Gaming Next-Gen System Predictions

[CowTipper]

What upcoming systems seem like they will be the best? Which one(s) will you get or try to get? Why? What do you think about them, using the information you know about them now? Which one do you think will do the best in the market? Why?

I think the XBox 360 and PS3 will be in some fierce competition. The PS3 has the graphics and processor, and more experience with game making. However, the 360 has the Halo franchise and the mysterious game "Black". The Revolution, I'm not sure about because from what I've seen, it hasn't blown me away, and a lot of things about it are being kept secret because in a private interview with "the Father of Nintendo", Mr. Miyamoto, he said that they had to keep the controller scheme and stuff secretive because other systems copied the previous ones-such as with the rumble feature.

I, personally, want the PS3 because I am a PS fanboy and it looks AWESOME! It has a removable harddrive. (which has no apparent use, but is so cool just to say you have...) It also has the new "Cell processor" which is supposed to be amazing. It was made in cooperation with Sony, IBM, and Toshiba, and is planned to be used in computers and cell phones. Also it has a lot of franchises that I hope they continue like the Jak and Ratchet & Clank series. It just seems the most technologically advanced. The only big downsides are 1) Sony has been known to not completely follow up on its predictions for the PS systems and 2) the price is REALLY high.

I think the 360 will do the best in the market because of its predecessor, the XBox. It was the best of the three systems due to its awesome graphics and Halo series. I think that the fans of the XBox will buy the 360 in hopes of continuing the Halo series and its superior online support. Also, the price of it will probably be much lower than the PS3's.

I think the Revolution is being overshadowed by the PS3 and 360 because even though it is supposed to be very innovative (like Nintendo always is) they aren't letting people know what is going to be so great about it. I think, eventually, Nintendo is going to pull a Sega and stop making consoled. They will probably continue to dominate the handheld market though. The only reason it's going to survive this time is because of its great franchises like Mario and Zelda.

That was my opinion, please tell me what you think...

[Semjaza]

Nintendo really has no reason to say much about the Revolution yet, really. It doesn't come out till 2006. They plan on showing it off this year and there's also next E3 as well. Blowing their load now would be pointless.

I think people overestimate how many gamers know about E3 in general. The news of it actually travels pretty damn slowly and a lot of it gets twisted around in the process. I don't think the reaction of people on the internet is really going to affect the launches of any of these consoles as much as timing would.

And really, I think that's the main issue here. The Xbox 360 is coming out really early. As an Xbox owner, I feel burned by this. They didn't even attempt to show a single thing about their current system at their press conference, despite the fact that it's younger than the other systems are on a worldwide release scale.

I can't think of a situation where the first console launch did the best in quite some time. Saturn beat PSX and N64. DC beat PS2, GCN and Xbox. I don't know that that's necessarily in their favor, especially with almost all of the momentum behind Sony thanks to insane PS2 sales. Nintendo always has other stuff to fall back on, even assuming Revolution is a failure... which it likely won't be from a profit standpoint; that's all Nintendo cares about in terms of marketshare anyway.

[silpheedpilot]

[COLOR=Blue][SIZE=1]I think we're all going to have to wait until around mid-to late '06 or early '07 for some really good gaming...What sytem that came out didn't have flaws that needing fixing in the first year? Exactly.
I'll wait a year for the console I get, most likely the 360, because I know that in a year they will work out the bugs and fix all the problems, release some new gadget that the consumer likes better (S Controller, anyone?), and just all around make the console more enjoyable to have. If you're smart you'll do the same.

~Silpheed, gamer for life[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[James]

[color=#737373]Revolution and PS3 aren't really even an issue in the next year. PS3 is apparently due to launch in the spring of 2006, but that's sketchy at best. And Revolution will probably launch later in 2006, which means it's far enough away that it's not worth worrying about quite yet.

I think the biggest thing this year, in terms of "console wars" is going to be the whole situation surrounding PSP. Sony is having production issues and if they increase production as suggested, it's possible that PSP sales could further accelerate. PSP isn't meeting Sony's sales forecasts right now, so who knows how that'll go.

I'm also interested to see how DS's Wi-Fi Connection service fares. DS is likely going to be the system to beat when it comes to online gameplay by year's end. Given that it's free and highly accessible (and supported by some very big games), I'm thinking it could really drive DS sales.

Other than that, it's all pretty standard stuff...my answers won't be different to most people's. I'm looking forward to Zelda and Okami in particular, but there's a ton of other stuff I want, ranging from Age of Empires III to Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence.[/color]

[Ryo the Tactician]

I have to just say...wow to the Next Gen consoles.

I saw a clip of a War game for PS3. I thought it was an FMV, and then I saw it was gameplay.

...

I swear, I almost had a heart attack. The graphics were amazing. Just undescribably amazing. This person fired a bazooka. You could perfectly see the smoke trail, the fire, the flame, the dirt flying up with explosions everywhere. I think, that if PS3's graphics are really that good (and they are) we're going to have 15 year olds with medical cases of Shell-Shock.

~RtT

PS. I hope we can expect as much from Revolution.

[Sora]

[QUOTE=Ryo the Tactician]
I swear, I almost had a heart attack. The graphics were amazing. Just undescribably amazing. This person fired a bazooka. You could perfectly see the smoke trail, the fire, the flame, the dirt flying up with explosions everywhere. I think, that if PS3's graphics are really that good (and they are) we're going to have 15 year olds with medical cases of Shell-Shock.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I saw that on E3 and I was like "...woah". Completely amazed, but what I'm wondering is how far they can really go. If you consider this a "wow", what about the next ones? Or the ones after that? I'm not sure how patient I can be, heh.

[silpheedpilot]

[COLOR=Blue][SIZE=1]While I understand that the PS3, 360, and Revolutions grpahics are supposed to be top notch and all but what about in the later years of its realease when game companies start getting lazy and we start seeing games that look like they should be on the PS2, X-Box, or Gamecube? Then we'll be back to square one with reviews and playablitiy...Yeah..[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Semjaza]

[quote name='Silpheed][COLOR=Blue][SIZE=1]While I understand that the PS3, 360, and Revolutions grpahics are supposed to be top notch and all but what about in the later years of its realease when game companies start getting lazy and we start seeing games that look like they should be on the PS2, X-Box, or Gamecube? Then we'll be back to square one with reviews and playablitiy...Yeah..[/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]

I know in many cases, textures and models are made at high detail and then scaled back for the powers of the console. In a review for the GTA: San Andreas for Xbox they had mentioned how they always do high resolution textures and then scale them back to be used on the PS2. I imagine it's the same for many companies. It's not much work to scale back a good model, but it's a lot of work the other way around.

Still, I am not expecting games to look like the pre-rendered PS3 Killzone footage next generation; not right away at least. Making a video with tools you know and saying something is capable of this or that is really quite different from actually getting it to run within the bottlenecks the PS3 obviously will have (you can see that much from its specs). While I'm not saying games like that won't appear eventually, I'm not just expecting it right away. I don't think anyone should. That doesn't mean they won't look amazing by today's standards or improve dramatically over time.

I don't think it makes any sense for companies to get "lazy", though. I don't know of any major ones that have done this this generation. Games just continue to improve on the current systems. The only "poor" looking games tend to be from much smaller developers.

