Nintendo: For The Win [Archive]

AntB

01-19-2006, 11:35 AM

An interesting article titled Nintendo: For The Win (http://www.firingsquad.com/features/nintendo_revolution/) has been posted on FiringSquad.com.

This article talks about the console wars and how the big N has a really good chance of taking the crown away from Sony, and why.

Gameplay has stagnated beyond the obvious sequelitis. What was the last major revolution in RTS development? Homeworld gave us 3D almost six years ago now. WarCraft III and Warlords: Battlecry gave us heroes about three years ago. Age of Empires III was so similar to Age of Empires II that many reviewers found themselves making sure they weren’t playing a graphics mod for the older game by accident. Where have first-person shooters gone? Great, we have realism. Now what? We had years of Quake games, then we had years of Half-Lifes, and then years of Counter-Strikes and Medals of Honor. Come on, developers and publishers, we need something fresh! And don’t even get me started on the pathetic state of the RPG market, things are as bad if not worse than during those years before BioWare and Black Isle came onto the scene.

Now here comes Nintendo into this situation. Whether through some sort of master genius trend anticipator, a corporate account with Miss Cleo’s psychic hotline, or sheer dumb luck, Nintendo has just the strategy to take advantage of the situation. The Revolution will be cheap. Rumors range from $200 to $250. It will be a game system, not an all-in-one multimedia home theater experience extraordinaire (with built-in blender and Blu-Ray drive) like the Xbox 360 and PS3.
Personally, I completely agree with his points. Discuss.

Kamalot

01-19-2006, 04:02 PM

I can't argue. The more I think of it, the more it seems like Nintendo is right on track with my primary interest, GAMES!

It does not help that every time Sony opens its collective mouth, the PS3 becomes less and less interesting.

MajSheppard

01-19-2006, 04:07 PM

I agree with his points, but that doesn't mean the consumer will. Let us face it, the average gamer this day of age is not well educated on the products nor are they particullarly bright or looking for innovation. They would buy the same game every year if no magazine critics existed. Some times they still do.

Verocity

01-19-2006, 04:07 PM

Heh, I just read that article and I enjoyed it as well. May as well paste my comments from there:

---
Hrmm, here's my take:

If I want good graphics, I buy it for the PC.

If I want to have fun with family/friends, I pull out my Gamecube.
Best multiplayer(in the same room) gaming system hands down.

I don't own an XBox or PS1, 2. I already have my bases covered.
Now, I have a HD TV and could afford a new XBox or PS3 but why? My
PC blows away anything they can produce even on a HD set. If a game
is good enough, it is eventually released on all platforms.

How many l33+ teenagers and college kids that want their c00l grafx
and bragging rights of owning a 360 or PS3 can actually afford one?

I enjoyed the article. It's all specualtion, but I too believe
Nintendo is in a great position. If they pull off the execution, MS
and Sony will be left scratching their heads.

EDIT- Oh, and that's the first time I saw that video showing the potential of the Revolution controller. To me, that's just awesome.

Kelegacy

01-19-2006, 04:12 PM

Hey, I loved Nintendo this round and would have hugged my GC more if...well...there had been MORE FUCKING GAMES! The only way Nintendo can be King of all Consoles is to have more games. Quality over quantity, sure, but there can't be consecutive quarters without great titles. That's why my PS2 is so damn important to me. This year may be the best PS2 year to date (year 6+) but the Gamecube remains mired in muck, having to rely on long past releases (up to a year or more ago) to warrant a purchase.

I love my DS, but I'd rather have more console gaming fun, please.

holycrapper

01-19-2006, 04:14 PM

Yeah, the big N is going no where, they are the only company in this console generation, and probably the next making any profit, at least of the hardware manufacturers. The other two will probably burn themselves out. The console generations are getting shorter, but the hardware generations are not, N is the only company selling their hardware at more than cost. That, and in several markets they are the leaders, like hand helds, and some peripherals, I love nintendo, practical business sense for the win.

ps, I like the wow forum tone to this post, maybe we can get post cloners in here to repeat stupid things, that would be awesome.

Zanzibar

01-19-2006, 04:17 PM

The only thing I'd argue against is his arguments about the controller. He actually contradicts himself:

You can do the AK double-tap chest/headshot clear across the CT exit on de_dust, against a moving target at that. Now imagine someone told you to unbind your mouse and play those games with nothing but keyboard. The possibility still exists, just about every shooter still has the option of binding view directions to keys.

...

Do you doubt that a controller can make a game exciting? Then you haven’t played enough flight sims. Il-2 is an interesting game with good flight models and nice graphics. It plays well enough with a standard joystick and keyboard combination. Buy a HOTAS, however, like the Saitek X-52 or CH FighterStick/Pro Throttle combo, when your hands never have to leave the controls to touch a mere keyboard, and you’ve got a whole new experience.

If you'll note, in the first example, he's basically suggesting giving the player LESS control (losing mouse control and just using keyboard). While in the second, he's saying how great it would be to have MORE control (ridiculous joystick). The analogy just doesn't work; players want as much control as possible, hence the KB/M diehards around here. They WANT to do the insane (read: unrealistic) pixel-perfect feats that KB/M gives you that regular controllers can't.

I've yet to see the Rev controller used in a way that gives you the same kind of control as KB/M.

MajSheppard

01-19-2006, 04:18 PM

The other thing, I would like to touch on from the article is the fact that every developer I know or have read of has ideas. This is not like the latter gimmicks of Nintendo. There is alot of options for new or better versions of games. You have to admit that if they got a Madden going where you got involved in the game somehow by using the controler, then they might be the system of choice for a large segment of the consumer base. You have to beat it into their heads though that this is the best way to go. Nintendo never was good at that, we will see if Reggie fixes that this time.

Verocity

01-19-2006, 04:20 PM

He was using a reverse analogy - not refering to less control being better.

