.

Firstly, let me just outline where I stand on the whole videogaming industry. I am a Nintendo fanboy. There's no use denying it, because I'm pretty much a definitive Nintendo fanboy in terms of my opinions, if perhaps not my level of intelligence (I've seen some pretty inarticulate Nintendo fanboys). I have only ever owned Nintendo consoles, and have relatively little experience of the other consoles (due to not actually owning any of them...) For the record, my first console was a Nintendo 64, followed by a Game Boy Color, then a GBA, a Gamecube, GBA SP and DS. And without fail, I've had extremely positive experiences on all of those.

So, to the topics at hand. Firstly, the more off-topic stuff. Nintendo 64 vs. PS1. Now, I don't pretend to be an expert on the history of the gaming industry, but even I think that the N64 had a definite technical edge over the PS1 when they were in competition. The only thing the PS1 had going for it technically, as has already been mentioned, was its larger storage medium. It's also been mentioned in this thread that the N64 was much easier to develop for than the PS1 - I don't know anything about this, so I'm just going to take it at face value. The fact is that the N64 had the power to create far better graphics than the PS1 could dream of, and the power to create true 3D worlds in a way that the PS1 could only feebly imitate at best. The N64's superiority here is pretty much indisputable.

Slightly more disputable, since it's a matter of taste, is that N64 had far better games than the PS1, both initially and through the course of its life. N64 launched with Super Mario 64. This was the first true 3D engine game ever made, and in pretty much everyone's opinion, it was a masterpiece. The likes of the game's engine had never been seen before, so it could have won people over purely on novelty value, but it wasn't content with that, and instead managed to be a truly brilliant game, and an indisputable system-seller. I'm sure there are people who would buy the N64 even today to play SM64. Now there've been cynical comments in this thread basically saying that SM64 was a travesty and ruined the Mario series, and that Mario should always have stayed a side-scroller. Now, it's fair enough to say that you don't like SM64 - although it's certainly a rarity, since it's such a great game - but to say that it was wrong to make it is just silly. The industry was just beginning to branch out into the new realm of 3D gaming, and not carrying on old franchises into that new realm would simply have been a shame. Fans want to see existing worlds live on, love seeing continuations of existing sagas, and Nintendo were right to transfer their franchises across to N64. Of course, transferring a 2D franchise into 3D means some level of reinvention, which in turn means that some fans are going to be lost along the way, and some new ones made; that's only natural. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done; to not move forward simply to prevent change is madness.

At any rate, the N64's stash of brilliant games didn't by any means end with SM64. There was Lylat Wars - more of an evolution than a reinvention of an existing franchise, but a welcome one that played like a dream. There were the twin Rare shooter gems - firstly, early on in N64's life, Goldeneye, and then later on, Perfect Dark. Both acknowledged as among the best games of their times. Top-notch platformers weren't by any means scarce either - there were no more first-party N64 platformers after SM64, but Nintendo's then second-party Rare filled the gap admirably with the brilliant Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie and DK64. Another N64 platformer (well, primarily platformer, though it had some more adventure-game elements) that I loved was the distinctly quirky but brilliant Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon, a Konami creation. There were racing games for everyone - Mario Kart 64, Diddy Kong Racing, F-Zero X and Beetle Adventure Racing were the four N64 racing games I owned, and all of them got me hooked despite the fact that I'm not usually particularly big on racing games, simply because they all had brilliantly fun, unique and addictive gameplay and style. The Super Smash Bros. series started on N64, as did Paper Mario, both brilliant games that later went on to spawn even more brilliant sequels on Gamecube. And of course then there's the legendary Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and its equally brilliant though less well-known sequel Majora's Mask. Both of those games' genius speaks for itself.

Pretty much any of these games I've just mentioned could be counted system-sellers for someone, and a decidedly large proportion are serious system-sellers. And I'm very sure there are some games I'm missing either because they've temporarily slipped my mind while I was coming up with that list, because they're not my style of game, or simply because I tragically missed out on them. And for the record, I don't think PS1 could even begin to come up with a list as impressive as that. Whilst it had a gigantic range of mediocre-to-rubbish games, and a fair selection of quite-good titles, its selection of actual gems was severely limited, and it is those, unsurprisingly enough, that hold the real interest for me.

There have been people in this thread comparing Nintendo to Apple, and I'm inclined to agree with them, because I've always seen the two companies as alike, even aside from the fact that they are both currently underdogs to some extent. They both, for a start, create both their own hardware and top-quality software that runs on that hardware, something that no other company in either of their markets really achieves. In Apple's case, of course, this allows them to create a flawless user interface and ensure that everything works together smoothly. Essentially the same thing works for Nintendo - because they create both their hardware and software, they have full control over their interface and can create games to take best advantage of it. This was clear in the N64, where they incorporated the Analogue Stick into their controller and then went on to make SM64, which showed off perfectly what it could do. It is even more clear in the DS, where undoubtedly the best games will be from Nintendo themselves, firstly because they always are on any Nintendo console, but secondly because they designed the unique interface with ideas in mind and they are most certainly going to realise those ideas. And it's almost certain to be clear in the Revolution, which is apparently going to have an incredibly unique interface of its own, though of course no-one knows what it is yet.

Nintendo is also like Apple in that they have focus on quality. For Apple, the focus is always first and foremost on quality of user experience. Similarly, for Nintendo, the focus is always first and foremost on quality of gaming experience - and more specifically (although not exclusively) on quality of gameplay experience. Enjoyable gaming is without a doubt their top priority, even to the extent on missing out other things such as the multimedia facilities that other systems offer. PS2 and Xbox could play DVDs and music and the like. Gamecube didn't do any of that - it played games; that was what it was for.

Even in the next generation, where PS3 and Xbox 360 seem to be wanting to broaden their multimedia capabilities and 'take over the living room' as the phrase goes, it seems unlikely that the Revolution is going to be doing that sort of thing - indeed it seems feasible that even the ability to play DVDs may be available only as an extra. Not that Nintendo haven't already revealed extra branching non-central features of the Revolution - of course they have! But what is the feature they've revealed? An online network, with access to a huge past library of...games. Where Sony and Microsoft's consoles are branching out into playing all sorts of other unrelated media, Nintendo's console is branching out to give old games a new lease of life. That says it all about their sense of focus. I'm not saying that their focus on games to the practical exclusion of all else is necessarily an entirely good thing - it would, I imagine, be quite handy to have a games console that can play DVDs, or play my music, or stream multimedia content from my computer. But when I'm buying a machine for gaming, if I have to choose between that and a console that allows me to enjoy games more easily, thoroughly and enjoyably, I'm going to opt for the second option every time. And Nintendo's focus on quality of games doesn't just go into their hardware features, of course, it's also evident in the sheer playability, enjoyability and love that goes into the games that they produce, and that is what I love them for. There are people who say that Nintendo should abandon hardware altogether and become purely a games developer, and there's logic in that argument, because that's what they are first and foremost - the best damn games developer out there. But to become purely a third-party developer would be to restrict them, to put them at least partly under the control of Sony or Microsoft, and that's quite definitely not desirable. And with their focus on innovation in hardware as well as software, losing them in that respect would be a huge blow to the industry.

The other console designers' entire philosophy is so different from Nintendo's that it really isn't funny any more. Sony were bad enough on their own when it was just them against Nintendo, and at one point, Sega - Sony were the lone purely corporate giant in the industry, with their attitudes not focused on actual gaming, but on technology. But then Microsoft joined the fray, bringing its usual corporate clunkiness with it, and the two of them started leading the console industry with their non-gaming-oriented philosophies. Essentially, Sony and Microsoft don't look at consoles as consoles - that is, something that you buy and then you play games on. They look at them as platforms, like computers - Microsoft especially. Perhaps it's partly because they don't tend to actually develop games for the systems themselves, but they're ruining the entire concept. I look at posts like this from back on page 2 of this thread:

Quote:
Of course I'm talking about a modded xbox. Would you buy a computer from Apple and never upgrade anything on it?