And really, I imagine with the obvious cost involved with making a PS3 game, that's going to be phased out to some extent. The PS3, if capable of all that right away, is going to push out a lot of smaller developers who either can't afford or just can't make games that look like that. Xbox 360 will probably have this issue to a lesser extent; I imagine it won't be quite as expensive or difficult.

Nintendo claims they're trying to make a system that will make those developers (and the major ones) happy. We'll see how that works out. They've mentioned in recent interviews that they're going after companies and games they've lacked this generation (GTA was cited), so who knows.

[Guest Sean]

[SIZE=1]Well I'm an XBox gamer, but I don't know, I think I'm going to go for my real first taste of Nintendo when the Revolution comes out. Yes, I have played the GameCube at my friends' house a few times, but I've never owned a NES/SNES/N64/or Cube. So getting a revolution will be the beginning. I've switched around consoles before though, instead of getting a PS2, I got the XBox.

Meh.

But for what was released at E3, well I don't see why Nintendo needed to tell us everything about it when they have over a year until they release it. Betterg etting everyones attentions next year. So next year E3 will be something I'm looking forward to reading about.

[quote name='CowTipper']I think that the fans of the XBox will buy the 360 in hopes of continuing the Halo series and its superior online support. Also, the price of it will probably be much lower than the PS3's.[/quote]

The XBox was cheaper, but at a price to themselves, they lost alot per console sold, I think I'm right in saying that, they lost around $100 for every console they sold, they may want to get that money back with the 360, in theory, but maybe not.[/SIZE]

[2010DigitalBoy]

I never thought about the fact that the PS3s graphics wouldn't be that good right away. I feel dumb. Anyway, the main thing that excites me about the new, awesome graphics is the fact that, as James said, all the little developers will be done for. This is good because not only will there be less games to have to keep up with, but they will all be good. I hate the fact that I can't afford all the games I want because theres too darn many of them.

And Cow Tipper, I don't think the 360 is going to do all that well. The graphics aren't that much better, and the Xbox was the wprst of this generations consols, in the fact that it lost Microsoft a lot of money and sold the least of the three. A new Halo game isn't worth spending 400 bucks on a game console.

[James]

[color=#737373]It's not good for small developers to die out. Less developers tends to equate to less great games. Why? Because competition is reduced. We don't want a world where EA is only competing with [i]itself[/i]. Then we'd get the same recycled crap each year...moreso.

So it's good to have an abundance of developers who are under different ownership.

As far as Xbox 360 goes, I think it, PS3 and Revolution will all probably have graphics that are fairly similar, at least initially. Most people won't be able to tell the difference if they don't look at the specs. Some games will look a little better than current gen games and some will probably look significantly better. But that's kinda no different to the current generation. We still get games on each system that either look like glorified PSX games, or that look truly "current generation".[/color]

[satan665]

There has been a fair amount of talk about how the new systems are going to make the games more expensive to create. I guess the more advanced the system gets, the greater the burden on developers financially. This could very well mean that we will see less and less smaller companies (smaller games). Hopefully its not going to happen that way, but its something to keep an eye out for.

As for the big three, I think that Sony will stay its ground as the best selling console. A lot of really popular games release first on playstation and some are also exclusive. The games are going to drive the sales pretty much without worrying about which system is a little faster of cooler looking. In that way I'm not sure if Nintendo will gain ground or lose it. Nintendo has a lot of great lisences, but not nearly as many as playstation if all things remain the same. Resident Evil jumping over to Gamecube didn't really seem to help much either (I'm glad it did though, RE4 was worth it). I hope the revolution does well, but I'm not sure it will. I doubt that its new innovative control scheme will have a huge impact unless they can come up with some more solid game lisences.

Maybe Xbox will be the next dreamcast? Naw, I think Xbox will still be around but this time it won't be able to hold better graphics/processors over Playstation head.

[Morpheus]

When has Nintendo ever had a shortage of Properties?

I'm not sure that PS3 will be the top console for 3 reasons:
1.It will be expensive.
2.Sony has given specs on it, but they have a history of overinflating things like PSP's battery life(x2) and the power of the ps2(x10)
3.There is a good chance sony will have a shortage. If sony can only make 500,000 1-chip PS2's I wonder how many 9-cell PS3's they can make.

[Charles]

[QUOTE=ThatOneOddDude]I never thought about the fact that the PS3s graphics wouldn't be that good right away. I feel dumb. Anyway, the main thing that excites me about the new, awesome graphics is the fact that, as James said, all the little developers will be done for. This is good because not only will there be less games to have to keep up with, but they will all be good. I hate the fact that I can't afford all the games I want because theres too darn many of them.

And Cow Tipper, I don't think the 360 is going to do all that well. The graphics aren't that much better, and the Xbox was the wprst of this generations consols, in the fact that it lost Microsoft a lot of money and sold the least of the three. A new Halo game isn't worth spending 400 bucks on a game console[/QUOTE]

I know James already addressed your flawed thinking regarding small developers, but how exactly is it a bad thing that there are more games available than you can afford? Isn't it better to have a broad selection than a limited one you're not even interested in to begin with? I would rather go to a buffet with more food than I can eat than one with a smaller selection of bland foods.

Also, I think there's a significant chance that some titles' visuals will be close to or equal to Killzone 2 quality right out of the gate. The PS3 and Xbox 360 are able to run the amazing-looking Unreal 3 engine rather effortlessly; Gears of War seems to be a quality demonstration of what can result from that. I don't think it's too far off. Madden is another example of this point considering it's supposedly [I]superior[/I] to the concept footage that's been aired.

I don't see how the Xbox was the worst console this generation either. Of course Microsoft is going to lose money on it; its purpose was to establish a fan base and a stable place within the market--and it did just that (which is no easy task). The Xbox even outsold the PS2 last Christmas. With the success of the Xbox Live network this generation and some terrific exclusives, I'd say that Microsoft hasn't given people a lot to complain about. I wish people would just stop pointing to Halo 2 as if they really need it to sell systems at this point.

[Semjaza]

The buffet analogy only works when you put in the word "bland". More games doesn't necessarily mean more good titles in a lot of cases. If graphics have to look this good to be acceptable I can't see there being a huge abundance of games even from the bigger players and it's still a gamble as to whether or not they'd even be fun to play.

Killzone 2 really is beyond some of the other stuff shown in a variety of ways, in my opinion. It's one thing to put some nice models on the screen. It's another to have all the insane effects on that same screen, along with those models and background stuff as well. Nothing Madden could do in its wildest dreams would require some of the things going on in that Killzone video. I don't think there will be a dramatic downgrade from those types of images personally (as mentioned Gears of Wars was physically running and looked good), but I wonder how difficult it will be to keep some of these things a norm unless all developers license good, existing engines.

The one great thing about the Revolution, in my mind, is that they seem interested in keeping this system as something where even small developers could put out good games if they have good ideas. Will it work out? Who knows. Yet, if it is true, there will be a very significant price difference in creating games in many cases. If a company could make two games for the Revolution for less than the price of making one on another system, I'd have to believe they'd do it. There's also the idea of a shorter development time.