Potential is hard to see and understand, so I’ll use the reverse analogy – the loss of ability, rather than what you can gain with it.

Heretic Machine

01-19-2006, 04:26 PM

Sony pwns! I <3 GTA! BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD! Microsoft is teh 3vil! Nintendo is gay!

Oh, what quality games and innovative ideas Nintendo brings to the industry. I think I'll buy their console, and their console alone this generation!

What does this mean? It means that this generation is going to be a whole lot like last generation.

Tricky Thumb

01-19-2006, 04:32 PM

Gil

01-19-2006, 04:45 PM

Nintendo will release the Revolution with it's new controller concept, some people will like it, and that will be enough for Nintendo to make their money back; meanwhile, some people won't, and those people will be just happy playing games on the PS3 and Xbox 360.

It'll be this past generation all over again - three consoles on the market, all offering just enough to different people to co-exist. I really don't see it radically changing.

IndependentGMR

01-19-2006, 04:54 PM

I didn't really think anyone would buy into the DS, but I was way off. I'm not going to bet against Nintendo twice. With the proper marketing, and an affordable price, they could very well beat out Sony and Microsoft.

jeffbax

01-19-2006, 04:55 PM

I'm so excited to finally see this thing shown, and its games at E3... I dunno if it can live up to the hype though ;)

And as much as I think Gears of War, MGS4, and Oblivion will own... I'm not really that into 360 or PS3... and well... I'm a Mac guy now after 20 years of PCs :)

What an interesting transition for me as a gamer o_O

Phades

01-19-2006, 04:59 PM

What does this mean? It means that this generation is going to be a whole lot like last generation.

Your post cracked me up, mostly because you're so completely right. I'm looking forward to the Rev and I'm really curious to see what the actual games will be like. I just think it's funny that so many of these Nintendo fans seem to think that unique gameplay really wins over the masses. Sadly, graphics still make the biggest impression to most and Nintendo has said they're not really competing there.

When both consoles are on display and someone sees an epic war scene from Halo 3 next to a Mario title you move with a unique interface... they'll probably spend more time watching Halo.

Dark_Soul

01-19-2006, 04:59 PM

Nice forums.. found through a totally unrelated Google search, but nonetheless I'm a gamer so it applies...

Yeah, I think Nintendo will still only satisfy the die hard Nintendo fans and people _hoping_ this is really something that will change things. I see this as a decently powerful box, but nothing that can compete power wise with the other consoles and certainly not a PC. However, it is a pure gaming box and Nintendo is known for having games on its platforms that are really good for simple, fun, multiplayer (3 or more players) in the same room -- something I think most games (unless complicated) have sucked for on any Playstation or Xbox revision...

HOWEVER, and this is a big however -- I don't think the new console is anything groundbreaking.. heck the FAKED Nintendo Revolution video was better than what the Revolution is... <g> I want that!

But all the Revolution really is is a pointing controller.. sure, a cool tech thing, but nonetheless, you could just have a new controller for a ps3 or a xbox 360 just the same.. i mean, there's the guns and dance pads, etc. i dunno.. whatever.

i suppose the thought of nintendo is if you force the controller into people and developers rather than the developers creating something after-market and then only having limited game support it'll go over better? We'll see.. that's all you can say -- we'll see...

Ahh, how I miss Atari. damn you big N... damn you. Atari was trying too hard to be a game console maker... but I suppose they wouldn't have lasted against PCs and Apples anyway... they were ahead of their time in many ways with the Jaguar and the portable Atari Lynx though -- especially the Lynx -- lacked game and fan support though... I started with my Atari 800... it's all history now though -- in such a short period of time.

-Jeff
Havenskate.com - Rollerblading news, revies, forums and more (http://www.havenskate.com/)
Havenskate.com Rollerblading Forums (http://forums.havenskate.com/)

lpmiller

01-19-2006, 05:01 PM

as always, it will come down to the games. It always has, and it always will. It certainly is the main reason the DS is doing better than the PSP.

IF Revolution comes out at or before the PS3, and IF it has games people want to play over the PS3, then yeah, Sony comes in third. Sony looks like they are on track to make the exact same mistakes they made with the PSP. Expensive hardware with nothing to do. It doesn't matter what it's doing a year later, or 2 years later. It matters at launch. At launch, you need to be in a certain price range, and you need to have games. End of story. Hardware alone - controllers notwithstanding - has never actually sold a system. Ask Atari (Lynx), 3D0, Sega, NEC, Amiga, et all.

Draft

01-19-2006, 05:04 PM

camberiu

01-19-2006, 05:04 PM

One question:

How well have REALLY ORIGINAL games titles done lately? Are people more inclined to buy Madden or Beyond Good & Evil?

So Nintendo can be as creative as they want, it WILL NOT MATTER. If original ideas were the driving force behind the game industry, people would probably be playing the Dreamcast 2 right now and waiting for the Dreamcast 3. Sega found out the hard way the innovation has NOTHING to do with success in this industry.

Dark_Soul

01-19-2006, 05:07 PM

Oh another one of these articles. Does it talk about how the game industry is dominated by sequels? Or about how there's no innovation?

<looks>

Oh yeah, there we go.

Well I for one can't wait to play Mario Party 12 on my Nintendo Revolution, and then some old Super Nintendo games I played when I was 14.

hehe.. another good point... Chances are that we're gonna get a lot of sequel nintendo games with a new controller... you need new games, new graphics, new control... the whole package is what makes things rock -- but in some ways.. a universal style of controlling games is good too... I still think the ps1/2 have the best designed controller.

the rev certainly has the cool factor tho.. hmm remember the last cool factor controller -- /me remembers the Sega Dreamcast .. :) what an awesome controller! too bad it didn't matter to the masses

Dark_Soul

01-19-2006, 05:09 PM

people would probably be playing the Dreamcast 2 right now and waiting for the Dreamcast 3. Sega found out the hard way

hehe. looks like you and i were on the same thought trip at the same time... nice controller, decent console... it all went wrong though

Achilles

01-19-2006, 05:18 PM

It is silly to think you need to reinvent a genre every five years or so.