I think it's indisputable that games look better on the xbox. I own a PS2, GameCube, and xbox and while I rarely play any of them I do play the xbox occasionally.

xbox is wonderful that you can mod it so easily, install a larger HD, and rip games to the HD. Do you know what that does for loading time?! Storing and playing movies on the xbox from the HD or disc is even nicer.

I am not a console person. In fact, I dislike them and prefer a mouse and keyboard, but disputing the supremacy of xbox is hard, unless you are that into mario.

I take back my comment about Apple and Nintendo, there is a comparison you can make, they both make machines inferior at gaming
I look at posts like that, and I'm just physically shocked. "Of course I'm talking about a modded Xbox". What the hell? Now, I like technology, yes. But I'm not a hardware junkie. That is, I don't at all like the idea of taking any kind of computer apart with any regularity at all. A computer, as far as I am concerned, is a computer. What matters about a computer is that it works, and it runs what you want it to run. When it starts to get outdated, okay, you're eventually going to have to upgrade it, but I don't want that to be a regular thing. I don't want to be thinking about the innards of my computer - I want to be thinking about the OS, and the software on it, and what that lets me do. That's one area in which Macs outdo PCs - you don't need to upgrade them every half a minute. To start with, they come with what they need to get the job done. You might need to install some extra memory when you first get the computer, and maybe a bit more later on, but apart from that, you don't think about it. The computer's good for a fair few years if necessary, and when you feel the time's ripe, you can replace it with a shiny new one. Or even not, if necessary. I'm actually typing right now on my 400MHz G3 iMac. I sure as hell wouldn't be using this machine if I had a choice, of course not. I long for a new machine, but I'm a non-working student at the moment, and as such don't actually have any cash with which to buy a new machine. But this machine still does everything I want it to. If it had room on its puny 10GB hard drive to install it, I daresay it'd even run Tiger quite happily. This is an ancient computer that never needed upgrading. Not like a Windows box, where you have to replace one of its internal organs every week until a year later it's actually a completely different machine in the same plastic shell.

The point is, the console philosophy has always been - this is a [consolename]. It plays [consolename] games. You buy it. You put [consolename] games in it. You play them. You have fun. So what's this "Of course I'm talking about a modded Xbox"? I'm not a hardware junkie. I don't even know entirely what the term 'modding' means, least of all with relation to Xboxes. Should I? I'm a gamer. I use consoles because I want to play games. That's it. You buy wireless controllers for a console if you don't want the hassle of wires, yeah. You buy more controllers if you want multiplayer. You might buy some kind of novelty controller if you want to play some cool type of game. Those sort of things make sense. But upgrades? Mods? A console isn't a computer - no, strike that, I mean a PC. You can't treat it like one. The closest thing to a hardware upgrade I want to see on a console is something like the Expansion Pak for the N64 - it lets the console play games that are a damn sight more powerful, any game that needs it is labelled quite clearly with a big Expansion Pak logo, and just to be helpful, the first game that uses it comes free with one. And like the Expansion Pak, it shouldn't be a common thing - that was a once-in-a-console's-lifetime upgrade thing.

You know why? Consoles are supposed to play games and just work. You buy a game for a console, you expect to be able to plug it in and be able to play it as it was supposed to be played. Not like PC 'gamers' who buy a game for their PC, analyse the reccomended specs to see if it'll be able to run all the flashy effects properly, realise they don't because they haven't bought the new graphics card that came out last week, go out and buy one for the sole purpose of playing this game, play it and get annoyed because their computer crashes/is a bit slow/is running something else at the same time/has a virus/doesn't feel like it right now because it's busy having cybersex with that hot toaster in the bathroom. Then they go buy another game (and of course a new graphics card to go with it. Of COURSE. And possibly a new CPU.)

Yes, I'm being overblown. No, I don't think console gamers are going to go all PC and start switching bits and pieces of their consoles' innards regularly anytime soon, especially since the true console ethos, which effectively physically prevents it, never mind being a better model, is still being followed for the most part. But when people start talking about console 'modding' like it's something everyone does, and businesses like Sony and Microsoft turn their screwed-up corporate eyes on the industry with philosophies like they have now, I do get worried that someday, they might.

Now, finally, onto the actual topic of the thread - DS. I own a DS, as I mentioned, and without going into any kind of overanalysis, let me just first say I think it's great, in that it's unique and fun. It also, being unique, has a ton of unexplored potential, and more than that, it even has features in it that have hardly been put to use at all yet (I'm looking at you, microphone). So it's a machine that's original, fun, and full of potential. What's not to like?

Well, if you're going to be picky, then graphics is the obvious place to start. The graphics are, no question about it, outdated compared to home consoles. Never mind that handhelds have historically been many, many years behind home consoles and no-one's complained yet - it is. The only reason, of course, that people are taking note of this is because of the PSP, which has graphics rivalling home consoles. (Well, I say 'rivalling home consoles' - what I mean is almost up to the standard of PS2, the least powerful of a generation of consoles that is swiftly drawing to a close. But let's not split hairs.) But really - if it wasn't for the PSP and its spiffy graphics showing up as well, nobody would complain about the DS' graphics, period. This is the first handheld to be able to handle 3D worlds, and it does so with graphics superior to the N64. That's a serious leap from GBA, and to be frank, I thought GBA graphics were pretty nice themselves in their own little way. But the PSP's graphics are on a totally different level, which brings scepticism towards DS.

But you see - there's one thing these people are missing amongst all the 3D hype around the DS, being so keen to naysay. Because in my opinion, what DS' forte really is is GBA-style games. Think about it. This is a whole new segment - the GBC was between NES and SNES, the GBA was quite clearly the handheld SNES, but what's the DS? It's not something that's been touched on before, no pun intended. It's a console with more power than the N64, but controls that lend themselves more to SNES-style gameplay. Among other things. Obviously, the SNES didn't have a touch screen and microphone and all that, but if you just look at the base controls - because the touch screen doesn't have to be everything - you can clearly see that this console is engineered towards that type of gameplay. Yes, there are openings for other types of gameplay - FPS for one it handles brilliantly if the Metroid Prime Hunters demo is anything to go by, and of course there are whole new avenues opened up by the touch screen; just look at the likes of Wario Ware: Touched, Polarium, Yoshi's Touch and Go, Pac-Pix, Nintendogs and their ilk. But its core games, and the ones I'm most interested in (well, except maybe MP: Hunters) are the ones that are basically GBA on steroids.

Nintendo have been pretty damn smart here, if I do say so myself, with the whole 'third pillar' proclamation - ie. that DS isn't a replacement for the Game Boy line, but rather an entirely new product in a line of its own. Right now, it doesn't seem to make much sense - what's the point in developing for the GBA when you could make the same game on DS and it could be better? - but when the next Game Boy is announced, then it's going to start making a whole lot of sense. This is a momentous point, you see. This is the point where 2D gaming could essentially be lost. Gamers got something of a taste of that when the N64 came out and suddenly everything was moving to 3D - but they were soon sated, because now they had home consoles to provide them with their 3D needs and handhelds for their 2D needs. And with few exceptions, that's how it's stayed, each keeping to its own territory. Now, handhelds are reaching the same technological point that home consoles reached with the N64, and this time there is no whole other market to fall back on for 2D gaming, so 2D gaming could quite easily get lost in a world where both consoles and handhelds play 3D games - because on a console where 3D is the norm, 2D tends to get forgotten.

But then there's the DS. When the GBA 2 comes out - and that, naturally, is going to be essentially a PSP, except with better graphics, longer battery life, good games and That Nintendo Feeling(TM) - when the GBA 2 comes out, Nintendo really will have three pillars. There'll be Revolution, which by this time will have replaced Cube as the standard home console, and will provide gamers with their top-end gaming needs, with innovation naturally prominently in there somewhere, and online access to all the classic NES, SNES and N64 games that everybody loves, thus letting them live on forever. There'll be GBA 2, providing gamers with powerful gaming on the go, with wireless technology allowing for incredibly convenient impromptu multiplayer, and even free online play if you're near a wireless hotspot, although naturally serious online play is better suited to your Revolution at home - also free of course, at least for the first-party titles, and those are the ones that count the most. And then there'll be DS, which covers the games that GBA 2 and most likely Revolution won't handle quite as well - the slick FPS games, the unique touchscreen or voice command based games, and quite simply the 2D games. The console won't be forgotten, that'll be ensured by its unique capabilities, and because it won't be forgotten it'll still be able to churn out 2D gems as well as innovative titles - and of course 2D titles that make use of the unique features to boot.