I think we're also getting too entrenched in graphics in this case. The original Killzone was supposed to be a killer of other FPS games on other systems. Instead it managed to be decidedly average. It's one thing to make a game look like CG, it's another to actually make it play anything like they showed in that video. Considering the original, I don't even know how much I could anticipate this title to begin with.

Xbox 360 was also running the Unreal 3 engine at a non-fluid framerate according to sites such as Gamespot. Playstation 3 apparently held up a little better. This is something that annoys me. There's a strong possibility that all of this will be ironed out by the time the games shipped, but the fact that companies are still aiming for 30 FPS annoys me. Fluidity is still being tossed out the window for more bump mapping and whatever else.

As for the Xbox comment, I love the system. I was against MS getting into the fold and I still have a problem with a LOT of their ideas of where the industry should go... but they've done a lot to get up awareness and make some really great titles -- to the point that I'd actually buy a 360 as soon as I heard their teams responsible for Forza Motorsport or Rallisport Challenge 2 were making a new racer. MS in general has put out some really good games this generation.

Plus, I agree thinking MS depending on Halo 2 as much as people claim is of little importance. The game did well, yeah, but that's not all there is for the thing and there has been a lot of other great selling titles. I don't even care for the title at all and I've found plenty to buy personally. It's like claiming SSBM is all that carried GameCube because it was the best selling game. It's not exactly true.

[James]

[color=#737373]The main thing is, none of these games are really running on final hardware anyway. The Xbox 360 mules that exist currently are using today's technology to emulate what the hardware can do. That Microsoft is still using emulators this late in the game is a little odd, but I think it'll be sorted out soon enough.

Emulators are good, but they are never a completely true representation of what a system can handle. Do I believe that these systems can do Killzone-like graphics? Eventually, yes. But I also believe that making a game that looks like FMV will require double the investment. And that puts games like Killzone beyond the reach of many of today's game development studios.

More developers doesn't mean more good games as such, but it does mean that there's more competition. In such an environment, game developers are really forced to produce stuff that will grab more attention from gamers.

Unfortunately, even today, you have to sell about 600,000 units of a game to make any kind of profit - that is, based on the average cost of today's games. Even if the prices of games go up at retail (and they will, at least for Xbox 360 and PS3), you can still bet that games will take much longer to make and provide less returns for developers.

There are only a few ways around this, but I regard them as stop-gap solutions. One way is to outsource things such as model production to companies in India or China, where labor is cheaper. If you had your 3D models done in China and sent back to you for animation and texturing, that would reduce cost (versus doing it all in-house). Some companies are already taking that route.

The other solution is more on the hardware developer side; to create a batch of tools that make things easier. It may not reduce the cost of development, but it will make the transition smoother and easier for developers of various sizes. I really like Microsoft's XNA approach; from what I know of it, it's a very comprehensive solution that is continually evolving.

I think Nintendo has the right idea too, with DS and Revolution. They can play host to smaller developers who can't afford to regularly produce games on PS3 and Xbox 360.

And PS3...well, Epic Games says that it's easy to code for. But the whole nine processor thing is a bit iffy; only very talented developers will be able to share game code properly across the system's hardware. It's a complex design, like PS2. And it does contain some bottlenecks. So, I think it will probably be the most expensive system to develop for. That may make little difference for big companies, but it may be a deciding factor for small-and-medium developers.[/color]

[Goodbye, Face]

[size=1]Well from what I've heard, PS3 is technically the best system, XBOX 360 is the middle child, and NR is (sadly) the worst. That's just looking at the system specs though, it always depends on who has the best games.

Nintendo is worrying me a little. Some of my friends who also keep up on video games (probably better than me) say that this could be Nintendo's last generation, and so far, it doesn't even look like it's been trying. I feel a lot of angry stares coming, so I'll explain.

I'm looking at DS vs. PSP right now, most would agree that with the PSP you get the most bang for your buck, right? I truly think that at least right now, the DS is just a gimmick. It's just an extra touch screen that is keeping it alive, as there are very few decent games for it. Most of them are glorified tech demos, it'd be unfair to name them because most of them are things like Pokemon Dash, or the Super Mario game, which is basically Mario 64 with a bunch of mini games thrown in. My friend has a DS and I played the game, I hated the actual Mario game and found myself just playing the mini games, which eventually got boring as well. In fact, if I got a DS right now the only game I'd buy is Metroid Hunters, and probably that Kirby game that's coming out this year. The competition? Metal Gear Acid, MGA Squared (coming soon), Lumines (the best Tetris-esque game since Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo), Grand Theft Auto (which is being promised for this year), and many other at least half decent games. They're not games based off of repetitive rubbing of a pen or compilations of re-tooled games the execs play at the office. This is just in my opinion, of course.

So what does Nintendo do to get out of its rut? It shrugs off E3 by showing us a little black box that reminds me of the early PS2 sketches, and no controller, no games, and no information. At least they're humble and don't really lie like Sony and Microsoft did. eZines have interviewed some of the people behind the demos and they were hush-hush, but they eventually started saying things that contradicted the other, the end result? Everyone with half a brain should know that Unreal 3 and Killzone 2 are a lie, those are pre-rendered screens, with little or nothing done in real time, there was an interview done by Eurogamer.com, but I lost the actual link to it.

That was getting off subject... The NR is basically GameCube all over again. It's the little system with the little price. I thought it was really sad that they didn't show a controller design or even games at E3. It was a running joke at my school that Nintendo would use its DS slogan, "Touching is good," change it to "Thinking is good," and instead of controllers, use helmets that that have vurtual reality and control by reading your mind. That would be a wonky controller, for some people, quite unresponsive (where you press a button and the character doesn't jump for like two seconds). So how does Nintendo "wow" us? Saying that almost any game from almost any of their systems can be played on it. That's astounding... You have to purchase the games online and download them, which is a cool use of the online capability, but it's still pretty stupid compared to XBOX Live. So now it's rumored that Nintendo will release their system by Christmas 2006 and show all their stuff at E3 after the PS3 has been launched.

That's a very bad strategy, but that's just my opinion.

So now I'm looking at PS3 vs. XBOX 360. Let me begin by saying that XBOX Next was a better name idea. They had a stupid reason for changing it (it happened so fast that only a few sources even knew about the Next title). The reason they state has something to do with you being a game and looking around at all the different options you have. Sure... The real reason that we're making a circle is because the PS3 has a three in it while the XBOX 360 would have a two. Not the best idea. Also they jumped on the circle bandwagon since Nintendo was also making a Revolution, apparently one of a different kind though. So they came up with XBOX 360. Again I state that PS3 has the better system, but they haven't said much about their online ideas. XBOX 360 has a very nice and new XBOX Live setup. THat is the main thing that they have over PS3. Sure, I can name games like Halo, but PS3 has Metal Gear, GTA, and a lot of other exclusives that XBOX probably won't get to touch, at least for a long time. Only time will tell about this battle?

So my predictions in a nutshell? PS3 and XBOX 360 stalemate for their lifetime while Nintendo goes the way of Sega... Maybe not this generation, maybe not even ever, but they are going to fade away... DS got pwned... The Revolution is a black box with nothing in it right now, but it could end up being amazing. I think that this generation is going to be the worst. The companies are all concerned with amazing graphics to the point where it takes five years to make a game. Liscences and lawsuits are forming (EA & NFL), and the gaming community is going to suffer. Meanwhile, I'll be sitting here, chilling, playing my PSP and playing Half Life 2 on my computer...

