Nintendo vs. Everyone

[Warbie]

Zelda on N64 and on GC felt, and played just like zelda on the snes, only with 3g graphics. The only old franchise that was rehached originally is metroid for the GC.

Oh stop it

That's possbly the silliest thing you've said. It plays just like a 2d game - except it's added an entirely new dimension lol.

Sure they're the same - just as MGS is exactly the same as the originals on the nes (that was sarcasm btw)

 

[KagePrototype]

You are basicly taking every innovation that has been made and ascribing it to N, thats just BS.

How so? It's all true, Nintendo did all of it. It proves that they've had a huge impact on the way games and consoles are made nowadays. They are more innovative that Sony and MS. They're just good at marketing, Nintendo are the ones that strive to change things. In comparison, Sony and MS have done very little.

the handheld market proves that they don't innovate, unless they have competition, The GB, the GBC, and GBA didn't offer anything new exept more power, and most of them just had ports of old snes and nes games.

They CREATED handheld consoles. How is that not innovation? When the competiton came around (PSP), they were ready with the DS.

They dominated because they hardly had competition, when serious competition came they lost.

Sega was serious competition, but Nintendo never "lost" to them. They shared the market almost down the middle until Sony came along. And now Sega are dead, and Nintendo is still alive and kicking.

So you basicly contradict everything the article stated. If that is true than it just proves my point, taht they don't innovate but follow. They tried their old fashioned way with the N64, it failed and with the GC they just followed what MS and sony were doing.

Yes, I am contradicting the article; I don't fully agree with it. Nintendo do not plan to stay where they are forever, and I do know that they expect to reach a wider audience with the Revolution.

They follow? It's Sony, MS and Sega who have been copying Nintendo's every move! Sony and MS simply know how to market it effectively. Nintendo refused to do that, but now they've seen the error of their ways and are making an effort to keep with the times. Yes, porting games to their console is what Sony and MS do to keep up with each other; there's nothing wrong with that. But to blindly say "they do not innovate they follow" is to ignore the impact and influence Nintendo has had on companies like Sony, Sega and MS.

 

[Reginald]

"Well, apart from Game and Watch, d-pads, shoulder buttons, game saves, z-targeting, handheld consoles, tilt paks, rumble paks, analogue control, virtual boy, gameboy camera, DS, wireless controllers, multiplayer split screen..."

Online downloadable content, virtual reality gaming, light guns (Arguably the coolest one in existance) and of course the biggest innovation of them all: the home console.

 

[A.I.]

I find it hard to believe that the Gamecube generated more profit than the PS2 did. Seriously, the PS2 sold a LOT more units at a higher price for a longer period of time. Because of this, there was obviously a LOT more game sales for the PS2. I realize it cost more to produce but seriously, it's quite clear that the PS2 generated more profit.

Yes, probably true, but on the other hand, how much did Sony and M$ spent on advertising in comparison with Nintendo?

 

[Gray Fox]

"Well, apart from Game and Watch, d-pads, shoulder buttons, game saves, z-targeting, handheld consoles, tilt paks, rumble paks, analogue control, virtual boy, gameboy camera, DS, wireless controllers, multiplayer split screen..."

Online downloadable content, virtual reality gaming, light guns (Arguably the coolest one in existance) and of course the biggest innovation of them all: the home console.

what, now N inveneted the homeconsole, goddam I could swear atari came before them, and someoen probabaly came before them.

 

[Warbie]

I think you're right, Nintendo weren't the first. But they were there at the begining ... and are the only ones still kicking

And they have innovated the most - you agreeing with this or not will not change fact (which is what this is)

 

[Gray Fox]

Oh stop it

That's possbly the silliest thing you've said. It plays just like a 2d game - except it's added an entirely new dimension lol.

Sure they're the same - just as MGS is exactly the same as the originals on the nes (that was sarcasm btw)

MGS is not the same as MG on the old, it matured a lot. MGS games were similar yes, but mgs matured a lot since MG, it was one of the games that could easly compete with movies and games, when looking at things like believeble character, story and presentation.