And I for one am glad, because DS means I'm going to see the likes of Mario and Luigi 2, an all-new side-scrolling Super Mario Bros. game (that guy who said Mario should have just stuck to 2D should be happy), a new (probably 2D) Zelda game, and so on. I'm a firm believer in the rumours that there's a new 2D Metroid title called Metroid Dread in the works for it as well, and that...well, that's just the icing on the cake. Sweet, sweet 2D games. We really would miss them if they went away. Thank DS for keeping them alive. You know you want to.

And once you see that bigger picture, all the supposed problems with the DS start to make sense. The graphics aren't up to standard? Well, actually, they're absolutely PERFECT for handling 2D games, and they're pretty nice with things like Wario Ware or MP: Hunters as well. Just digital controls? I'm afraid the only thing analogue controls are really necessary for is 3D action games, and they aren't what this console's aiming for. We're not going to be seeing a lot of Super Mario 64 DS-style games - that was just to show off what the console's capable of and prepare for the 3D glory of Metroid Prime Hunters, which the control setup does wonders for. The 3D platformers and adventure games and all that sort of thing are all going to be showing up on the GBA 2 when that comes out - and there, they'll be at home.

Apologies for the excessively long post responding to old topics in a thread that's just gone and been resurrected, but this is just the sort of thread that makes me feel the need to post, you know? And when I post...well, I post.
  quote
scratt
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: M-F: Thailand Weekends : F1 2010 - Various Tracks!
Send a message via Skype™ to scratt 
2005-06-03, 23:58

Personally I loath Nintendos games. The Mario Brothers have been crap ever since they were around in the arcade, and again IMHO that genre of games appeals only to freaks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Nintendo is also like Apple in that they have focus on quality. For Apple, the focus is always first and foremost on quality of user experience. Similarly, for Nintendo, the focus is always first and foremost on quality of gaming experience - and more specifically (although not exclusively) on quality of gameplay experience. Enjoyable gaming is without a doubt their top priority, even to the extent on missing out other things such as the multimedia facilities that other systems offer. PS2 and Xbox could play DVDs and music and the like. Gamecube didn't do any of that - it played games; that was what it was for.
Wrong. This is from personal experience. Nintendo produce the least and sell it for the most. They cynically hold back technology and sell stuff which is several iterations out of date in relation to what they have "in-shop" at their R&D stations. When I was working in Japan (at Sega) back in the 90's they already had a colour Gameboy (which we played on and had to tear apart at Sega) but did not market it at all because they still had several years worth of market left in the black and white Gameboy. So instead of producing something which was better for the consumer they milked all they could from the old technology first. Good business strategy, but not the altruistic caring producer of entertainment that you paint them to be above...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Even in the next generation, where PS3 and Xbox 360 seem to be wanting to broaden their multimedia capabilities and 'take over the living room' as the phrase goes, it seems unlikely that the Revolution is going to be doing that sort of thing - indeed it seems feasible that even the ability to play DVDs may be available only as an extra.
Agreed... Because that means selling less for more, and charging for extras.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Not that Nintendo haven't already revealed extra branching non-central features of the Revolution - of course they have! But what is the feature they've revealed? An online network, with access to a huge past library of...games. Where Sony and Microsoft's consoles are branching out into playing all sorts of other unrelated media, Nintendo's console is branching out to give old games a new lease of life.
Yes.. They always release last.. Why is that? Because they produce a system that they consider offers just enough to beat the competition after looking at what else is out there. Nintendo has consistently brought their consols out after all the other major players.

They also want to breath life into the old game library for the simple reason that it is more revenue from old product. Not an evil thing, but a sensible business ploy. But also cynical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
And Nintendo's focus on quality of games doesn't just go into their hardware features, of course, it's also evident in the sheer playability, enjoyability and love that goes into the games that they produce, and that is what I love them for.
Vvery subjective. Personally their games suck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
There are people who say that Nintendo should abandon hardware altogether and become purely a games developer, and there's logic in that argument, because that's what they are first and foremost - the best damn games developer out there.
Who??

[quote=Carlos Net]But to become purely a third-party developer would be to restrict them, to put them at least partly under the control of Sony or Microsoft, and that's quite definitely not desirable. And with their focus on innovation in hardware as well as software, losing them in that respect would be a huge blow to the industry.[quote]

Without the Japanese market they would not be a major player anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
The other console designers' entire philosophy is so different from Nintendo's that it really isn't funny any more. Sony were bad enough on their own when it was just them against Nintendo, and at one point, Sega - Sony were the lone purely corporate giant in the industry, with their attitudes not focused on actual gaming, but on technology. But then Microsoft joined the fray, bringing its usual corporate clunkiness with it, and the two of them started leading the console industry with their non-gaming-oriented philosophies. Essentially, Sony and Microsoft don't look at consoles as consoles - that is, something that you buy and then you play games on. They look at them as platforms, like computers - Microsoft especially. Perhaps it's partly because they don't tend to actually develop games for the systems themselves, but they're ruining the entire concept. I look at posts like this from back on page 2 of this thread:
And these consols being succesful has nothing to do with the fact that the games are much much better on them, than on the Nintendo?

Personally I hate M$... But the XBox has some bangin' software on it.
The PS2 stuff is also awesome.
Super Mario Kart... Well.. I haven't seen that ported to either yet!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
The closest thing to a hardware upgrade I want to see on a console is something like the Expansion Pak for the N64 - it lets the console play games that are a damn sight more powerful, any game that needs it is labelled quite clearly with a big Expansion Pak logo, and just to be helpful, the first game that uses it comes free with one. And like the Expansion Pak, it shouldn't be a common thing - that was a once-in-a-console's-lifetime upgrade thing.
And also be full of practically nothing worth noting and cost an arm and a leg? I still have a stock PS2 today, and have not needed to plug in a cludge to get it to play good up-to-date games!
See what I mean about Nintendo selling the least they can to a market place?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Now, finally, onto the actual topic of the thread - DS. I own a DS, as I mentioned, and without going into any kind of overanalysis, let me just first say I think it's great, in that it's unique and fun. It also, being unique, has a ton of unexplored potential, and more than that, it even has features in it that have hardly been put to use at all yet (I'm looking at you, microphone). So it's a machine that's original, fun, and full of potential. What's not to like?
The ergonomics. The retro 70's styling? The out of date innards. The software database.

[quote=Carlos Net]Well, if you're going to be picky, then graphics is the obvious place to start. The graphics are, no question about it, outdated compared to home consoles. Never mind that handhelds have historically been many, many years behind home consoles and no-one's complained yet - it is. The only reason, of course, that people are taking note of this is because of the PSP, which has graphics rivalling home consoles. (Well, I say 'rivalling home consoles' - what I mean is almost up to the standard of PS2, the least powerful of a generation of consoles that is swiftly drawing to a close. But let's not split hairs.) But really - if it wasn't for the PSP and its spiffy graphics showing up as well, nobody would complain about the DS' graphics, period.[quote]