This is all just pointless rhetoric if you ask me, just give me fun games and if some of them happen to be "revolutionary", well, cool.I'm with you on that one. Games have been fun for years, they've been evolving, occasionally a whole new things crop up, or big changes in established genres. Under this formula the PS2 sells 100 million units, and people are buying tons of games (huge attach rate for 360). Now all of a sudden unless you use the Revolution's controller nothing is original, and even though fun is all that matters, things that don't use this controller are too stale to be fun. It's a remarkable propaganda driven shift in the mentality of some gamers, who, like the guy in this article, clearly believe that they speak not only for a small group of disenfranchised gamers, but all gamers.

Clearly the millions of folks who buy Madden every year aren’t real gamers, and neither are the people who rolled out and got CoD2, because “clearly gamers are showing their displeasure with sequels.”, and “nothing blew us away last year”, except for RE4, Shadow of the Colossus, and probably a dozen other games.

Draft

01-19-2006, 05:21 PM

I tell you, it would be a lot easier to get excited about the revolution if I didn't have to deal with the First Church of Mario Evangelical Army, who never misses an oppurtunity to let me know how shitty and derivative my favorite games are, and how much better they'd be if I was playing them with a stylus or magic wand.

Gil

01-19-2006, 05:22 PM

I'm with you on that one. Games have been fun for years, they've been evolving, occasionally a whole new things crop up, or big changes in established genres. Under this formula the PS2 sells 100 million units, and people are buying tons of games (huge attach rate for 360). Now all of a sudden unless you use the Revolution's controller nothing is original, and even though fun is all that matters, things that don't use this controller are too stale to be fun. It's a remarkable propaganda driven shift in the mentality of some gamers, who, like the guy in this article, clearly believe that they speak not only for a small group of disenfranchised gamers, but all gamers.

Clearly the millions of folks who buy Madden every year aren’t real gamers, and neither are the people who rolled out and got CoD2, because “clearly gamers are showing their displeasure with sequels.”, and “nothing blew us away last year”, except for RE4, Shadow of the Colossus, and probably a dozen other games.

I just want to say I agree with your statements 100%.

RMan

01-19-2006, 05:29 PM

Let us face it, the average gamer this day of age is not well educated on the products nor are they particullarly bright or looking for innovation.
Although I'd agree the average player hardly beats the streets to find innovative products, they do know one when they see it. The DS is an excellent example of this, since the average player won't be that interested in the fact that it has two screens and touch screen ability, they are impressed by the resulting software that uses it, and have responded to it. They don't have to be tech savy or well informed to see a cool game when it's right in front of them.

If anything, the "hardcore" gamers are more likely to dismiss innovations like this because they often judge a piece of technology based on their limited understanding of what game developers will do with that technology, and will often make up their mind before even seeing the thing (clearly the DS is another excellent example of this).

Sadly, graphics still make the biggest impression to most and Nintendo has said they're not really competing there.
If you’re suggesting this impression is required for sales, then I think you’re absolutely wrong. There is no evidence that graphics make an inordinate difference for consumer purchasing, the PS2 vs Xbox, PS1 vs N64 and DS vs PSP illustrate this point fairly well. Graphics make a big difference here, on the internet, and before a game/system is released. This is because it’s the only thing we have to judge a game by, but besides that I’d love for someone, ANYONE to demonstrate with actual supporting evidence that the average gamer is inordinately influenced by graphics. If you’re Sony, MS, Id, or Epic, I can understand why promoting the concept of graphics is everything is wise, because that’s their strongest selling point, but out here in the real world the intelligent observer can see that is a bunch of crap.

RMan

01-19-2006, 05:44 PM

Now all of a sudden unless you use the Revolution's controller nothing is original, and even though fun is all that matters, things that don't use this controller are too stale to be fun.
Now, that's going too far. I'm a pretty big fan of what Nintendo is doing recently, but even I have never suggested that PS3/360 games won't be fun. What people are excited about with the Revolution is the clear attempt by Nintendo to advance gameplay and appeal to a broader audience. Now, whatever you think their motivation is or their chances of success (perhaps you think it’s just a gimmick and will tank horribly), it is inspiring and has great potential for righteous change. Sony and MS are doing nothing more than an incremental upgrade, and even if everything about it is better, big deal, that’s just expected (like Intel releasing a new processor). The average person is not inspired or excited by the expected, this is just part of human nature. Anyone who doesn’t understand why the Revolution could be the most interesting and desirable system simply has a limited understanding of human nature or has been blinded by his fanboy fervor.

camberiu

01-19-2006, 05:54 PM

Clearly the millions of folks who buy Madden every year aren’t real gamers, and neither are the people who rolled out and got CoD2, because “clearly gamers are showing their displeasure with sequels.”, and “nothing blew us away last year”, except for RE4, Shadow of the Colossus, and probably a dozen other games.

I think you found the exact reason why SEGA failed so miserably back in 2000. They certainly did not know the market, and thought that "gamers" were only the hardcore crowd looking for the newest and coolest things. I remember back then that EA openly stated that without their support, the Dreamcast was doomed. But back then SEGA (and I as a gamer) scoffed at the notion. How presumptions and arrogant could EA with all of its repetitive franchises be, I thought. Well, it turned out they were right. They make repetitive franchises not because they are stupid and incompetent. It is exactly the opposite. They make sequel after sequel because they (unlike SEGA) understood their market, they understand the so called "gamer". EA knew that the gaming market wanted to play "Need For Speed 25: DWI" instead of some crazy "Shenmue" bullshit. SEGA on the other hand thought that "gamers" were the original neerdy crowd who played Ultima, online text only MUSHes and watched Monthy Python: The Quest For The Holy Grail. So they made games and consoles for that group, and they failed...miserably.