 

[Warbie]

It was certainly much better, and did mature. (believable characters and story tho )

MGS didn't mature any more than OoT did over LttP.

 

[Gray Fox]

They CREATED handheld consoles. How is that not innovation? When the competiton came around (PSP), they were ready with the DS.

That depends on how you look at it, but even so, they hardly innovated, and overpirced it.

Sega was serious competition, but Nintendo never "lost" to them. They shared the market almost down the middle until Sony came along. And now Sega are dead, and Nintendo is still alive and kicking.

sega wasn't serious, they just did what N did, but worse.

Yes, I am contradicting the article; I don't fully agree with it. Nintendo do not plan to stay where they are forever, and I do know that they expect to reach a wider audience with the Revolution.

They follow? It's Sony, MS and Sega who have been copying Nintendo's every move! Sony and MS simply know how to market it effectively. Nintendo refused to do that, but now they've seen the error of their ways and are making an effort to keep with the times. Yes, porting games to their console is what Sony and MS do to keep up with each other; there's nothing wrong with that. But to blindly say "they do not innovate they follow" is to ignore the impact and influence Nintendo has had on companies like Sony, Sega and MS.

Offcourse they follow, they tried to movie their own direction with the N64, but that didn't work so they just copied hwat sony was doing. Well atleast harware wise.

 

[Gray Fox]

It was certainly much better, and did mature. (believable characters and story tho )

MGS didn't mature any more than OoT did over LttP.

Yes it did. how exactly did Oot mature above Lttp.

 

[Warbie]

The attention to detail, creativity, and art direction resluted in a gameworld that was far more believable. The extra dimension really added to to the games depth (in more ways than the obvious )

There was more character and life to everything - the dungeons felt menacing, the forests ancient OoT was more an experience than a game (not really sure how to describe it)

LttP was brighter, more simple fun. Still an amazing game, just not the masterpece that OoT was.

//edit

I think MGS is great too - it is Manga in video game form.

 

[KagePrototype]

That depends on how you look at it, but even so, they hardly innovated, and overpirced it.

How is them creating the very first handheld console not innovative? That's like saying mobile phones wasn't innovative.

sega wasn't serious, they just did what N did, but worse.

They were serious enough to take over half of the market share, a market Nintendo had previously dominated all on their own. That's pretty damn serious. It took Sony to finally bring them down.

Offcourse they follow, they tried to movie their own direction with the N64, but that didn't work so they just copied hwat sony was doing. Well atleast harware wise.

So this doesn't make them innovators? Everything up to and after the GameCube (a console used to ensure a place in the market) is declared null?

 

[Warbie]

They were serious enough to take over half of the market share, a market Nintendo had previously dominated all on their own. That's pretty damn serious. It took Sony to finally bring them down.

Agreed, Sega are (were?) a fantastic company. It was a damn shame when they gave up on hardware :/

Their games used to be so good too. Now they've lost their way a great deal (I think they died somewhat with the DC - a superb console btw)

 

[OCybrManO]

Agreed, Sega are (were?) a fantastic company. It was a damn shame when they gave up on hardware :/

Their games used to be so good too. Now they've lost their way a great deal (I think they died somewhat with the DC - a superb console btw)

It's not that the Dreamcast was a bad console. It wasn't. It was bad timing combined with SEGA not being able to afford to sell them at the retail price. They were losing too much money.

 

[Gray Fox]

So this doesn't make them innovators? Everything up to and after the GameCube (a console used to ensure a place in the market) is declared null?

Wel in the sense, that they tried doing it the same way as they did before, and not the way sony did, and failed, and are now just following Sony.

How is them creating the very first handheld console not innovative? That's like saying mobile phones wasn't innovative.

as far as I know handhelds existed before the GB,I'm not sure though. But like I said, what did they do since then, hardly anything then just make handhelds that are a little bit more powerfull and full of ports, and even the GB was full of mario games, that were basicly the same as the ones on the nes.