Well I don't know about anybody else.. But I would. The graphics suck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
This is the first handheld to be able to handle 3D worlds, and it does so with graphics superior to the N64. That's a serious leap from GBA, and to be frank, I thought GBA graphics were pretty nice themselves in their own little way. But the PSP's graphics are on a totally different level, which brings scepticism towards DS.
What are you smoking?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
But you see - there's one thing these people are missing amongst all the 3D hype around the DS, being so keen to naysay. Because in my opinion, what DS' forte really is is GBA-style games. Think about it. This is a whole new segment - the GBC was between NES and SNES, the GBA was quite clearly the handheld SNES, but what's the DS? It's not something that's been touched on before, no pun intended. It's a console with more power than the N64, but controls that lend themselves more to SNES-style gameplay. Among other things. Obviously, the SNES didn't have a touch screen and microphone and all that, but if you just look at the base controls - because the touch screen doesn't have to be everything - you can clearly see that this console is engineered towards that type of gameplay. Yes, there are openings for other types of gameplay - FPS for one it handles brilliantly if the Metroid Prime Hunters demo is anything to go by, and of course there are whole new avenues opened up by the touch screen; just look at the likes of Wario Ware: Touched, Polarium, Yoshi's Touch and Go, Pac-Pix, Nintendogs and their ilk. But its core games, and the ones I'm most interested in (well, except maybe MP: Hunters) are the ones that are basically GBA on steroids.
Yea and my treo 650 smartphone has all those features and plays soe cracking games.. It's also a phone, an organiser, a translator, and internet access device etc. etc..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Nintendo have been pretty damn smart here, if I do say so myself, with the whole 'third pillar' proclamation - ie. that DS isn't a replacement for the Game Boy line, but rather an entirely new product in a line of its own. Right now, it doesn't seem to make much sense - what's the point in developing for the GBA when you could make the same game on DS and it could be better? - but when the next Game Boy is announced, then it's going to start making a whole lot of sense. This is a momentous point, you see. This is the point where 2D gaming could essentially be lost. Gamers got something of a taste of that when the N64 came out and suddenly everything was moving to 3D - but they were soon sated, because now they had home consoles to provide them with their 3D needs and handhelds for their 2D needs. And with few exceptions, that's how it's stayed, each keeping to its own territory. Now, handhelds are reaching the same technological point that home consoles reached with the N64, and this time there is no whole other market to fall back on for 2D gaming, so 2D gaming could quite easily get lost in a world where both consoles and handhelds play 3D games - because on a console where 3D is the norm, 2D tends to get forgotten.
Yep. Pretty smart. They picked up all the old discarded crap at the back of the work-shop (metaphorically) and thought how can we peddle this out to unsuspecting punters...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
And I for one am glad, because DS means I'm going to see the likes of Mario and Luigi 2, an all-new side-scrolling Super Mario Bros. game (that guy who said Mario should have just stuck to 2D should be happy), a new (probably 2D) Zelda game, and so on. I'm a firm believer in the rumours that there's a new 2D Metroid title called Metroid Dread in the works for it as well, and that...well, that's just the icing on the cake. Sweet, sweet 2D games. We really would miss them if they went away. Thank DS for keeping them alive. You know you want to...
*vomits* You are a fanboy arne't you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
And once you see that bigger picture, all the supposed problems with the DS start to make sense. The graphics aren't up to standard? Well, actually, they're absolutely PERFECT for handling 2D games, and they're pretty nice with things like Wario Ware or MP: Hunters as well. Just digital controls? I'm afraid the only thing analogue controls are really necessary for is 3D action games, and they aren't what this console's aiming for. We're not going to be seeing a lot of Super Mario 64 DS-style games - that was just to show off what the console's capable of and prepare for the 3D glory of Metroid Prime Hunters, which the control setup does wonders for. The 3D platformers and adventure games and all that sort of thing are all going to be showing up on the GBA 2 when that comes out - and there, they'll be at home.
Welcome to the reality distortion field... Do you want a job with Nintendo?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Apologies for the excessively long post responding to old topics in a thread that's just gone and been resurrected, but this is just the sort of thread that makes me feel the need to post, you know? And when I post...well, I post.
Please don't.

'Remember, measure life by the moments that take your breath away, not by how many breaths you take'
Extreme Sports Cafe | ESC's blog | scratt's blog | @thescratt
  quote
Carlos Net
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Send a message via AIM to Carlos Net Send a message via MSN to Carlos Net  
2005-06-04, 15:45

Oh dear. You really do have exactly the opposite opinions to mine, don't you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Personally I loath Nintendos games. The Mario Brothers have been crap ever since they were around in the arcade, and again IMHO that genre of games appeals only to freaks.
So you're starting with personal attacks and name-calling (getting a sense of deja vù from earlier in this thread) based on my taste in games? And possibly generalising based on one game series? Your statement certainly sounds as if you're saying 'I don't like the genre of the original Mario Bros. games, ergo all Nintendo's games suck and so does anyone who likes them'. Very logical; I'm sure that's going to endear you to a lot of people.

Fact: Nintendo makes games other than the Mario Bros. series. I've never actually played what people would call the 'classic' Mario games; the closest thing I've got to that is Super Mario Advance 3, where you don't even control Mario, so now you're generalising based on games that I haven't even played. However, I do know a lot of people would take offence at your statement that only 'freaks' like the Mario Bros. games, since they're widely acknowledged as some of the best classic games out there.

But yeah. Nintendo also makes Zelda, Starfox, Metroid, F-Zero, Pokemon, Pikmin and Kirby to name some of their most successful franchises that don't involve Mario at all. That's a huge range of game styles and gameplay, and you quite simply can't generalise across them; there's only one thing I can think that they have in common, and that's that they're all GOOD, in that there are huge numbers of people out there who find them enjoyable. I'm not saying that every single person in the world is going to find all of those franchises to their tastes, but there's no denying that they're all very good at what they do. If we expand our view to include Mario, then we can also include the Mario Sports titles (Mario Tennis, Mario Golf, the upcoming Mario soccer and baseball games), the Super Smash Bros. games (which include Mario alongside numerous other famous Nintendo faces), the Mario RPG series (Super Mario RPG on the SNES, and the Paper Mario/Mario and Luigi sagas), the Mario Party series (which has had too many releases for its own good, to be quite honest ), the Mario Kart series, and the Donkey Kong series (which started off as part of the Mario franchise but broke off from it). So unless you object purely to the appearance or character of the games (which, admittedly, can vary quite a bit anyway), it's difficult to see how you could even insult as group all MARIO games, seeing as how there are so many different types, all with very different gameplay. Oh, and if we're talking about variety of gameplay, we should probably take the above list and multiply by two, seeing as a large number of these games have seen both 2D and 3D releases, with distinctly different gameplay in some cases, and fairly different gameplay in most.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Nintendo produce the least and sell it for the most. They cynically hold back technology and sell stuff which is several iterations out of date in relation to what they have "in-shop" at their R&D stations. When I was working in Japan (at Sega) back in the 90's they already had a colour Gameboy (which we played on and had to tear apart at Sega) but did not market it at all because they still had several years worth of market left in the black and white Gameboy. So instead of producing something which was better for the consumer they milked all they could from the old technology first. Good business strategy, but not the altruistic caring producer of entertainment that you paint them to be above...
Fair point. They're not perfect, nobody is. Of course they think like a business, and try to make profit - they ARE a business, and that's what businesses DO. What are you talking about exactly with the colour Game Boy? You're not stating it very clearly. Are you saying that they made a colour Game Boy but held back its release so as to get more life out of the ordinary Game Boy? Or are you just saying that they didn't market the Game Boy Color as well as they could have? It sounds like the latter from what you actually say, but your tone and attitude towards it suggests the former...and the latter would be decidedly less of a crime than you're making it out to be. I remember the Game Boy Color; it was my first handheld. I liked it. There were some great games on that thing. But not phasing out older software until it really is obsolete has always been Nintendo's strategy - they still supported the GBC while the GBA was out, and they're still supporting the GBA while the DS is out (although with the whole third-pillar thing, that's slightly different). Eh, since I'm not even entirely sure what point you're trying to make, I'm not sure where I'm going here.

The point is, I'm not saying Nintendo isn't a business and doesn't look for profit. I'm saying that it makes profit by focusing on producing top-quality, enjoyable games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Agreed... Because that means selling less for more, and charging for extras.
Yes, if you're a cynic then having the DVD functionality as optional could be a way of charging more. Alternatively, it could be a way of bringing the console's price DOWN for those people who don't think that functionality is important, or in other words giving them more choice what the spend their money on. Would you think it was sensible for Apple to offer all their built-to-order options as standard? No, because it would push the computers' prices up obscenely. I can see where you're coming from, but when it comes right down to it, it's really not necessarily a bad thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Yes.. They always release last.. Why is that? Because they produce a system that they consider offers just enough to beat the competition after looking at what else is out there. Nintendo has consistently brought their consols out after all the other major players.