I think that the lesson here is that for better of for worse, the "creative games" segment is a niche market. That does not mean that sequels and franchises cannot be fun. They sure can. I love the GTA games as much as everyone else. However, I disagree that some creative ideas that Nintendo might be able to pull out of their hat (short of a VR world kinda of like The Matrix) will in any way significantly alter the gaming landscape.

Draft

01-19-2006, 06:03 PM

Anyone who doesn’t understand why the Revolution could be the most interesting and desirable system simply has a limited understanding of human nature or has been blinded by his fanboy fervor.Any of them could be the "most interesting and desirable." Jeez, what a non-statement.

Achilles

01-19-2006, 06:05 PM

Now, that's going too far. I'm a pretty big fan of what Nintendo is doing recently, but even I have never suggested that PS3/360 games won't be fun.Well you're a supporter of the Revo to be sure, we've gotten in discussions about it before. But I'm talking about the writer's mentality. It's a pretty common thing among Revolution supporters though to say stuff like 'current systems only offer incremental changes, people should realize that the revolution can offer much more'. Which implies that current games are stale and that the Revolution's controller is the answer. Especially when coupled with the comments in this article about how gamers have grown tired of franchises and all the rest.The average person is not inspired or excited by the expected, this is just part of human nature. Anyone who doesn’t understand why the Revolution could be the most interesting and desirable system simply has a limited understanding of human nature or has been blinded by his fanboy fervor.Do you really think the average person isn't excited about a better looking, playing, version of their favoite game? Because I am, and most people I know who are casual gamers are, and the sales sort of show that they are. I think most people agree that the Revolution could be the most interesting and desirable system, but if they really like the games they've got now, and what it's offering is something completely unlike what they have now, than why would they be that excited about it till they've played what it has to offer?

Hignaki

01-19-2006, 06:07 PM

The problem here is the overall mindset. We are ("we" being "gamers" or whatever they're called nowadays) are too stuck on the mindset of "we have an INDUSTRY. OMG the industry isn't going to change. Play by the rules, Nintendo! There are rules, and you're not following them! OMG innovation only buys you a few sales! Stick to the forumula!"

Well, we forget that things can change. Something new can come about, and people CAN adopt it. Not everybody is "hardcore," not even a close majority. Our view is skewed because a majority of the people online on gaming forums, such as this one, are hardcore; that's an innacurate representation, though. Try to think openly.

Sure, the "gaming industry" is large now, but it's "rules" are still VERY flexible, it just takes a big company to do that. One company (Konami, for instance) can try to change the gaming front (with DDR), but they're entirely not large enough to do it. I believe that Nintendo realizes that. They see that it will take a big company with enough money and influence to do something. Sure, games nowadays are great, but something new CANNOT hurt.

If you don't want to play the new games with a new control scheme, then Don't. Just don't complain about it, either. It will not hurt you personally if there's a third company out there with some crazy ideas-that could very well work excellently. If they (Nintendo) make it big-time, there's nothing wrong with that. You'll have your games that you like, and maybe some *gasp* new styles of games to play as well. If they fail miserably, then you're not hurt either. You *doublegasp* still have your games that you like.

I'm not making a hit against the industry in it's current lineup. There's some rehashes, and some good games. But, let me repeat, something new CANNOT hurt. And hey, it may change a few of these self-imposed, imaginary "rules" that we have set up about games, styles, and marketing techniques. Right now, what Nintendo is doing can only be for the better. It's their money and influence, and they'll do with it as they wish.

Which is exactly what I hope for.

Achilles

01-19-2006, 06:15 PM

I think you found the exact reason why SEGA failed so miserably back in 2000. They certainly did not know the market, and thought that "gamers" were only the hardcore crowd looking for the newest and coolest things.

I think that the lesson here is that for better of for worse, the "creative games" segment is a niche market. That does not mean that sequels and franchises cannot be fun. They sure can.I agree with the idea that SEGA appealed too much to the hardcore gamers and that's pretty much why they fizzled out. They also didn't seem to have a very good business sense.

I'd argue that the "creative games" segment is a niche market though. A game can be creative and sell well as long as it appeals to a non-niche market in its presentation. The Sims, Black and White, that kind of thing.

Phanto

01-19-2006, 06:16 PM

I have been thinking about this sometime now, since the Revolution was announced to be exact.

Nintendo have a really good chance in the market with the Revolution.
The only thing that worries me is the third party support, if Nintendo don't have a good third party support he most likely its not going to have a great success.

I really hope that they have a great party support, in someway developers maybe will be feel like trying something new and if they really like it, who knows maybe nintendo will have a great third party support like the PS2 for the Revolution and if that is the case, i see a bright future for Nintendo and his Revolution, but like most people said...time will tell ;) .

Hignaki

01-19-2006, 06:22 PM

camberiu

01-19-2006, 06:22 PM

I'd argue that the "creative games" segment is a niche market though. A game can be creative and sell well as long as it appeals to a non-niche market in its presentation. The Sims, Black and White, that kind of thing.

I think overall it is. Of course you can have spill overs both ways. You can have a few creative/original games that do very well on the mass market (the examples you mentioned) and you can have sequels that appeals to a very specific and small crowd (flight sims anyone?). I think the examples cited by you are more the exception that the rule. The indie developers (who are the ones pushing the innovation side of things) do cater to a very specific niche and not the mass market.

ChaosDent

01-19-2006, 06:29 PM

I think that the lesson here is that for better of for worse, the "creative games" segment is a niche market. That does not mean that sequels and franchises cannot be fun. They sure can. I love the GTA games as much as everyone else. However, I disagree that some creative ideas that Nintendo might be able to pull out of their hat (short of a VR world kinda of like The Matrix) will in any way significantly alter the gaming landscape.