And I'm sorry for the rant and general negativeness.[/size]

[James]

[quote]I'm looking at DS vs. PSP right now, most would agree that with the PSP you get the most bang for your buck, right? I truly think that at least right now, the DS is just a gimmick. It's just an extra touch screen that is keeping it alive, as there are very few decent games for it. Most of them are glorified tech demos, it'd be unfair to name them because most of them are things like Pokemon Dash, or the Super Mario game, which is basically Mario 64 with a bunch of mini games thrown in. My friend has a DS and I played the game, I hated the actual Mario game and found myself just playing the mini games, which eventually got boring as well. In fact, if I got a DS right now the only game I'd buy is Metroid Hunters, and probably that Kirby game that's coming out this year. The competition? Metal Gear Acid, MGA Squared (coming soon), Lumines (the best Tetris-esque game since Super Puzzle Fighter II Turbo), Grand Theft Auto (which is being promised for this year), and many other at least half decent games. They're not games based off of repetitive rubbing of a pen or compilations of re-tooled games the execs play at the office. This is just in my opinion, of course.
[/quote]

[color=#737373]DS may not be for you, but I think you have to look at the sell-through. Not only are DS sales currently double those of PSP, but market data suggests that DS is appealing to new audiences - including non-gamers.

I enjoy the DS because it provides me with a fresh experience; something I can't physically have on PSP or any other system. The actual experience of using the touch screen and microphone for interaction goes beyond gimmicky, particularly with many of the newer games (Pac-Pix and Electroplankton being two prominent examples in my mind).

So, even with relatively few AAA games, I think anyone would have to conclude that DS has so far been a runaway success. Its sales acceleration in Japan is even higher than GBA SP - and GBA SP had a faster pick-up rate than PlayStation 2, despite only being a revision on existing hardware, as opposed to being a totally new product.[/color]

[quote]So what does Nintendo do to get out of its rut? It shrugs off E3 by showing us a little black box that reminds me of the early PS2 sketches, and no controller, no games, and no information. At least they're humble and don't really lie like Sony and Microsoft did. eZines have interviewed some of the people behind the demos and they were hush-hush, but they eventually started saying things that contradicted the other, the end result? Everyone with half a brain should know that Unreal 3 and Killzone 2 are a lie, those are pre-rendered screens, with little or nothing done in real time, there was an interview done by Eurogamer.com, but I lost the actual link to it.[/quote]

[color=#737373]Well, as mentioned, the DS is a pretty big success right now. The results speak for themselves. I wouldn't call that a "rut".

In addition, the subject of Revolution's appearance at E3 has come up before. What you mentioned about Sony and Microsoft is true, but I think you have to remember two things.

Firstly, when Nintendo talks about Revolution's specs at some point, they won't be talking about estimated numbers or inflated figures. They'll be talking about expected in-game performance. This also happened with GameCube, which ended up boasting higher performance than PlayStation 2.

I do not think that Nintendo's relative quietness on Revolution should at all be considered an embarassment or anything like that - it's not that they have nothing to say and it doesn't suggest that Revolution is underpowered. It's a particular strategy. Revolution launches late next year, so we are more than a year away from release. There isn't any need to go into great depth on the product right now, especially when they have nothing playable to show.

For all Sony told us, we got very little out of it. Their technical demos were interesting, certainly, but none of that really resembled the experience of playing games. That likely won't be looked at 'till later this year at the earliest.[/color]

[quote]That was getting off subject... The NR is basically GameCube all over again. It's the little system with the little price. I thought it was really sad that they didn't show a controller design or even games at E3. It was a running joke at my school that Nintendo would use its DS slogan, "Touching is good," change it to "Thinking is good," and instead of controllers, use helmets that that have vurtual reality and control by reading your mind. That would be a wonky controller, for some people, quite unresponsive (where you press a button and the character doesn't jump for like two seconds). So how does Nintendo "wow" us? Saying that almost any game from almost any of their systems can be played on it. That's astounding... You have to purchase the games online and download them, which is a cool use of the online capability, but it's still pretty stupid compared to XBOX Live. So now it's rumored that Nintendo will release their system by Christmas 2006 and show all their stuff at E3 after the PS3 has been launched.
[/quote]

[color=#737373]That's true, it's a small system for a small price (probably a small price, anyway). But there's just so much of an assumption here, don't you think? Especially when so little is known about the platform.

There's no question in my mind that Revolution will be different to PS3 and Xbox 360. But different isn't necessarily bad. Given the tremendous success of Nintendo DS in the market, I can't say that applying a similar philosophy to Revolution worries me.

And as mentioned, it's just too early to be showing much for the system. What was Nintendo really going to show? They weren't going to show glorified tech demos that don't really represent what the final games will be like. Even with GameCube, their demos were largely things that morphed into retail products. And those demos were pretty indicative of what the system could handle.

As for the controller, I agree that it was disappointing not to see it at this E3. But once again, Nintendo regards E3 as a show for the coming fiscal year. Considering their stance on other companies mimmicking their designs, I can imagine that they'd rather wait until later in the year to unveil the thing. This is especially true if it's using a particularly unique application of technology. Don't forget that Sony and Microsoft are not even running on final hardware right now. They have time to make changes. It would be easy for them to incorporate new features to beat Nintendo to the bunch (as Sony attempted to do with Dual Shock).[/color]

[quote]So my predictions in a nutshell? PS3 and XBOX 360 stalemate for their lifetime while Nintendo goes the way of Sega... Maybe not this generation, maybe not even ever, but they are going to fade away... DS got pwned... The Revolution is a black box with nothing in it right now, but it could end up being amazing. I think that this generation is going to be the worst. The companies are all concerned with amazing graphics to the point where it takes five years to make a game. Liscences and lawsuits are forming (EA & NFL), and the gaming community is going to suffer. Meanwhile, I'll be sitting here, chilling, playing my PSP and playing Half Life 2 on my computer...
[/quote]

[color=#737373]I think that you have some valid criticisms overall, but your friends really don't know what they're talking about.

DS didn't get pwned. It's sold through twice the number that PSP has. Again, the results speak for themselves. And that's only if you want to compare DS to PSP, which I think is a bit erronous to begin with, considering the very different goals they both have.

Secondly, I don't think you should worry about what the Revolution has in its box. You have just said that you are concerned about the focus on graphics and stale software...even though this is what PSP, PS3 and Xbox 360 are essentially pushing for the most part. That's not to say that they aren't playing host to good games, but Sony and Microsoft are definitely pushing the idea of taking what we have and making it bigger and louder, without offering anything fundamentally new.

I guarantee, Nintendo won't go the way of Sega. Their business is nothing like Sega's. The GameCube was the most profitable of the current generation consoles, in terms of the actual profit margin for Nintendo.

I think that a lot of people have this idea that if they don't own a system or if their friends don't, that it's somehow failing. But there are a lot of gamers out there, and each company has a different business model. Nintendo has always run its business profitably; it's only made one significant loss in more than 100 years of operation. It isn't a company to dive in with new products on a whim.