They also want to breath life into the old game library for the simple reason that it is more revenue from old product. Not an evil thing, but a sensible business ploy. But also cynical.
What are you arguing here? Are you trying to say that Nintendo are holding back, and could actually produce consoles twice as good as the competition's, and wipe them out completely, instead of being modest? If you are, I'd say that's a bad sign for the other console manufacturers, if they're so far behind that Nintendo would have to 'hold back to just beat them'.

As for breathing life into the old game library, that's not cynical at ALL. That's what's called a strategy that means EVERYONE profits, consumers and manufacturer alike. The SOLE purpose of the downloadable past library is to make the Revolution console more attractive to consumers. It's an entirely free service (well, third parties can charge for downloading THEIR games from it, but all first-party games will be guaranteed free). If you think providing a free service like that with a console is cynical, then you think ANYTHING is cynical, thanks very much. They're trying to sell more consoles purely by adding to the experience it offers with a huge library of free content. That's not cynical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Without the Japanese market they would not be a major player anymore.
Well, if that's true, thank God for the Japanese is all I have to say. It doesn't make any difference whether their relying on a particular market for a lot of their profit, the fact is that they do bring hardware innovation to the industry, and I for one prefer their hardware for playing games to any of the competition's, so it would be a loss to me. And I"m sure there are plenty of people who would share that sentiment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
And these consols being succesful has nothing to do with the fact that the games are much much better on them, than on the Nintendo?

Personally I hate M$... But the XBox has some bangin' software on it.
The PS2 stuff is also awesome.
Super Mario Kart... Well.. I haven't seen that ported to either yet!!
Name your "bangin' software". Personally, I prefer the library on GC to anything I know about on either of the other consoles, and there are plenty of people who think the same way I do. Convince me. Personally, I think the success of those other consoles are less because of the actual quality of their gaming experience and more on their grasp of marketing and selling themselves as "cool". There are plenty of people, and you strike me as likely one of them, who are biased against Nintendo's console because it doesn't have the same "cool" image as the other two consoles. People who look at Mario's graphics and think 'oh, it's colourful, therefore it's only for tiny little baby kids and I'm not going to be caught near any console that has that on'. That kind of shallow people. Personally, it makes me sick that that kind of people call themselves gamers. Gamers are people who know how to enjoy games, not judge them shallowly. Oh, and as for Super Mario Kart being ported, I have no idea what you're talking about. Nintendo games stay on Nintendo's consoles, and that's where they should be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
And also be full of practically nothing worth noting and cost an arm and a leg? I still have a stock PS2 today, and have not needed to plug in a cludge to get it to play good up-to-date games!
See what I mean about Nintendo selling the least they can to a market place?
This was in response to my mentioning the N64 Expansion Pak. Firstly, let me reiterate that the Expansion Pak was provided free with Donkey Kong 64, the first game to use it (and a damn nice game as well). I can understand the arguments against the Expansion Pak; hell, I'm the one who was arguing against upgrades to consoles. But this one was executed in a console ethos manner, and as far as I can tell had a decidedly nice impact on the quality of those games that required it - some had noticeably better graphics, some had noticeably larger worlds, some managed to handle noticeably more enemies and were the better for it. If it let those games be developed, then I'm all for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
The ergonomics. The retro 70's styling? The out of date innards. The software database.
I see nothing wrong with the ergonomics or aesthetics; it's a nice-looking machine that's comfortable to hold, and it's not even that hard to use on the go in stylus-based games. For ordinary games, it's about as comfortable as a GBA to use, and some people prefer it to the GBA SP because the size is more comfortable for them. The technology suits the machine, as I outlined in my last post, and games, I'm not going to go into again; I've already covered that in detail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Well I don't know about anybody else.. But I would. The graphics suck.
As I said, it's a leap from SNES to above-N64 quality. That's a very respectable leap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
What are you smoking?
That was in response to my 3D comment, and I stand by it. This is the first handheld (or at least the first handheld worth noting; there might be some obscure higher-tech handheld out there that I'm not taking into account, but that doesn't make much difference, does it?) to reach N64-level technology, which is the level at which true 3D games become properly feasible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Yea and my treo 650 smartphone has all those features and plays soe cracking games.. It's also a phone, an organiser, a translator, and internet access device etc. etc..
Wait, you're comparing a MOBILE to a gaming device now? Next thing I know you're going to start spouting the word "N-Gage". The point at which someone starts pretending phones have any relevance to handhelds is the point at which they stop being credible, until someone produces one that makes them credible as a handheld gaming platform. Right now, the N-Gage is the best we have, and that, to put it politely, sucked ass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Yep. Pretty smart. They picked up all the old discarded crap at the back of the work-shop (metaphorically) and thought how can we peddle this out to unsuspecting punters...
You're such a cynic. There's still a market for 2D games. There's also still a market for less expensive handhelds than PSP-style powerhouses. The DS is filling an opening market gap, and adding innovative new technology to old to make sure it's worthwhile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
*vomits* You are a fanboy arne't you?
Yes, I told you I was. I'm a fanboy because I love games. So I'm happy to see games I love being developed and styles of gaming I love being kept alive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Welcome to the reality distortion field... Do you want a job with Nintendo?
All the things I said about the future were just my personal vision of where Nintendo is heading based on things they've said in the past, and personally it looks to me like if they do it right it'll be damn good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
And when I post...well, I post.
Please don't.
Sorry, couldn't resist it
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2005-06-04, 16:18

Good grief. The DS is fun and different. That's enough to secure its success. And it's not outrageously priced so it's toy and not an investment. Who knew talking about Nintendo would espouse such reactions?

I think that the sales numbers of the DS belie the notion that it will fail. I, for one, am glad Nintendo's doing something different than making the consoles portable.

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.
  quote
morningstarrising
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
 
2005-06-04, 23:12

Yeah get back to cleaning women
  quote
scratt
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: M-F: Thailand Weekends : F1 2010 - Various Tracks!
Send a message via Skype™ to scratt 
2005-06-04, 23:43

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Nintendo also makes Zelda, Starfox, Metroid, F-Zero, Pokemon, Pikmin and Kirby to name some of their most successful franchises that don't involve Mario at all. Oh, and if we're talking about variety of gameplay, we should probably take the above list and multiply by two, seeing as a large number of these games have seen both 2D and 3D releases, with distinctly different gameplay in some cases, and fairly different gameplay in most.
But IMO they are crap games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
What are you talking about exactly with the colour Game Boy? You're not stating it very clearly. Are you saying that they made a colour Game Boy but held back its release so as to get more life out of the ordinary Game Boy? Or are you just saying that they didn't market the Game Boy Color as well as they could have?
I am saying the cynically held back releasing the Colour Gameboy whle they took as much money for the Black and White Gameboy as possible.[/quote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Yes, if you're a cynic then having the DVD functionality as optional could be a way of charging more. Alternatively, it could be a way of bringing the console's price DOWN for those people who don't think that functionality is important, or in other words giving them more choice what the spend their money on.
But their consols and games are not significantly cheaper than other console manufacturers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
As for breathing life into the old game library, that's not cynical at ALL.
I disagree.