Nintendo already has recently altered the gaming landscape. Look at the top ten Japanese games for 2005: 8 DS games including Animal Crossing, Nintendogs and 3 "Brain Training" games. Nintendo turned the indisputably declining Japanese market around by changing the demographics, they found a need for interactive entertainment beyond the twitch impulses of the 18-34 male demographic and met that need with compelling software. This goes way beyond EA vs. Sega fighting over the casual vs. the hardcore gamer, this is introducing an entirely new audience who may eventually spread into the casual side of the traditional structure.

This is difficult for a hardcore community like Evil Avatar to understand, Nintendo is not designing their systems from the perspective of any kind of gamer. They are deliberately looking from the perspective of someone who hasn't touched a controller in 20 years or has perhaps never touched a controller. The "Revolution" began with the DS. It spread like wildfire in Japan and will slowly catch on in the rest of the world, the pointer is just an extension of the movement that is already underway.

camberiu

01-19-2006, 06:41 PM

Nintendo already has recently altered the gaming landscape. Look at the top ten Japanese games for 2005: 8 DS games including Animal Crossing, Nintendogs and 3 "Brain Training" games.

I always thought that targeting the "non-traditional gaming market" started with online FLASH games (Yahoo! Games) and cell phones. My wife is japanese BTW, and she says that cell phone games and online horseracing game simulations (http://www.k-den.jp/) had a HUGE impact in bringing non-gamers into the market and that Nintendo might be just trying to cash in on that. But it certainly this trend exist not because of their "original" idea.

ChaosDent

01-19-2006, 07:20 PM

You are talking aobut diversions that exist on devices that people would otherwise still own. Even if the drive to find more satisfying game experiences didn't originate with Nintendo, they are still convincing people to pick up a traditional gaming handheld and traditional handheld games for the first time. Nintendo consoles don't have the luxury of being "necessary" items, so they have to approach this new demographic in a fundamentally different way with fundamentally different games.

Even the VR concept you suggested (which Nintendo failed to achieve ten years ago and would probably "alter the landscape" by pulling Nintendo out of it if they tried it again) would not be nintendo's original idea today just as it wasn't their original idea with the Virtual boy.

overdrivechao

01-19-2006, 07:25 PM

Everyone forgets that the Gamecube has the largest library of games between all three current gen consoles.

Gameboy Player.

Also, as I've said before, the Revolution is the only guaranteed console. It isn't fighting Sony and Microsoft, but in a way it doesn't even have to.

thecrazyd

01-19-2006, 07:49 PM

Another Rev topic, another example of the haters putting words in the Rev fans mouths, and making tons of assumptions. I would argue, but I can only hear Achilles make the exact same assumptions so many times in every thread that has the word Nintendo in it.

mister_slim

01-19-2006, 08:02 PM

I always thought that targeting the "non-traditional gaming market" started with online FLASH games (Yahoo! Games) and cell phones. My wife is japanese BTW, and she says that cell phone games and online horseracing game simulations (http://www.k-den.jp/) had a HUGE impact in bringing non-gamers into the market and that Nintendo might be just trying to cash in on that. But it certainly this trend exist not because of their "original" idea.
Ever heard of Ms. Pac-Man?

overdrivechao

01-19-2006, 08:08 PM

I'd argue that the "creative games" segment is a niche market though. A game can be creative and sell well as long as it appeals to a non-niche market in its presentation. The Sims, Black and White, that kind of thing.

Well, Sims is its own market now, with 7 Sims properties releasing in December:

Sims Holiday Pack
Sims 2 Nightlife
Sims 2 on GC, XB, PS2, DS and PSP
Did I miss any? Oh yeah the Expansion Collection

Here are some of the franchise
December Releases:
Prince of Persia 3
True Crime 2
Tony Hawk 7 or 8, I forget
NBA Live Part 8
Madden Part 10
NHL Part 10
Fifa Part 4 or 5
Castlevania XXIII
Matrix 2
Sly 3
Trapt (Deception Part 4)
Shadow (Sonic TH Part 9 or 10 if you don't count the ports and GGA versions)
DragonQuest 8
WWF Smackdown 2006 (PS2 and PSP)
Resident Evil 4 (although a good game for sure)
GTA 4 for PSP

There are more but basically all I remember that came out in December that were original games were
50 Cent. = Crap
Gun = Good but short
Shadow of the Colossus = too niche to make money
Guitar Hero = Can't find it anywhere, great game

What I'm saying is, originality doesn't sell. THQ has a market for built-in audiences like Cartoon Network and movie properties. EA... well what can I say that you dont know? Activision. Who else? Midway? Oh ok Gauntlet 4. And Mortal Kombat 6 or 7.

The sad news is, most gamers buy CRAP titles. Like Uwe Boll movies and McDonalds and WalMArt, make crap stuff and sell it crap cheap and make it up in quantity. :(

Mr.Green

01-19-2006, 08:52 PM

Reo Strong

01-19-2006, 09:17 PM

If you're gonna play games for several hours a day for years on then don't go blaming society when your precious hobby starts losing its appeal.

I'm kind of going through that right now. (the loss of apeal, not the blaming of society) I've always been able to throw myself into two or three games and play them all at the same time (and usually have a couple of books on the back burner as well). But, as of late, I've been working later, planning for a wedding, and finished up college (with 2 degrees in 9 semesters -Whoo-ow-). As a consequence, I've lost touch with gaming.

I've always loved technology, a love that was sparked by games, but now, I'm having trouble finding games that hold my attention for more than the intro.

To pull this post back on topic: I'm anticipating the Revolution just to see what people do with it. I know that there will be a higher percentage of good, solid, enjoyable games for it, but 70% of 100 games (NRev) is a lot less than 30% of 1000 games (PS3 or 360).

I do admin that I've owned most of big N's major products (NES, GB, SNES, GB-Pocket, N64, GBA, GC plus a smattering of games for each), But I think that the Rev will be different in that if it is half as intuitive as it looks, it will pull others into games and gaming.