The attention to detail, creativity, and art direction, resluted in a gameworld that was far more believable. The extra dimension really added to to the games depth (in more ways than the obvious )

There was more character and life to everything - the dungeons felt menacing, the forests ancient OoT was more an experience than a game (not really sure how to describe it)

LttP was brighter, more simple fun. Still an amazing game, just not the masterpece that OoT was.

I think MGS is great too - it is Manga in video game form.

Dude, they only added the 3d dimension, for the rest everything stayed the same. It hardly made a differances, there was no more complex story, no better sounds, no better characters. the world wasn't absolutly more believeble, it was quite the opposite. You were confonted with the same zelda only 3d, and 3d was done before them.

 

[Direwolf]

That depends on how you look at it, but even so, they hardly innovated, and overpirced it.

Hardly innovated with the DS (I assume you're not referring to the GB because thats even crazier)? I can't even fathom that one. If anything the DS has had a rough road to play simply by being too different.

Offcourse they follow, they tried to movie their own direction with the N64, but that didn't work so they just copied hwat sony was doing. Well atleast harware wise.

/me looks at his GC
Ok, exactly what was copied? The controller? Having four controllers? Not using DVD media? About the only similarity is in the GC's use of memory cards (something Nintendo did on the N64 anyways), and the use of a DISC, but the disc is neither DVD nor anything at all similar to PS2 discs.

Dude, they only added the 3d dimension, for the rest everything stayed the same. It hardly made a differances, there was no more complex story, no better sounds, no better characters. the world wasn't absolutly more believeble, it was quite the opposite. You were confonted with the same zelda only 3d, and 3d was done before them.

Theres nothing I could ever possibly say to that.

 

[Warbie]

Dude, they only added the 3d dimension

Oh, you're right. It's not one of the greatest games of all time. Nintendo have been pulling the wool over all our eyes everyone!! All they did was add another dimension!

(seriously, did you even play these games?)

I suppose you think MGS has a complex and clever story, and great characters?? Well, like I said, no more so than the average Manga. Still a fun game though.

 

[Gray Fox]

Oh, you're right. It's not one of the greatest games of all time. Nintendo have been pulling the wool over all our eyes everyone!! All they did was add another dimension!

(seriously, did you even play these games?)

I suppose you think MGS has a complex and clever story, and great characters?? Well, like I said, no more so than the average Manga. Still a fun game though.

yes msg has all that
yes i played them
adding another dimension had been done allready, and by leaving everyting else as it was on the older consoles, made it even more obvious how little Zelda had evolved. how is it exactly more complex, the story isn't more complex, the characters aren't more complex, the music is hardly better. I'm not arguing that it isn't a good game.

Hardly innovated with the DS (I assume you're not referring to the GB because thats even crazier)? I can't even fathom that one. If anything the DS has had a rough road to play simply by being too different.

Het lets all just ignore the GBC, or the GBA and the microGBA Ninendo only innovated when sony came, this just shows how much they are dedicated to innovation and imporvment.

Ok, exactly what was copied? The controller? Having four controllers? Not using DVD media? About the only similarity is in the GC's use of memory cards (something Nintendo did on the N64 anyways), and the use of a DISC, but the disc is neither DVD nor anything at all similar to PS2 discs.

The GC is nothing more than a more powerfull version of the PS2, what exactly is the big differance, the little differances between the psx and N64 like a controller for 3handed people and cartigees instead of discs,that were there were removed for the GC. But hell I like the GC, I think it offer great money/power ratio.

 

[OCybrManO]

There's a reason Super Mario 64 and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time have higher average ratings than any Metal Gear game (unless you include that one for the GBC). There's a reason Perfect Dark and Goldeneye (both made when Rare was still part of Nintendo) are up in that same category. Nintendo's main focus is gameplay (maybe with the sole exception of profit). Everything else is icing on the cake. The industry standard is to try to make flashy, cinematic games that look cool first... and then tack on some interesting gameplay if you have the time.