[
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Well, if that's true, thank God for the Japanese is all I have to say. It doesn't make any difference whether their relying on a particular market for a lot of their profit, the fact is that they do bring hardware innovation to the industry, and I for one prefer their hardware for playing games to any of the competition's, so it would be a loss to me. And I"m sure there are plenty of people who would share that sentiment.
But their hardware is not innovative. It's old design, old concept, mass marketted to people who know no better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Name your "bangin' software". Personally, I prefer the library on GC to anything I know about on either of the other consoles, and there are plenty of people who think the same way I do. Convince me. Personally, I think the success of those other consoles are less because of the actual quality of their gaming experience and more on their grasp of marketing and selling themselves as "cool".
HALO
Grand Theft Auto
Snake Eater
Shall I go on...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
I see nothing wrong with the ergonomics or aesthetics; it's a nice-looking machine that's comfortable to hold, and it's not even that hard to use on the go in stylus-based games. For ordinary games, it's about as comfortable as a GBA to use, and some people prefer it to the GBA SP because the size is more comfortable for them. The technology suits the machine, as I outlined in my last post, and games, I'm not going to go into again; I've already covered that in detail.
It looks like a 60's concept of an 80's mobile!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
That was in response to my 3D comment, and I stand by it. This is the first handheld (or at least the first handheld worth noting; there might be some obscure higher-tech handheld out there that I'm not taking into account, but that doesn't make much difference, does it?) to reach N64-level technology, which is the level at which true 3D games become properly feasible.
And I stand by mine? WTF R U SMOKIN?!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Wait, you're comparing a MOBILE to a gaming device now? Next thing I know you're going to start spouting the word "N-Gage". The point at which someone starts pretending phones have any relevance to handhelds is the point at which they stop being credible, until someone produces one that makes them credible as a handheld gaming platform. Right now, the N-Gage is the best we have, and that, to put it politely, sucked ass.
Simply pointing out that a lot of the games on my treo (which I did not get for games) are more addictive and more fun than those on the DS. That is not a comparison, just a statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
You're such a cynic. There's still a market for 2D games. There's also still a market for less expensive handhelds than PSP-style powerhouses. The DS is filling an opening market gap, and adding innovative new technology to old to make sure it's worthwhile.
Perhaps, but I think your statement says it all. The DS is the poor man's PSP. I think I am beginning to understand where your fanatical support comes fromm now....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Yes, I told you I was. I'm a fanboy because I love games. So I'm happy to see games I love being developed and styles of gaming I love being kept alive.
Good for you.

Hey.. Nothing personal.. Just expressing my opinions also, and clarifying a few points..

I hope you enjoy your DS. Really.

'Remember, measure life by the moments that take your breath away, not by how many breaths you take'
Extreme Sports Cafe | ESC's blog | scratt's blog | @thescratt
  quote
katori
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
 
2005-06-05, 00:34

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
But their consols and games are not significantly cheaper than other console manufacturers
Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't GameCube's starting price $200, as opposed to $300 for XBox and PS2? $100 is a pretty big difference...
  quote
Carlos Net
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Send a message via AIM to Carlos Net Send a message via MSN to Carlos Net  
2005-06-05, 09:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
But IMO they are crap games.
And that's your own personal opinion, certainly not representative of the actual quality of the games. I can't decide whether you're ignorant (ie. haven't actually played a lot of those games), biased (ie. dismissing them because they're Nintendo games or because a lot of them don't look 'mature' enough for your tastes), or just somehow have a taste in games that somehow manages to freakily coincidentally exclude any games made by Nintendo. Forgive me if I sound a little cynical; I'm sure it's possible that you could simply somehow perfectly legitimately not like any of those games. It just seems a little unlikely to me that that's the case when they are so varied and all so good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
I am saying the cynically held back releasing the Colour Gameboy whle they took as much money for the Black and White Gameboy as possible.
Oh, so you WERE talking about them actually holding back the release. Good, that makes your argument more sound than what it sounded like you were saying. Nevertheless, I still don't think Nintendo should be condemned for getting life out of a console if it had life in it yet. Besides which, there could have been technical reasons for delaying the release (battery life comes to mind; it had always been an issue with colour-screened consoles, and has always been a big thing on consoles since).

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
But their consols and games are not significantly cheaper than other console manufacturers
What katori said. They usually ARE. Besides which, I wasn't talking about past consoles, I was talking for a potential reason to keep it as optional on the Revolution, and we don't know anything about the pricing on that yet, any more than we know practically anything else about it... But pricing is going to be an issue marketing and consumer-wise whatever sort of price level it comes out at, so keeping things that could push it up as 'optional extras' could make sense no matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
I disagree.
What? What's cynical about providing people who buy your console with free access to a huge library of games? Because it might help them sell more consoles? By that logic, ANYTHING remotely SANE that a business does is cynical...

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
But their hardware is not innovative. It's old design, old concept, mass marketted to people who know no better.
They pioneered D-pads, light guns, handhelds, analogue control, controller rumble and wireless controllers, among other things that seriously took off. And they also come up with things like the bongo controllers, the DS and so on to keep innovation fresh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
HALO
Grand Theft Auto
Snake Eater
Shall I go on...
HALO, I've played (well, HALO 2 anyway); I found it quite average. Grand Theft Auto I've played briefly in a couple of its incarnations and know enough about it to know I wouldn't buy it if you paid me; it's certainly not my idea of fun, and just screams 'casual gamer' - it's got tons of stuff to mess about with but little meaning or substance to it, and the whole atmosphere of it is sickening. I don't want to run around pretending I'm a tough litle pimp outlaw. Snake Eater, I've never heard of. You're not exactly convincing me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
It looks like a 60's concept of an 80's mobile!!
Certainly a matter of opinion. I don't see where you get the concept that it looks anything like it could even feasibly look like any kind of mobile, but then neither would a 60's concept of an 80's mobile, so fair enough. I don't see where you're coming from, to be honest. Its design is a combination of necessity (in that its fairly large size is necessary to make the console's double-screen design work), practicality (in that a folding screen is firstly also a practical necessity to make the double-screen design work, but also very practical for protecting the screen and controls), and style (in that it's silver and kinda sleek-looking despite its relative bulk compared to previous handhelds). I can't complain about the design; it's not absolutely mindblowing or anything, but it looks nice and the design works, so I'm not complaining. As opposed to the PSP, which looks gorgeous, but doesn't work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
And I stand by mine? WTF R U SMOKIN?!?!
Explain yourself properly or shut up, please...

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Simply pointing out that a lot of the games on my treo (which I did not get for games) are more addictive and more fun than those on the DS. That is not a comparison, just a statement.
And I'm simply pointing out that that's a ridiculous thing to claim unless you back it up with a TON of evidence, because no-one in their right mind would argue that a mobile phone has better games than a games console unless they had a REALLY good argument behind it. Or, I suppose, they were REALLY addicted to Snake. You need more explanation when you're arguing against plain common sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Perhaps, but I think your statement says it all. The DS is the poor man's PSP. I think I am beginning to understand where your fanatical support comes fromm now....
No, the DS is providing a different, less expensive medium to the PSP. They're DIFFERENT. One isn't inferior. They can co-exist quite happily. If there were similar-quality games on DS and PSP, I wouldn't want to settle for one; they're different entities. As it is, I don't feel any interest for PSP, which is nice, since it saves me a ton of money right now. When the GBA 2 comes out and addresses the same medium as the PSP, but with the promise of games that actually attract me, then it might be a different story.
  quote
scratt
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: M-F: Thailand Weekends : F1 2010 - Various Tracks!
Send a message via Skype™ to scratt 
2005-06-05, 11:04