Although I do tend to want to defend each company (I've done a lot of defending for Xbox 360 in this very forum), I do think Nintendo is still vastly misunderstood by gamers at large. That sucks, because I think it means that people tend to dismiss their products without really giving them a fair go.[/color]

[Goodbye, Face]

[size=1]Sure, Nintendo wins major points for sheer inventiveness every time they do something, I just haven't seen enough from the Nintendo DS to call it better than the PSP. People bought the DS for two reasons, it came out first, and it was a sure bid to succeed, as they've been pretty good since the Gameboy. To tell you the truth, I hated the Advance too, its power was barely a jump. It'd be better to just skip the Advance and compare the jump from black and white to color, to color to backlighing. I didn't see anything new with the Advance, and the SP costs more than my $50 GameCube.

Speaking of which, the GameCube sold the most becasue it's less than half the price (to at least buy used). People are either buying them for their little kid, or for nostalgia's sake, if not for the cheapness. I know one person who had a GameCube and no other systems from that generation. It's sitting in his room while he goes to my house and spoons off my PS2.

I'm not a big Sony person though, I hate them as much as Microsoft, they disappointed me big time with my $100 memory card that makes my PS2 boot up slower and otherwise makes a decent doorstop. Luckily, I managed to sell that to one of my friends for $75 and then he heard the news and sold it to one of his friends for $60... I hate Microsoft simply because they're a big corporation that buys out everyone who stands up to them, needless to say, I hate Wal-Mart too.

Yes, that was a comedy break. Seriously though, everyone I knew who had a DS recently sold it to buy a PSP. Andrew just sold his last week, he bought about 30 games for the DS, as he was going on a big trip, he came back without the DS or any games, saying he sold the system and games to pay for the PSP. Instead of Asphalt, he got Ridge Racer, which he said made Asphalt feel like an Atari game. I liked Asphalt, I haven't played Ridge Racer yet, but I'll take his word for it. He used to be very faithful to it, due to the fact that Shin Megami Tensei is coming out for it. Now he just absolutely bashes the DS, I'm not saying that I do just because of him, but I felt that this was worth saying.

Granted, these are portable games, but where are the quality titles? I looked into ElectroPlankton and it looks pretty good, I can't say much else, not having played it. There are games that are very good on the DS, but I just see less when compared to the PSP. It's just that I've seen some horrid examples of games for it. I probably do have the wrong idea. Nintendo has never failed its true fans, so someone will always stick by them. Microsoft hasn't failed anyone either, hell, it's the Halo system. But they're new. I just feel that the DS started off completely wrong and I think that people will keep that mindset, as I have. If Viewtiful Joe, Mario Kart, and SMT turn out any good, I'll go buy the DS, why? Because I bought the GameCube for Viewtiful Joe... one month before I heard that it was coming for PS2...

Right now, the DS is just a minigame tool to developers. PSP is a multimedia masterpiece (give or take a few flaws). Nintendo's motto should be something like, 'You get what you pay for," because that's basically their trend. With GameCube and DS, you spend about half the price, thrown in some innovation, and have games comprable to that of Final Fantasy, MGS, and so forth. I just don't find Zelda as good as FF, or Metroid as good as Halo or MGS. I don't see how the most purchased game (from what I've read), Super Smash Bros. Melee, can compare with Tekken 4. People like Nintendo because of the good feeling they get when they see the character they've grown up with get thrown into a new environment, just look at Donkey Konga, didn't expect that when you were climbing ladders to save a princess, did ya?

And when the Revolution comes down to the price of a game, I'll buy it, just like with my GameCube. Until then, I'll keep an open mind. An open, but slightly dissapointed mind.[/size]

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]You know, I've been thinking about Nintendo's showing at E3 with the Revolution, in comparison to Sony's. And now I'm wondering what the reaction would have been like, had Nintendo shown a few tech demos, non-final hardware specs, and a slightly redesigned Wavebird for the controller. Because, you know, that would've been about the same as what we got from Sony.

I'm betting people would've been pretty disappointed with that, same as they are with Nintendo not showing much at all. But then, why does Sony get away with it? Why is everyone so hyped up over the PS3? Sorry, but pre-rendered CG video that may or may not reflect what the PS3 can actually do doesn't really get me excited, and an ugly Dual Shock 2 addaption doesn't help. Heck, Sony didn't even say anything about their plans for online play (at least not that I remember), whereas Nintendo did give some details on that.

So why are people so much more excited about the PS3 and disappointed with the Revolution, when we've barely seen anything substantial from either?[/color]

[James]

[quote]Sure, Nintendo wins major points for sheer inventiveness every time they do something, I just haven't seen enough from the Nintendo DS to call it better than the PSP. People bought the DS for two reasons, it came out first, and it was a sure bid to succeed, as they've been pretty good since the Gameboy. To tell you the truth, I hated the Advance too, its power was barely a jump. It'd be better to just skip the Advance and compare the jump from black and white to color, to color to backlighing. I didn't see anything new with the Advance, and the SP costs more than my $50 GameCube.
[/quote]

[color=#737373]Nobody is calling the DS "better" than the PSP though. Try not to think of it as "better" or "worse". Try to think of it as "different". PSP and DS are two very different machines. Yes, they both play video games. But PSP is offering you a traditional gaming experience - it's offering you the same kind of interaction that you get with PS2 and other platforms.

DS is offering you a type of interaction and a style of play that hasn't previously existed. This doesn't mean it's automatically "better" - maybe not for you and maybe not for many people. But it's a successful strategy, nonetheless.

If you hated the Advance then you simply aren't the customer that Nintendo is going after. GBA was a pretty big leap over its predecessor (Game Boy Color). For the price, it offered what it could. What would you have been satisfied with? 3D graphics? That would have pushed the price up exponentially and wouldn't be logical for GBA at the time, for a myriad of reasons.

I'm not saying that wanting any of these things is wrong. If you love your PSP and you want traditional games with better graphics, that's a valid choice. I'm just saying that it's incorrect to say that Nintendo is doing the "wrong thing" - their strategy is successful, based on GBA and DS sales. Maybe you aren't the kind of person who they are appealing to, but at the same time, it's clear that they are appealing to a large number of people.

So, there's room for both strategies. I like Nintendo DS, but I wouldn't say that PSP is "wrong" or "worse". It's a different kind of experience. If I want to play PS2-like games on the road, I'll get a PSP. And there are definitely a few games I want to get PSP for, so I'm sure I'll be buying the thing at some stage.[/color]

[quote]Speaking of which, the GameCube sold the most becasue it's less than half the price (to at least buy used). People are either buying them for their little kid, or for nostalgia's sake, if not for the cheapness. I know one person who had a GameCube and no other systems from that generation. It's sitting in his room while he goes to my house and spoons off my PS2. [/quote]

[color=#737373]GameCube didn't sell the most. It sold the least, but it made the most profit.