The reason we are Nintendo "fanboys" is that Nintendo simply makes games that are fun. Their strategy is quality over quantity. They live off of repeat customers. If you want hyper-realistic graphics or incredibly deep stories as the main priority of your games you're probably in the wrong place. I don't play games to "escape." I don't play games to look at pretty pictures. I don't play games to read. I have books and movies for that. I play games to have fun. Nintendo delivers that in almost every game they make. If you can get past the quirky, stylistic appearance of their software you're in for a fun game. If they happen to have the characters I grew up with... that's a bonus. Why do the Nintendo characters stick around? People love them. Why is that? They associate them with the great games in which they starred. That doesn't mean that a game with the same character has to be a rehash. In fact, every "rehash" introduces at least one big addition/twist to the gameplay. If you don't complain about that much similarity between Half-Life and Half-Life 2 (gravity gun?) you shouldn't be complaining about Nintendo sequels. Honestly, if Nintendo stopped making Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, etc... the fans would be bitching and moaning about it. Sure, they'd probably get over it eventually and play the other games, but what's so bad about sticking with a familiar face? Is it really a crime if the games they make keep getting great reactions from the fans and critics?

Every generation, I buy other consoles and try other games... but I still keep going back to Nintendo in the end. They haven't failed me in two decades of playing their games. The ideas may look weird but I literally have never played a Nintendo game where, at the end, I thought "What stupid bastard thought this would be a good idea?" I may look at the screenshots and hesitate (because I'm a fan of realistic graphics)... but then I rent the game and invariably have a great time with it. That's the test of a great game developer. Even the Virtual Boy games weren't bad... but the technology just wasn't nearly ready yet.

... and who dares to say that Pikmin was a bad game? That was the most refreshing take on a strategy game I've seen in several years. I honestly thought it was an incredible game. I know seeing a guy in his 20s play cartoony games like that is probably funny, but the games are too fun for me to care about how I look playing them. You can call me a fanboy if you want, but I have twenty great years of experience with Nintendo consoles (in addition to having just about every competing console) to back up my opinions.

 

[KU_]

Offcourse they follow, they tried to movie their own direction with the N64, but that didn't work so they just copied hwat sony was doing. Well atleast harware wise.

That is just bullsh|T. They don't follow. That's the reason Nintendo isn't #1 in market share. The GC uses mini disks, while the PS2 and Xbox use DVD. If Nintendo followed Sony, why wouldn't they be #1? You are contradicting yourself by saying "Nintendo uses the same franchises over and over" but you go to say that they copy people. If they copied people Nintendo wouldn't have the "kiddy" image they do today. Nintendo isn't copying Sony or MS with multimedia centers, they are strictly gaming, and sadly, the only gaming deadicated console makers out there. I wan to buy a console to play games, not cook a fricken hamburger.[sarcasm]. It's sad that you can't see these things, and are bashing a company that basically carried gaming on it's back for the last 20 years. What did we see the majority of games this gen? First person shooters. Nintendo has been trying to put more life back into gaming with new ideas, and new ways to play games, yet people are afraid of change. It is really sad that some people are like this, but oh well, continue bashing a company that has helped gaming become what it is.

 

[Reginald]

what, now N inveneted the homeconsole, goddam I could swear atari came before them, and someoen probabaly came before them.

You are right, I beg your pardon.

 

[SimonomiS]

... and who dares to say that Pikmin was a bad game? That was the most refreshing take on a strategy game I've seen in several years. I honestly thought it was an incredible game. I know seeing a guy in his 20s play cartoony games like that is probably funny, but the games are too fun for me to care about how I look playing them. You can call me a fanboy if you want, but I have twenty great years of experience with Nintendo consoles (in addition to having just about every competing console) to back up my opinions.

Pikmin was just too damn short. I loved it though. Didn't bother getting Pikmin 2, lack of money and didn't really hear much about it, good or bad.
Anyone know if its as good as the first?

Not even going to bother joining in this argument.

 

[Warbie]

It's better than the first imo - and longer.