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
And that's your own personal opinion, certainly not representative of the actual quality of the games. I can't decide whether you're ignorant (ie. haven't actually played a lot of those games), biased (ie. dismissing them because they're Nintendo games or because a lot of them don't look 'mature' enough for your tastes), or just somehow have a taste in games that somehow manages to freakily coincidentally exclude any games made by Nintendo. Forgive me if I sound a little cynical; I'm sure it's possible that you could simply somehow perfectly legitimately not like any of those games. It just seems a little unlikely to me that that's the case when they are so varied and all so good.
No.. I used to have a Nintendo 64. Also probably pretty much every consol that has ever come out.. That used to be my business. I worked for Sega way back.
Nintendo games are just too cutesy for me.. Your lack of insight into games like GTA and SnakeEater and Halo shows that we definitely come from different gaming backgrounds... So I kind of understand why you don't understand why I don't like Nintendo games, and you don't rate the kind of games I like..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Oh, so you WERE talking about them actually holding back the release. Good, that makes your argument more sound than what it sounded like you were saying. Nevertheless, I still don't think Nintendo should be condemned for getting life out of a console if it had life in it yet. Besides which, there could have been technical reasons for delaying the release (battery life comes to mind; it had always been an issue with colour-screened consoles, and has always been a big thing on consoles since).
There's holding back release and milking the market. The common opinion in the industry was that Nintendo really stiffed their public by holding the Colour GameBoy back for a long long time... I am talking about me having one in my hands in the early 90's. Think about it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
What? What's cynical about providing people who buy your console with free access to a huge library of games? Because it might help them sell more consoles? By that logic, ANYTHING remotely SANE that a business does is cynical...
It means they can launch a consol at the last minute without a big native software base.. and make their loyal punters wait and wait and wait.. Another reason it is essential to their business plan to launch after all the other consol makers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
They pioneered D-pads, light guns, handhelds, analogue control, controller rumble and wireless controllers, among other things that seriously took off. And they also come up with things like the bongo controllers, the DS and so on to keep innovation fresh.
Well, actually they did not. That was all stuff which filtered down from the arcade industry... Sega had a lot to do with a lot of those innovations actually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
HALO, I've played (well, HALO 2 anyway); I found it quite average. Grand Theft Auto I've played briefly in a couple of its incarnations and know enough about it to know I wouldn't buy it if you paid me; it's certainly not my idea of fun, and just screams 'casual gamer' - it's got tons of stuff to mess about with but little meaning or substance to it, and the whole atmosphere of it is sickening. I don't want to run around pretending I'm a tough litle pimp outlaw. Snake Eater, I've never heard of. You're not exactly convincing me.
You are in a minority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Certainly a matter of opinion. I don't see where you get the concept that it looks anything like it could even feasibly look like any kind of mobile, but then neither would a 60's concept of an 80's mobile, so fair enough. I don't see where you're coming from, to be honest. Its design is a combination of necessity (in that its fairly large size is necessary to make the console's double-screen design work), practicality (in that a folding screen is firstly also a practical necessity to make the double-screen design work, but also very practical for protecting the screen and controls), and style (in that it's silver and kinda sleek-looking despite its relative bulk compared to previous handhelds). I can't complain about the design; it's not absolutely mindblowing or anything, but it looks nice and the design works, so I'm not complaining. As opposed to the PSP, which looks gorgeous, but doesn't work.
It just looks very cheap and plastic. Kind of like it was made before any clever molding technology was around. Hence my comment on 60's concept of 70's mobile. I am not saying it looks like a mobile specifically.. Just like it was made in the 60's. Yeuch!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
Explain yourself properly or shut up, please...
Take a chill pill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
And I'm simply pointing out that that's a ridiculous thing to claim unless you back it up with a TON of evidence, because no-one in their right mind would argue that a mobile phone has better games than a games console unless they had a REALLY good argument behind it. Or, I suppose, they were REALLY addicted to Snake. You need more explanation when you're arguing against plain common sense.
I never said that.. I have explained that comment to you in my last post after you misunderstood it once. Check out Bejeweled if you want simple, 2D and wildly addictive.. Not to mention I can run arcade classics on my 650.. Defender, Stargate, PacMac etc. etc.

I am simply saying that for something that is not meant to be a games machine it stands up pretty well on features.. Stereo, TOUCH SENSITIVE SCREEN (Which you rattled on about), nice games etc. etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlos Net
No, the DS is providing a different, less expensive medium to the PSP. They're DIFFERENT. One isn't inferior. They can co-exist quite happily. If there were similar-quality games on DS and PSP, I wouldn't want to settle for one; they're different entities. As it is, I don't feel any interest for PSP, which is nice, since it saves me a ton of money right now. When the GBA 2 comes out and addresses the same medium as the PSP, but with the promise of games that actually attract me, then it might be a different story.
So in my reality you are happy with the shoddy games on the DS and don't want the high quality ones on the PSP.

Personally I wouldn't have either.

The PSP is definitely a yuppy toy. I think it will also be a failiure when put alongside the SNES or the PS2, for example. But both will sell large quantities.. They just won't become the same pillars of our culture as those too did perhaps.

The DS is just past it's time and will become a white elephant.. It unfortunately has poor quality games on it too... Double Wammy!

But, as I said before.. Enjoy.

'Remember, measure life by the moments that take your breath away, not by how many breaths you take'
Extreme Sports Cafe | ESC's blog | scratt's blog | @thescratt
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2005-06-05, 12:25

scratt, you're very annoying in this thread, displaying an uncharacteristically high level of console fanboy-ism (at least for AN... I've seen people at other forums that would put you to shame). The fact that all your arguments are based on your own highly subjective opinions about what you enjoy and so forth hurts your credibility.

I feel like locking this thread, but doing so would require me to read all the recent posts... and that would take too long. I don't think you guys are quite angry enough to justify a lock yet but please try to keep it in line. I'll just say that in my own observation, it's starting to get annoying and shrill. You're also bordering on making personal attacks...
Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Nintendo games are just too cutesy for me.. Your lack of insight into games like GTA and SnakeEater and Halo shows that we definitely come from different gaming backgrounds... So I kind of understand why you don't understand why I don't like Nintendo games, and you don't rate the kind of games I like..
Not quite, just close.
  quote
scratt
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: M-F: Thailand Weekends : F1 2010 - Various Tracks!
Send a message via Skype™ to scratt 
2005-06-05, 13:13

Hi Luca,

Long time since you've come in on one of my conversations..

I have to be perfectly honest here and say that I am expressing my views, yes.
But I really do not see where the portion of my post that you quoted could be seen as being in any way out of order. If you read the thread in it's entirety, which you admit you haven't you will see that I am sure.. I am guessing you have misunderstood my meaning somewhere?!?! Reading it again, perhaps the insight comment. All I meant by that was that Carlos Net had not played them much, by his own admission, so could not be expected to be able to comment on them in detail, whereas I have played Nintendo games quite a lot, and feel I can comment on them.

I will take your comments on board but would point out, respectfully, that it was I that was told to "Shut up".

As for the rest of the discussion between myself and Carlos Net, I think we have been forceful with our views, but respectful of each other and don't need (again respectfully) a 'parent' to ajudicate yet.

If Carlos Net see's it any differently I am happy to hear his views..

scratt

'Remember, measure life by the moments that take your breath away, not by how many breaths you take'
Extreme Sports Cafe | ESC's blog | scratt's blog | @thescratt
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2005-06-05, 13:23

Yeah, I understand. I just noticed that the thread could be heading in that direction so I thought I'd give you a warning. You two aren't exactly at each other's throats. Yet.
  quote
Carlos Net
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Send a message via AIM to Carlos Net Send a message via MSN to Carlos Net  
2005-06-05, 14:58

As for your mention of personal attacks, I think this quote, which I mentioned earlier on, is all you need:

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Personally I loath Nintendos games. The Mario Brothers have been crap ever since they were around in the arcade, and again IMHO that genre of games appeals only to freaks.
Nevertheless, I don't feel that scratt is being out of order here, merely expressing his views fairly forcefully, as I have been, and I have no objection to that, even if at times he isn't quite as logical as I'd like... I don't agree with his opinions in general, but I should hope I have enough sense to keep from breaking down into petty insults or trolling...that wouldn't be helping anything...

Now, looking at your responses, scratt:

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
No.. I used to have a Nintendo 64. Also probably pretty much every consol that has ever come out.. That used to be my business. I worked for Sega way back.
Nintendo games are just too cutesy for me.. Your lack of insight into games like GTA and SnakeEater and Halo shows that we definitely come from different gaming backgrounds... So I kind of understand why you don't understand why I don't like Nintendo games, and you don't rate the kind of games I like..
Fair enough. You presumably do have more insight overall than me, having been in the gaming industry and having more balanced experience of the consoles. We certainly come from different gaming backgrounds, and it's clear that our tastes are at opposite ends of the scale, so it would be unreasonable to expect you to agree with my taste in games as a rule.