More people doing it is def. a good thing, but I'm still hoping that it plays out as eloquently as they are all hoping and prognosticating.

overdrivechao

01-19-2006, 09:20 PM

I'm getting tired of this jaded nerd pseudo-elitist bullshit. People play/listen to/watch/read/eat what they like. Get over yourselves for crying out loud. If you're gonna play games for several hours a day for years on then don't go blaming society when your precious hoby starts losing its appeal.

Anyway, are we really short of fun games to play here or are we just bitching over the ones we don't like?

I wish I had that kind of time....

In reality, this December was one of the first in a long time that almost nothing of interest came out. The games I enjoy really are few and far between, or else I wouldn't be here. I'd be playing something good.

ElectricMonk

01-19-2006, 10:10 PM

The only way I'll get a revolution iis if they have an active indie game support plan. You should be able to buy a cable and software that you can mess around with to make your own game, and dev.nintendo.com where you can upload it to a live-arcade like system. No traditional publisher is going to save them with 'innovation'. You pitch some idea about a crazy dirt moving game that works perfectly with the controller and might be the best game ever and nobody is going to pay you to make it because it's too risky.

Schnoogs

01-19-2006, 10:14 PM

This is awesome...I can't wait to get a Revolution. It sounds freaken amazing...it will have the best games for sure.

I can't wait to play Gears of War, Halo 3, Metal Gear Solid 4, and Gran Turismo 5!!

Oh wait...they won't be available on that system. God I guess that means the other systems have some merit too. ;)

mister_slim

01-19-2006, 10:28 PM

I can't wait to play ... Gran Turismo 4!!
Why are you waiting?

Mason

01-19-2006, 10:31 PM

This is bullshit.

Developers can make innovative, genre-creating games for any of the three consoles. It's a question of ideas, not hardware. I like that Nintendo has made abandoning old genres a focus of their company, but pretending that Nintendo first-party titles are the only games possible of innovation is nonsense.

They'll probably do good things with the new controller. But until we see what they come up with, pretending that Nintendo owns the universe's sole kernel of creativity is fanboy idiocy.

One can put forth plausible scenarios where any of the 3 consoles will dominate the generation, so op-eds in either direction are meaningless and really not worthy of the front page.

Vandenh

01-19-2006, 10:38 PM

I am looking forward to Rev as a gamer and games developer and I understand the points this article is making but I doubt that the Rev will come anywhere near the top spot.

Borys

01-19-2006, 11:49 PM

This article makes some valid points and some unbelievable shitty ones as well:

The Xbox absolutely crushed all its console competition. This surprising success for Microsoft's console bodes well for Xbox 2, particularly since the Xbox isn't riding on the strength of any single title alone.

What rubbish.

Zeal

01-20-2006, 12:12 AM

Nothing will change with the next-generation of consoles.

1. Sony
2. Microsoft
3. Nintendo.

Deal with it.

blackzc

01-20-2006, 12:42 AM

It is silly to think you need to reinvent a genre every five years or so.

This is all just pointless rhetoric if you ask me, just give me fun games and if some of them happen to be "revolutionary", well, cool.

It doesnt have to but i am getting sick of playing games, i have been for a few years. Its really more like a 10 year cycle, maze puzzle games, 2d side scroller,FPS. thats the overall theme over the last 30 years. it is about time for things to change. And it seems everything has been done already (on screen) so the controller is the next step.

Alot of people are gonna be on the bandwagon because of nintendo PR but im pushing 30 and ive been playing for a looong time. I literaly jumped out of my chair and yealled once the initial (WTF is that) shock wore off and i knew what this controller would do.

LilEvilFish

01-20-2006, 04:48 AM

for the first time since dipping my toes in the nintendo water (a GBA) I'm actually considering buying this Ninty console. I was always in the SEGA camp (the bitter rivalry in the 90's, loved every minute) but now seeing the other consoles turn into multimedia machines, just puts me off!

One of the most fun games I've bought lately is the plug-in Sensible Soccer game for the TV, simple, fun. Ninty might well win me over this time.. except if the PS3 gets another wipeout game cos I love those to bits.. bastards with their good games.

mister_slim

01-20-2006, 05:02 AM

One of the most fun games I've bought lately is the plug-in Sensible Soccer game for the TV, simple, fun. Ninty might well win me over this time.. except if the PS3 gets another wipeout game cos I love those to bits.. bastards with their good games.
You might like Super Mario Strikers.

crashedout

01-20-2006, 05:52 AM

I don't agree. Outside of the hard-core gamer, like those on this board, Nintendo is unfairly associated with kid's toys. We all know this is not true, but the people who buy Madden year after year are the ones who assume Nintendo games are for kids. After having played a 360 and Mario Kart Wifi, they have a long way to go to get their online up to par, at least to convert some of these adult gamers. I think they can do much better this time but no more than 20%. Since I love their games, I will most likely pre-order one, especially if it is cheap.

fushi

01-20-2006, 06:42 AM

That article was dumb and redundant, just like [EDITED BECAUSE I'M AN ANGRY MAN, TOO ANGRY FOR MY OWN GOOD].

Grifter

01-20-2006, 09:00 AM

I honestly don't think the controller will play a large role in the comeback of Nintendo. If it lasts and truly becomes the "inovation" we have all been wating for great but I doubt it. (not this generation anyway.) What I see keeping Nintendo in the lime light is a sub $300 console with an emphasis on fun but simple games and 20 years of gameplay as backup.

I was talking with a few fellow gamers the other day and we came to the conclusion that the biggest problem with games today is not a lack of inovation but of fun. I remember when a game could be played with 2 to 4 buttons and all you had to do is know where the jump, attack, and special/secondary attack buttons were simple and fun. With most of todays games devolopers try to include everything including the kitchen sink making it so you need 10+ years of exp. or a 500 page manual to play the damn things. Not that it's all bad I just miss the days of games like Darius, life force, stryder, golden axe, games that are easy to pick up yet hard to master.

Imagine a straite port of any of these games with todays graphics and sound yet controlle and simple gameplay left intacked. It's in this area I think Nintendo will hit the mass market of both gamers and non-gamers in the same way Live Arcade will, Nintendo will just do it alot faster and cheaper.

If this post makes no sense I am sorry it's 9 am here and I have been awake for almost 24 hours now and probably shouldnt be posting but am to tired to care. :)

jeffbax

01-20-2006, 09:00 AM

Everyone who calls Dreamcast a failure, I just have to say fuck off.

Seriously, how was it a failure? It sold a lot in its short time, had the most amazing lineup for its time, it didn't SELL BAD.

Sega was just hemmoraghing money for years and couldn't take it anymore. I have no doubt that a 'hardcore' gamer console is perfectly viable. You don't need every game to sell 6 million copies to make money, you don't need super expensive tech. I would *kill* for a Dreamcast 2, and I'm sure many others would too even IF the general populus didn't put it ahead of PSX Sales.

This kind of "sales" talk is killing the industry. Dreamcast was the most amazing 2.5 years of gaming I've ever experienced I think, and I hope that Revolution truly changes things a bit, cause frankly new games are boring me. It is too much sequelitis. Sure there are highly polished games I won't deny that but less of its screams "I must have this" like Jet Grind Radio, Shenmue, or Ecco did. That and licensed properties... ugh, big fat yawn to EA.

I think quality drops at times too, I can't imagine making Harry Potter Quiddich 5 is very fun on the side of developers. Revolution just might be the place where constant innovation can thrive, and not just those handful of titles per year we get now.

steinfoot

01-20-2006, 10:39 AM

Kelegacy

01-20-2006, 10:41 AM

no they dont. they suck, like your mom does on her knees in front of my wang. only nintendo is good.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that wasn't his mother. It was fitbabits in a wig.

It was like Brokeback Mountain, but without the cowboys.

RMan

01-20-2006, 10:51 AM

What I see keeping Nintendo in the lime light is a sub $300 console with an emphasis on fun but simple games and 20 years of gameplay as backup.
Well, that’s pretty much exactly what the gamecube was about, and it didn’t bring down the house. Low cost is nice, but not interesting.
With most of todays games devolopers try to include everything including the kitchen sink making it so you need 10+ years of exp. or a 500 page manual to play the damn things.
You should understand that one of the efforts of the new controller is to alleviate this exact thing (this is the main thing that’s alienating the “casual” gamer), basically to give deep yet intuitive control. This allows developers to include a reasonable level of interesting game mechanics without having to implement tons of macro buttons (how much better is very dependant on the particular game, but you likely get my point).
Do you really think the average person isn't excited about a better looking, playing, version of their favoite game?
Average player, no, I don’t. Interested, sure, but excited is just too strong a word (of course interested will still sell to them eventually, the economy is good and people will throw down on these luxuries at some point).
Because I am, and most people I know who are casual gamers are, and the sales sort of show that they are.
Hehe, I think that depends on how you choose to look at it.
I'd argue that the "creative games" segment is a niche market though. A game can be creative and sell well as long as it appeals to a non-niche market in its presentation.
Presentation is clearly always important, but I’d still say your opinion that creative games are a niche market is shortsighted, bad for the industry, and so very wrong. EVERY genre/game you play now started as a creative/niche market game (technically, even a no market game). Your continuing statements say that these creative games don’t sell, but clearly that’s not true or we’d have never gotten past Pong. An interesting point, really, if people were that close minded and we were still playing pong, I’m sure we’d have some VERY nice looking pong games, and I’m sure they’d still sell, and I’m sure we’d still have MANY hardcore gamers saying “Pong is still fun, better looking Pong is more fun, why do we need something new?”.

51|RandoM

01-20-2006, 10:51 AM

I am a Nintendo fan, but you really have to take what they're saying about this generation with a big grain(block) of salt.

What they're saying appeals to the devs, and to many of the longtime gamers, but I haven't seen much that is going to sell that to the GTA generation. They need to start the marketing engines immediately, and keep them rolling full steam through the first six months of the Revolution.

Sequels do sell, and they're not always lacking in innovation. Nintendo is a pretty good example of that, most of their sequels significantly expand/change the gameplay of the previous version. Nowadays, to get something to really sell, you have to convince the publisher to heavily promote it, so the general gaming public has it in their front of their mind when they walk into the store. Most of the good titles that we complain had bad sales had bad sales because they received little or no promotion. Instead you see endless ads for generic sports game version 10, or urban lifestyle wannabe game X.

It all boils down to advertising dollars. Nintendo better plan on spending just as much of them as Microsoft or Sony, if they expect their new approach to fly.

kokyunage

01-20-2006, 10:53 AM

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that wasn't his mother. It was fitbabits in a wig.

It was like Brokeback Mountain, but without the cowboys.

It was funny for the first couple times, now it's getting old. You two invade way too many front page threads with your homo-erotic comments at each other. FYI, the joke is NO LONGER FUNNY.

steinfoot

01-20-2006, 10:53 AM

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that wasn't his mother. It was fitbabits in a wig.

It was like Brokeback Mountain, but without the cowboys.

mmmm brokebackian

Schnoogs

01-20-2006, 11:00 AM

mmmm brokebackian

So that was you in the theater...all I heard was "fap,fap,fap".

Oh and don't ask what I was doing there....alone....with a tub of extra buttery popcorn.

Achilles

01-20-2006, 11:08 AM

Average player, no, I don’t. Interested, sure, but excited is just too strong a word (of course interested will still sell to them eventually, the economy is good and people will throw down on these luxuries at some point).I disagree with you on that one, but there's no feelingo’meter that we can use to take a census of the gaming populous. Presentation is clearly always important, but I’d still say your opinion that creative games are a niche market is shortsighted, bad for the industry, and so very wrong.Yeah I probably worded that badly. I was arguing with the guy who said that creative games are stuck in a niche market. I think whether a creative game will be accepted by people depends on if it looks like something they want to play. Psychonauts, you could tell just by the 'designed by artists' art-style that it wouldn't sell. If you took the same idea and put different packaging on it, something that had a broader appeal, it probably would have sold better. People are alright playing something creative as long as it looks like something they'd like to play, like Katamari Damacy (the game's freaky weird, but in a cute way rather than an ‘escaped from Tim Burton's basement' way).

Grifter

01-20-2006, 11:44 AM

I should have been a bit more clear RMan I meant 20 years of games as backup considering all the downloadable content and backwards compatability. sorry, my bad.

I also agree with you on the point that everything we play now started as a ground breaking/revolutionary title at some point but you need to realize that most of these "revolutionary" titles were created in the early to mid 90's on the PC when you could make a good game for a few hundred bucks and a little imagination.
Other than the occasional developer with more balls and talent than they know what to do with it will be very rare to see anything revolutionary in the coming generation.

What we will see is small evolutionary steps a little change here a little change there then all of a sudden we find our selves playing a new genre of game but because it happened so slowly over multiple titles and pssibly generations of consoles we wont even notice, at least not like we used to.

Rather this is a bad thing or not I don't know what I do know is the day that I stop having fun playing video games is the day I find a new hobbie.

RMan

01-20-2006, 12:58 PM

I should have been a bit more clear RMan I meant 20 years of games as backup considering all the downloadable content and backwards compatability. sorry, my bad.
Ahh, I’ll take half the blame for that one, should have recognized that. Good point, that will be a big positive factor. I think the controller will ultimately be a bigger one, but the older games will get a lot of people on board with the system, so it’s a pretty magical combo.
Other than the occasional developer with more balls and talent than they know what to do with it will be very rare to see anything revolutionary in the coming generation.
Well, I know I’m fairly down on what the 360 and PS3 are doing recently, but I do think the internet can change this in some REALLY great ways. Ok, sorry to do this here (not really on topic), but this is going to be long and broken up into sections, but I think there are some points in here many of you may appreciate.

Section 1: Why retail sucks for innovation.
Ok, many of you likely already know this one, but I’ll quickly go over it. First off, there is limited shelf space for games, so only the games biggest games have a chance of even hitting the shelves. Shelf space is determined primarily by game sales before it hits the shelves, so only sequels and/or games with heavy marketing can hope to get decent shelf space. Games are also so expensive and time consuming that to get the player to commit to one of them also often takes a sequel or familiar title. The amount of money needed to make a game, market it, manufacture/distribute it, and to do it with enough force to make it a success is so staggering that all but the biggest publishers can make it work, regardless of how good the game design and implementation is. This ensures a high level of “safe” (or more accurately, not as risky) titles are released and little else is attempted.

Section 2: Why the internet is good for innovation.
Potentially low price point, low cost of entry into the marketplace and no stocking/manufacturing/warehousing issues are obvious pluses. Also, the internet eliminates the psychological impact of seeing a bunch of boxes on the shelves (I think everyone’s affected somewhat by the “more shelfspace, must be a better game” thing), instead user reviews and a much more reliable rating system can be achieved. The internet also allows for shorter, episodic or add-on based games that simply wouldn’t be viable at all with the limited shelfspace at retail since in retail games must fly off the shelves VERY quickly or they will be taken off the shelves. There’s still going to be a problem with creating awareness for the product, but besides that online delivery solves pretty much all the other major limitations of physical distribution.

Section 3: Why things look bad for big games.
A bit of a tangent, but hear me out. Internet purchasing of everything (not just games) is becoming more accepted, online distribution is growing very fast, and that means that the retail market will shrink proportionally (the money has to come from somewhere, right?). Couple this with the fact that many retailers are pushing used game programs, and the fact that developers (for reasons not entirely of their choosing) are increasing budgets substantially means that games will have a higher failure rate since there is likely less income. Diversity will become less prevalent, and ultimately that part of the industry will suffer. This will cause more people, especially casual gamers, to gravitate towards online games since these cheaper, more accessible and less time consuming games will really appeal to a great number of gamers. Now, any of you people that say “but small games don’t sell” can just shut up, because the plain and simple truth is that they have had no real venue in the past, I think they will sell REALLY well when people can actually find and buy them (the 360’s marketplace, even in it’s infancy, seems to be doing decently). In the end, I think in retail things are looking pretty grim for all but the few big publishers/developers that have established franchises.

Ehh, this has gotten too long, I have more on how things are actually looking up for small developers in terms of development, but unless someone wants to hear it, I’m not going to bother (so speak up if you want that post).

I was arguing with the guy who said that creative games are stuck in a niche market.
Well, I still think this is a matter of not having a proper venue until recently, but the real problem may be a difference in what we think “having little/no market” means. When I hear that, I think the person means that a product of that type will not sell, but what they may mean is that product is not selling (In this case, the marketplace is changing dramatically, and deriving predictions for the future solely on the results of the past would completely overlook these new factors).
Psychonauts, you could tell just by the 'designed by artists' art-style that it wouldn't sell.
Excellent example, I felt from the start that game wouldn’t do well either, and as a gamer I just have no interest in it (for me, it’s a combination of the style and the fact that I’m bored of that game type). This is not flamebait, just interesting that it’s a highly touted product that I just have no interest at all in checking out.
People are alright playing something creative as long as it looks like something they'd like to play, like Katamari Damacy (the game's freaky weird, but in a cute way rather than an ‘escaped from Tim Burton's basement' way).
Another great example, I bought that one because it looked like a great concept, and was totally turned off by the controls (admittedly, I didn’t have much time to play it at first, and just never bothered to play it again). Although it didn’t really turn my crank, it still got my money :).