But again, using examples of people you know...that isn't representative of an entire market. A lot of people say "I don't like this" or "my friends hate that" and they think that this somehow automatically means that the entire nation feels the same way. Obviously, it doesn't.[/color]

[quote]I'm not a big Sony person though, I hate them as much as Microsoft, they disappointed me big time with my $100 memory card that makes my PS2 boot up slower and otherwise makes a decent doorstop. Luckily, I managed to sell that to one of my friends for $75 and then he heard the news and sold it to one of his friends for $60... I hate Microsoft simply because they're a big corporation that buys out everyone who stands up to them, needless to say, I hate Wal-Mart too.[/quote]

[color=#737373]What memory card are you talking about? PS2 cards are as small as any other, pretty much. Unless you're talking about a third party card, I don't know what you are referring to.

As for the other stuff...I really think that's all pretty irrational. I don't "hate" Microsoft; I don't really hate any company. Microsoft is a business and they're trying to make money, just like the rest of them. There's nothing wrong with that. Sure, I disagree with their strategy sometimes, but I don't outright hate 'em.[/color]

[quote]Yes, that was a comedy break. Seriously though, everyone I knew who had a DS recently sold it to buy a PSP. Andrew just sold his last week, he bought about 30 games for the DS, as he was going on a big trip, he came back without the DS or any games, saying he sold the system and games to pay for the PSP. Instead of Asphalt, he got Ridge Racer, which he said made Asphalt feel like an Atari game. I liked Asphalt, I haven't played Ridge Racer yet, but I'll take his word for it. He used to be very faithful to it, due to the fact that Shin Megami Tensei is coming out for it. Now he just absolutely bashes the DS, I'm not saying that I do just because of him, but I felt that this was worth saying.
[/quote]

[color=#737373]Oh, good...I thought you were serious in the last bit, haha. ~_^

Your friend isn't representative of the DS's market though, I don't think. Also, I'd be the first to say that Asphalt is a pretty poor game. I'm not arguing otherwise; I think that Nintendo DS has a pretty uninspiring library right now. Of course, that will change during the year, but right now it's a relatively bleak library.

My intention isn't to say that DS is the best system ever. My intention is to say that DS has sold twice the amount of PSP, despite having poorer games in general.

Think about that for a moment, and then think about the people who say that Nintendo is dying out. That is rubbish. If Nintendo can achieve that kind of success with a platform that hasn't had the best software yet, then I think we can only assume that their market leadership would continue when better software is released later in the year.[/color]

[quote]Granted, these are portable games, but where are the quality titles? I looked into ElectroPlankton and it looks pretty good, I can't say much else, not having played it. There are games that are very good on the DS, but I just see less when compared to the PSP. It's just that I've seen some horrid examples of games for it. I probably do have the wrong idea. Nintendo has never failed its true fans, so someone will always stick by them. Microsoft hasn't failed anyone either, hell, it's the Halo system. But they're new. I just feel that the DS started off completely wrong and I think that people will keep that mindset, as I have. If Viewtiful Joe, Mario Kart, and SMT turn out any good, I'll go buy the DS, why? Because I bought the GameCube for Viewtiful Joe... one month before I heard that it was coming for PS2...
[/quote]

[color=#737373]I think you're just comparing things incorrectly. You're drawing a long bow.

Everything you said in this paragraph was totally logical and reasonable. You haven't had much reason to buy DS and that's fine. Right now I only own two DS titles and I won't be buying more until the better games arrive during the latter half of this year.

What I'm trying to tell you - the key message I'm trying to get across - is that despite our own experience with DS (positive or negative), the system is soundly thrashing the competition in global sales. This means that Nintendo hasn't become irrelevant, just because you or I may not see a lot of games on DS that we like right now. See what I mean? Maybe you don't find DS very attractive, but all the women and non-gamers in Japan who are buying it for Nintendogs and other titles [i]do[/i].

All too often, people declare that they've stopped buying Nintendo products and that Nintendo is going to go bankrupt, as if somehow their individual purchase affects that. What they fail to understand is that they are one individual with one opinion; they haven't looked at the broader market.

I mean, I absolutely can't stand romance novels. Yet those things sell like hot cakes. If I said to you "My friends and I NEVER buy romance novels and I don't know anyone who owns them", that would have nothing to do with the success of romance novels. See what I mean? Just because I have no interest in them doesn't mean that they aren't valid and that they aren't selling very well.[/color]

[quote]Right now, the DS is just a minigame tool to developers. PSP is a multimedia masterpiece (give or take a few flaws). Nintendo's motto should be something like, 'You get what you pay for," because that's basically their trend. With GameCube and DS, you spend about half the price, thrown in some innovation, and have games comprable to that of Final Fantasy, MGS, and so forth. I just don't find Zelda as good as FF, or Metroid as good as Halo or MGS. I don't see how the most purchased game (from what I've read), Super Smash Bros. Melee, can compare with Tekken 4. People like Nintendo because of the good feeling they get when they see the character they've grown up with get thrown into a new environment, just look at Donkey Konga, didn't expect that when you were climbing ladders to save a princess, did ya?[/quote]

[color=#737373]Well, that's just wrong. Again, you can have opinions on what games you prefer.

But saying that DS is just a minigame tool? No. You can't say that if you've actually played a good amount of DS's best offerings, even at this early stage. You can't say that if you know what games are in the pipeline right now.

Maybe you don't find Zelda to be as good as Final Fantasy (even though they are different types of games) and maybe you don't find Smash Bros. to be as good as Tekken 4 (even though they are also different kinds of games). Maybe you don't - but nobody can deny that these are masterpieces that have performed incredibly well.

Just because you have a differing taste doesn't mean that these games are rubbish. Just look at the average review scores for such games and you'll find that within the industry itself, they are highly respected.

I think it's all too easy to take one's opinion and use it to declare that something is awful, or to suggest that something isn't successful just because your friends aren't buying it. But that just doesn't work.[/color]

[quote]And when the Revolution comes down to the price of a game, I'll buy it, just like with my GameCube. Until then, I'll keep an open mind. An open, but slightly dissapointed mind.
[/quote]

[color=#737373]I think that your disappointment is pretty illogical, though. If you don't like Nintendo's games, as I've said, that's fine. But don't then make another leap and suggest that all of these games are essentially pointless exercises and that they are unsuccessful. It's very important to have an objective view, if you're going to talk about Nintendo's failures or successes.

The truth is, Nintendo's profits are comparable to the entire profit of all of Sony's business divisions put together - including SCE, Sony's music and movie studios and all of their consumer electronics divisions. I get annoyed when people dismiss Nintendo inaccurately and I get more annoyed when people somehow think that because they haven't bought the games, that nobody else is either.

I can see how that perception exists, but I think it only drags down the discussion. In the same way, I tend to defend Microsoft when people attack it for no reason other than it being a giant company with obscene profits. When people make these comments and when they cast things aside, I expect them to do so with some validity - with some knowledge other than their personal taste. Because if we're only going to talk taste, it's an unwinnable discussion...simply because everyone has completely different preferences as it is.

Anyway, I think Desbreko's comments are very true. If Nintendo talked about specs for ages and showed some pre-rendered footage, people would still complain. I'm sure that when Nintendo shows the controller, people will also complain, just as they did when they saw the N64 and GameCube controllers. It's an irrational kneejerk reaction that we see all-too-often in this particular industry.[/color]

[Morpheus]

He's talking about the HDD.

I don't hate microsoft either, but I don't really respect the company anymore. This is on the OS side, so I'll leave that out.

PSP is horrible as a multimedia device. A 256mb MSPD costs $50, and that equals about 65 songs or an hour of video. $50+250=300 for 256 mb psp. You could buy a portable dvd player for 80-100 and burn 700mb disks to it for a quarter.

Also, UMD movies are useless. Why buy a UMD Kill Bill vol 1 for $20 when you can get the dvd for 10?

[Goodbye, Face]

[size=1][QUOTE=James][color=#737373]Nobody is calling the DS "better" than the PSP though. Try not to think of it as "better" or "worse". Try to think of it as "different". PSP and DS are two very different machines. Yes, they both play video games. But PSP is offering you a traditional gaming experience - it's offering you the same kind of interaction that you get with PS2 and other platforms.

DS is offering you a type of interaction and a style of play that hasn't previously existed. This doesn't mean it's automatically "better" - maybe not for you and maybe not for many people. But it's a successful strategy, nonetheless.

If you hated the Advance then you simply aren't the customer that Nintendo is going after. GBA was a pretty big leap over its predecessor (Game Boy Color). For the price, it offered what it could. What would you have been satisfied with? 3D graphics? That would have pushed the price up exponentially and wouldn't be logical for GBA at the time, for a myriad of reasons.

I'm not saying that wanting any of these things is wrong. If you love your PSP and you want traditional games with better graphics, that's a valid choice. I'm just saying that it's incorrect to say that Nintendo is doing the "wrong thing" - their strategy is successful, based on GBA and DS sales. Maybe you aren't the kind of person who they are appealing to, but at the same time, it's clear that they are appealing to a large number of people.

So, there's room for both strategies. I like Nintendo DS, but I wouldn't say that PSP is "wrong" or "worse". It's a different kind of experience. If I want to play PS2-like games on the road, I'll get a PSP. And there are definitely a few games I want to get PSP for, so I'm sure I'll be buying the thing at some stage.[/color][/quote]

3-D grpahics would probably have changed my mind about the GBA, it wasn't really that, though. The system seemed to be a sequel machine, it had few original games (and the original games it did have were very good, I'm thinking Boktai, FFT, and Sword of Mana; but the last two were still sequels, just not Nintendo's). Most of these said sequels were generally poor ideas, and when they made sequels of another game already released on GBA, I'm thinking Metroid Fusion and Metroid: Zero Mission, the games were almost identical, just with a different story and a few different guns or something. I believe the DS has a lot of potential, and it defintely could turn out to be a stunning piece of machinery if more games used it right, as you can tell, I have a big problem with all the games I've seen for it so far, with the exception of some games I've been reading about that probably won't come out til at least the end of the summer, even Christmas.



[quote][color=#737373]GameCube didn't sell the most. It sold the least, but it made the most profit.

But again, using examples of people you know...that isn't representative of an entire market. A lot of people say "I don't like this" or "my friends hate that" and they think that this somehow automatically means that the entire nation feels the same way. Obviously, it doesn't.[/color][/quote]

I understand this point, too. Nintendo hasn't really appealed to me since SNES, I own an N64 (bought just recently), and a GC, but I've found few games I enjoy on either system when compared to Mario Kart, Chrono Trigger, Phalanx, Gradius, etc. It probably is just me, I try to have something from every company, but I can't help but say how poorly suited GC's controller is for MGS (Twin Snakes), or want to just press the grappling hook button in WindWaker and it be more like Rathcet's gadgets that sense where the next branch is. I don't like Metroid Prime (I haven't played the second one yet) because I don't like getting killed by a boss and going back 15 minutes in the level.

That is getting off your point here though, these people I'm bringing up are basically me trying to defend my point, lol.


[quote][color=#737373]What memory card are you talking about? PS2 cards are as small as any other, pretty much. Unless you're talking about a third party card, I don't know what you are referring to.

As for the other stuff...I really think that's all pretty irrational. I don't "hate" Microsoft; I don't really hate any company. Microsoft is a business and they're trying to make money, just like the rest of them. There's nothing wrong with that. Sure, I disagree with their strategy sometimes, but I don't outright hate 'em.[/color]



[color=#737373]Oh, good...I thought you were serious in the last bit, haha. ~_^

Your friend isn't representative of the DS's market though, I don't think. Also, I'd be the first to say that Asphalt is a pretty poor game. I'm not arguing otherwise; I think that Nintendo DS has a pretty uninspiring library right now. Of course, that will change during the year, but right now it's a relatively bleak library.

My intention isn't to say that DS is the best system ever. My intention is to say that DS has sold twice the amount of PSP, despite having poorer games in general.

Think about that for a moment, and then think about the people who say that Nintendo is dying out. That is rubbish. If Nintendo can achieve that kind of success with a platform that hasn't had the best software yet, then I think we can only assume that their market leadership would continue when better software is released later in the year.[/color][/quote]

Morpheus is right, I'm talking about the HDD... If Nintendo can pull the DS together (I'm not talking about sales, I'm talking about bringing their game quality back to their own standards), I will believe in Nintendo again. I already see it happening with what I've been reading recently with some upcoming games.

[quote][color=#737373]I think you're just comparing things incorrectly. You're drawing a long bow.

Everything you said in this paragraph was totally logical and reasonable. You haven't had much reason to buy DS and that's fine. Right now I only own two DS titles and I won't be buying more until the better games arrive during the latter half of this year.

What I'm trying to tell you - the key message I'm trying to get across - is that despite our own experience with DS (positive or negative), the system is soundly thrashing the competition in global sales. This means that Nintendo hasn't become irrelevant, just because you or I may not see a lot of games on DS that we like right now. See what I mean? Maybe you don't find DS very attractive, but all the women and non-gamers in Japan who are buying it for Nintendogs and other titles [i]do[/i].

All too often, people declare that they've stopped buying Nintendo products and that Nintendo is going to go bankrupt, as if somehow their individual purchase affects that. What they fail to understand is that they are one individual with one opinion; they haven't looked at the broader market.

I mean, I absolutely can't stand romance novels. Yet those things sell like hot cakes. If I said to you "My friends and I NEVER buy romance novels and I don't know anyone who owns them", that would have nothing to do with the success of romance novels. See what I mean? Just because I have no interest in them doesn't mean that they aren't valid and that they aren't selling very well.[/color][/quote]

Nintendogs sounds interesting, but too odd for a gaming system; but that's Nintendo's speciality. And hey, we have exercising "games" for PS2 and XBOX right now, I got a kick when I heard about that. I haven't stopped buy Nintendo, I'm not boycotting them or anything (I'm not accusing you of accusing me, though), I still buy their greatests hits (I can get them for like $7), the only games I still play are SSB:M and sometimes MGS:TS, I want 100% completion, lol. And the romance novel thing makes a perfect analogy, it makes a painful reminder of my first SAT grade, haha. It's just that Nintendo sinks lower on the list when they don't show anything at E3 except Miyamoto (hope I got that right) running out and shaking a black box which for all we know... is empty. Then they say that they're thinking of launching after Sony, thus lessening their sales by a considerable amount because odds are, people won't even want to wait for the PS3.

[quote][color=#737373]Well, that's just wrong. Again, you can have opinions on what games you prefer.

But saying that DS is just a minigame tool? No. You can't say that if you've actually played a good amount of DS's best offerings, even at this early stage. You can't say that if you know what games are in the pipeline right now.

Maybe you don't find Zelda to be as good as Final Fantasy (even though they are different types of games) and maybe you don't find Smash Bros. to be as good as Tekken 4 (even though they are also different kinds of games). Maybe you don't - but nobody can deny that these are masterpieces that have performed incredibly well.

Just because you have a differing taste doesn't mean that these games are rubbish. Just look at the average review scores for such games and you'll find that within the industry itself, they are highly respected.

I think it's all too easy to take one's opinion and use it to declare that something is awful, or to suggest that something isn't successful just because your friends aren't buying it. But that just doesn't work.[/color][/quote]

Yes, I know I'm basically comparing Twisted Metal to Gran Tourismo just because they both have cars, but that's what happens when you try to make sense of Nintendo's games. I don't like WindWaker becasue it takes an amazing game formula and slows it down to where it takes a few hours to get out of a relatively small dungeon. I loved the 2-D Zeldas, but WindWaker had moments of fun and moments where the game just seemed like a chore. I miss the old days of gaming where games were made for the audience's fun, not for an experience. Nintendo reminds me of this the most, of course. At the same time, I could easily write another "rant" about Sony saying similar things. I couldn't write about Microsoft, because I don't own an XBOX, and I'm fairly satisfied with my computer.

[quote][color=#737373]I think that your disappointment is pretty illogical, though. If you don't like Nintendo's games, as I've said, that's fine. But don't then make another leap and suggest that all of these games are essentially pointless exercises and that they are unsuccessful. It's very important to have an objective view, if you're going to talk about Nintendo's failures or successes.

The truth is, Nintendo's profits are comparable to the entire profit of all of Sony's business divisions put together - including SCE, Sony's music and movie studios and all of their consumer electronics divisions. I get annoyed when people dismiss Nintendo inaccurately and I get more annoyed when people somehow think that because they haven't bought the games, that nobody else is either.

I can see how that perception exists, but I think it only drags down the discussion. In the same way, I tend to defend Microsoft when people attack it for no reason other than it being a giant company with obscene profits. When people make these comments and when they cast things aside, I expect them to do so with some validity - with some knowledge other than their personal taste. Because if we're only going to talk taste, it's an unwinnable discussion...simply because everyone has completely different preferences as it is.

Anyway, I think Desbreko's comments are very true. If Nintendo talked about specs for ages and showed some pre-rendered footage, people would still complain. I'm sure that when Nintendo shows the controller, people will also complain, just as they did when they saw the N64 and GameCube controllers. It's an irrational kneejerk reaction that we see all-too-often in this particular industry.[/color][/QUOTE]

I agree with Desbreko as well, I don't know how I'd take that either. I'm really not for any of the new systems. Not if all the companies care about is graphics and whether your [i]gaming[/i] machine can TiVo your favorite show while you're at work. I believe that if this trend continues, the gaming industry could collapse on itself. Think about the next-next generation, where games are $100 and subscriptions fees for online play are $50/month... How many people will be playing games then? I plan on not buying any of these machines, at least until they've been out for a while and I have a clear idea that I won't be dissapointed. I think Nintendo will be the hero of the console war, but at the same time, I fear that it'll be the underdog. Nintendo's philosphy has never been "Let's wow them with amazing graphics and games that take a decade to make." It's this reason why I respect them, it's also the reason I'm a little disappointed in them. Not as much so, after debating this with you. Truce? lol.[/size]

[James]

[quote]Morpheus is right, I'm talking about the HDD... If Nintendo can pull the DS together (I'm not talking about sales, I'm talking about bringing their game quality back to their own standards), I will believe in Nintendo again. I already see it happening with what I've been reading recently with some upcoming games.
[/quote]

[color=#737373]But you just finished telling me that you didn't like Metroid Prime and that you haven't liked Nintendo's games since SNES. So what do you mean by "back to their own standards"?

Metroid Prime is a brilliant game and an example of one of Nintendo's better products in recent years. There are a ton of amazing Nintendo titles on GameCube and N64; these games exemplify the highest levels of quality in the industry.

It's not that the games themselves are bad, or lacking. It's just that you don't like them. As I said earlier, that's fine. I know a few people who don't like Mario even though the Mario games are often the big trailblazers. But these are still great games and the sales reflect that.

When you say you aren't talking about sales...yeah, we are talking about two different things here. These games are up to Nintendo's high standards, which the sales reflect. The sales wouldn't be high if the games were no good.

That's what I'm trying to get across. The games might be good, but that doesn't mean you like them. It's important to make the distinction.[/color]

[quote]It's just that Nintendo sinks lower on the list when they don't show anything at E3 [/quote]

[color=#737373]Who cares? You are a gamer. Enjoy the games. The DS had a very strong showing at E3. Nintendo's E3 presence - or lack thereof - isn't going to change your enjoyment of great games.[/color]

[quote]I miss the old days of gaming where games were made for the audience's fun, not for an experience. Nintendo reminds me of this the most, of course. At the same time, I could easily write another "rant" about Sony saying similar things. I couldn't write about Microsoft, because I don't own an XBOX, and I'm fairly satisfied with my computer.[/quote]

[color=#737373]I had my problems with Wind Waker too, but I assure you, Nintendo makes games for the audience's fun. Maybe you didn't have fun with some of those games. But many people did - they are good games.[/color]

[quote]Nintendo's philosphy has never been "Let's wow them with amazing graphics and games that take a decade to make." It's this reason why I respect them, it's also the reason I'm a little disappointed in them. Not as much so, after debating this with you. Truce? lol.
[/quote]

[color=#737373]I don't understand though. You respect them for not pushing graphics without focusing on gameplay, but that also disappoints you?

I think basically, you simply haven't enjoyed some of Nintendo's games in recent times. That's cool. But they are [i]great[/i] games, objectively speaking. I only mention sales to demonstrate the success that many of these games have had and that Nintendo isn't going the way of Sega or something.

Personally, I think Nintendo has made some of its most brilliant games in the last ten years. Sometimes they do well, sometimes they don't. But even games that I personally don't always like...I'd be hard-pressed to say that they're "bad" games. I just acknowledge that my taste isn't always the same as everyone else's.

Mostly, I've just been trying to clarify that distinction. Your (or my) personal taste isn't necessarily reflecting an objective truth when it comes to the success of a business. Some of the stuff I've read about Revolution here just totally misunderstands the strategy behind it. So, mostly just for the purpose of putting the information out there, I've tried to clarify a little. It's all good. ~_^[/color]

[Morpheus]

[QUOTE=RiflesAtRecess] I miss the old days of gaming where games were made for the audience's fun, not for an experience. Nintendo reminds me of this the most, of course. At the same time, I could easily write another "rant" about Sony saying similar things. I couldn't write about Microsoft, because I don't own an XBOX, and I'm fairly satisfied with my computer.

[/QUOTE]
Games are made to be a [B]fun experience[/B]. If you don't experience a game, how is it supposed to be fun?