Nevertheless, your comment that Nintendo games are just 'too cutesy' irks me, mainly because it's again something of a shallow analysis, based purely on the overall style, and even possibly purely on the graphics of the game, with no respect to gameplay. With your apparent 'experience', I can only be confident that you have at least played a large proportion of the games in question and not liked the gameplay either, or I would hope you would not make such judgements. I understand that the style and overall atmosphere of a game can be important to whether or not you like it - it certainly influenced my own opinion of the GTA series quite a bit - but it should never be the be-all and end-all, which it why it irks me that you have mentioned it as your only reasoning. It seems to imply that that's your main reason for passing judgement on a whole ton of games that are all very different in gameplay (as I mentioned, even within the Mario franchise, there are a multitude of different games), and perhaps that you didn't give those games enough of a chance - that you predisposed yourself against them. I would be a little upset if that were the case, that is all.

Also, it's something of an inaccurate generalisation. Whilst the majority of Nintendo's games are light-hearted and cartoony, there's still variation. There are games that follow that to a greater or lesser degree - The Kirby games, at one end of the scale, are the most cartoony imaginable, and the central Mario games generally have little in the way of plot, and have a cartoony atmosphere; then there are games like the Pokemon series, which are more of a purely gaming experience (although the cartoons have created a distinctly childish image around them). Then, we have the likes of the Mario RPG games, which are set in the Mario universe but have more personality and storyline to them. The Mario RPG games represent some of the best things about the Mario universe to me, because they effectively take the Mario world's quirky nature and exaggerate it, inserting humour and often making it parody itself, in a way that absolutely suits the world itself. Then we have the Starfox games, which clearly aren't realistic, with their animal characters, but have much more of a fairly light-hearted sci-fi than a cartoony feel to them. And then there are games like Metroid and F-Zero, that quite simply don't fit your stereotype of 'cutesy' at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
There's holding back release and milking the market. The common opinion in the industry was that Nintendo really stiffed their public by holding the Colour GameBoy back for a long long time... I am talking about me having one in my hands in the early 90's. Think about it!
I'm thinking about it, and I'm standing by what I said before - that I can see your point, but I'm not personally taking such a cynical and accusing standpoint towards the matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
It means they can launch a consol at the last minute without a big native software base.. and make their loyal punters wait and wait and wait.. Another reason it is essential to their business plan to launch after all the other consol makers.
I don't think the past library access has anything to do with a lack of proper titles for the Revolution. Relying on it to provide sales without proper Revolution games would be incredibly foolish. It's an added extra incentive and enhancement to the console, designed to supplement and increase interest, not to replace. Nintendo have already made it clear they're working on a respectable number of what are bound to be system-selling titles in some of their top franchises, some of which will make it to launch, and some of which will be released in the console's early life. They're also garnering some nice third-party support from what I hear (not that it's the main thing), and to make it clear that they're not relying solely on their established franchises, they've apparently got Shigeru Miyamoto working on an entirely new and original game for the console, which can only be good news.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Well, actually they did not. That was all stuff which filtered down from the arcade industry... Sega had a lot to do with a lot of those innovations actually.
It doesn't make that much difference whether it was pioneered in other areas first, Nintendo pioneered them all in console gaming. I doubt handhelds were ever a part of the arcade industry, at any rate... ...and that goes for at least wireless controllers, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
You are in a minority.
If not wanting to, as I said, run around pretending I'm a tought little pimp outlaw in a sad imitation of a game, makes me a minority, then I'm as glad to be a minority because of that as I am to be in a minority for, say, not being a chav. The two are, I suspect, linked. I certainly don't like the games industry catering to that sort of people...

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
It just looks very cheap and plastic. Kind of like it was made before any clever molding technology was around. Hence my comment on 60's concept of 70's mobile. I am not saying it looks like a mobile specifically.. Just like it was made in the 60's. Yeuch!
I don't mind the way it looks. It's fairly attractive, nothing special, but then I buy I games console primarily for the games, not for the looks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
Take a chill pill.
What else do you expect me to say when all you counter my argument with, twice, is derogatory humour?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
I never said that.. I have explained that comment to you in my last post after you misunderstood it once. Check out Bejeweled if you want simple, 2D and wildly addictive.. Not to mention I can run arcade classics on my 650.. Defender, Stargate, PacMac etc. etc.

I am simply saying that for something that is not meant to be a games machine it stands up pretty well on features.. Stereo, TOUCH SENSITIVE SCREEN (Which you rattled on about), nice games etc. etc.
It does sound quite nice for games considering it's not a gaming device. Still, the collection of games doesn't sound anything special. Bejeweled, well, that's available for anything with a mouse or a touch screen It's on DS in the guise of Zoo Keeper. Don't have it personally, since I can play Bejeweled on my Mac if I really want to, and it does seem fairly addictive, but nothing to buy a game over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scratt
So in my reality you are happy with the shoddy games on the DS and don't want the high quality ones on the PSP.

Personally I wouldn't have either.

The PSP is definitely a yuppy toy. I think it will also be a failiure when put alongside the SNES or the PS2, for example. But both will sell large quantities.. They just won't become the same pillars of our culture as those too did perhaps.

The DS is just past it's time and will become a white elephant.. It unfortunately has poor quality games on it too... Double Wammy!

But, as I said before.. Enjoy.
No, I'm happy with the good games on the DS, and don't want the higher-tech, lower-playability ones on the PSP (generalising of course, but that's my general view of games on the two consoles).
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2005-06-05, 16:08

Mario 64 DS rocks. I've played it for hours already. I know it's an "older" game but the touch screen adds new life to it. I can see the touch screen pushing the envelope more and more as developers adopt it.

/trying to get slightly more on topic

If it's not red and showing substantial musculature, you're wearing it wrong.
  quote
scratt
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: M-F: Thailand Weekends : F1 2010 - Various Tracks!
Send a message via Skype™ to scratt 
2005-06-05, 22:34

I think Carlos Net and I have explored our little side topic enough now.

I think you hit the nail on the head Carlos Net, with your break down of the graphics.
I just cannot take the games seriously because of the graphical style.

I have no problem running around being a punked pimp (or whatever!?!) when I am in the mood for that. Actually I like hiding out in GTA and sniping people until the feds and the army turn up! Hilarious. But generally a game I play with mates when we have too many beers etc..

When I race a racing car I want to feel like I am racing a racing car in a game. Super Mario Kart does not cut it.. But Gran Turismo does.

When I feel like being a military expert hiding in the jungle trying to sneak into enemy compounds Snake Eater does it. I don't know of anything on the Nintendo platform that will allow me to do that.

I guess I am more into simulation that platform game. Or perhaps more accurately I want something which has the whole spectrum..

Take a look at God of War on the PS2, and tell me if there is anything in the Nintendo universe which does that?

So back on topic..
From that point of view I think the PS2 and the PSP have a much better market bandwidth. They have games right from Crash Bandicoot (More of a Nintendo style game) through to God of War, to GTA, to Grand Turismo...

I get really irked with everything having to me a Mario xxxxx game.

From that point of view I think the DS has a limited market appeal and will only sell to the faithful.

The PSP will be a flop because not enough people will spill the dosh on it, as those who might already have a PS2 and probably cannot justify the outlay.

So IMHO both will fail in terms of the billions of units Sony and Nintendo would like to sell.
Of course they'll sell millions in the homeland (Japan).. Every game sells upwards of a million units there..

But to answer the threads original question I think the DS will be a relative failiure if you judge that in terms of market penetration and sale.


'Remember, measure life by the moments that take your breath away, not by how many breaths you take'
Extreme Sports Cafe | ESC's blog | scratt's blog | @thescratt
  quote
Wrao
Yarp
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
 
2005-06-05, 23:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by torifile
Mario 64 DS rocks. I've played it for hours already. I know it's an "older" game but the touch screen adds new life to it. I can see the touch screen pushing the envelope more and more as developers adopt it.

/trying to get slightly more on topic

Mario 64 is one of the best games of all time! I specifically went out of my way to get a copy of it for my Nintendo 64 recently because it's a totally radical game. I never get tired of it. The DS version is a little strange... but it's ultimately just as much fun.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 5 of 10 Previous 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9  Next Last

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova