Support NeoGAF

[worldrunover]

I understand that Nintendo feels left out in the recent boom of "multi-functional consoles", but I wonder if that consitutes a whole new direction needing to be taken for the company, or industry.

It seems to me video gaming is pretty much where it should be at this point; and I don't see much wrong with that. If you want to complain about unoriginal software, that's one thing. But that has nothing much to do with the way we play games.

I guess the other potential pitfall for Nintendo would be confusing "revolutonary" with "gimmicky". I'm not saying they've done it with the DS yet, but I also haven't seen anything to persuade me to buy one either.

In 1985 gaming NEEDED to be revolutionized with the NES. It was a failing business with little to care about and little future ahead of it. And the NES changed that. But today, gaming is one of the largest entertainment industries in the world.

Seems to me it doesn't need much revolutionizing, as it does evolutionizing... again.

 

[Deg]

There is always space for revolution. Even unexpected things can cause revolution.

 

[dark10x]

It does not NEED to be, but a little revolution never hurt.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Not sure about a Revolution, but a little Innovation would help.

 

[ToxicAdam]

In 1985 gaming NEEDED to be revolutionized with the NES. .

Your whole thread fails. The Commodore 64 made 1.5 BILLION dollars in the years 1983 and 1984. Arcade machines were everywhere. Gaming was fine.


Now did console gaming need to be revolutionized, yes.


This is a move by Nintendo is for long-term self-preservation. Nothing more.

 

[wobedraggled]

Always, things always need to jump forward, now is the time to make such a change, otheriwse it's just the same thing just more detialed.

 

[Kon Tiki]

As gaming grows more toward the mainstream there are more and more new gamers. Those gamers are just getting used to 'the same old game', they are not read for any radical changes.

 

[Kuroyume]

Revolution is just another excuse to make stuff like bongos.

 

[SomeDude]

I don't think that many people are wanting a change really. Well except Nintendo.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

The revolution needs to be one of production and marketing, and perhaps distribution

Original content is a problem with increasing game budgets and consolidating publishers. All of the weird stuff we saw last gen wouldn't stand a chance today. Even if it does get made (rarely) it almsot never gets publicized or purchased.

CDs actually reversed this trend for one generation, when production and distribution was cheaper than the gen before. But now dev costs have gone up and we're back to blockbuster mentality. Made worse by the clamor for "polish" in games which usually means a lot of superficial gloss and graphics, which drive dev costs up.

Don't think for a second that I don't love my big-budget games-- but where are the little titles this gen? The ones with a new idea, rather than and old idea and a bigger budget? I know there are some, but they're getting harder to find, it seems.

 

[KeithFranklin]

See you dont declare your product Revolutionary without sounding presumptious.

Something truly revolutionary happens not is thought up in a meeting for marketing purposes.

I swear the Nintendo fans buttons are incredibly easy to push.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Your whole thread fails. The Commodore 64 made 1.5 BILLION dollars in the years 1983 and 1984. Arcade machines were everywhere. Gaming was fine.


Now did console gaming need to be revolutionized, yes.


This is a move by Nintendo is for long-term self-preservation. Nothing more.

Agreed. The revolution of the NES was in licensing the content, which actually created stagnation (but some saftey for publishers).

All evidence of the crash is that people were still interested in game and still buying-- there was just a serious glut of choices and lot of companies over-extended. The content was still pretty good, as seen on the computer end of the scene.

 

[Azih]

There doesn't need to be a revolution in terms of game *direction* but dammit, the business side of gaming is suffering.

It's sorta inevitable that as gaming generates even more revenue it'll settle into movie style huge studios, but I fear that the gaming audience isn't large enough to support a lot of indies.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

I don't think the industry needs a revolution. It's hard to say how successful the next wave of consoles will be. Will Sony sell another kajillion systems? Or will people remain satisfied with what they've got? Who knows what might become of the industry if it continues to oversaturate itself with sports updates, racing simulators, and corridor shooters. We've been playing the same kind of games for the last two generations of consoles. When will people get tired of the same old thing? Possibly never. However, there are people out there who are getting tired of playing the same types of games, and also the way they are played. This, I think, is the audience Nintendo is aiming for.


You might say, more than anyone, Nintendo needs a revolution, for their own survival. It's obvious they can't reach out to the same market Sony and Microsoft do, and beat them at their own game. The best thing for Nintendo to do is to go off on a different tangent and to try to do something drastically different. If they succeed, they'll have started a 'revolution', in their own words.

 

[-SRV-]

The market will be judge and jury.

 

[Broshnat]

It needs a big kick up the arse if you ask me.

And Nintendo are just the company to do it if you ask me.

I'm certainly not happy with the state of gaming at present I'm afraid...

 

[dark10x]

It needs a big kick up the arse if you ask me.

And Nintendo are just the company to do it if you ask me.

I'm certainly not happy with the state of gaming at present I'm afraid...

What exactly is wrong with the current state of gaming? I've not happy with the business side of things, of course, but the actual state of gaming is in good shape.

 

[Scrow]

i'm so sick of hearing the words "innovation" and "revolution" these days

 

[Mihail]

I admit I'm a Nintendo fan and while most over here sit back and laugh at the idea of making conventional controllers obsolete, I welcome Nintendo's plans for the future.

That's generally speaking.

I am a little concerned, however, because a revolution, at least in the video game industry, is usually something that comes along suddenly and almost unexpectantly. I mean, if it was expected, we would be moving towards it with a predetermination and it wouldn't be a revolution.

That's why Iwata's speech on "the Revolution" at E3 seemed very akward to me. "We don't like gaming as it is, so we figure it's time for a revolution. And we're working on bringing this revolution with our next console."

It almost seems forced, no? As far as video games are concerned, I rather revolutions be spawned from very good ideas, not from an unhappiness with the current state.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm not happy with the state of gaming either, but I don't think Nintendo is the answer. Their recent (lat 10 years) attempts to innovate have left me cold.

Sony seems entrenched. The exciting Sony from the 90's seems to have vanished.

MS mihgt be it-- maybe. But mostly they seem to be following Sony's lead.

In any case, as I said, the revolution will not be content. I don't think it will be hardware or controllers. It will be what encourages/allows better content. Like cheap CDs and lower licensing fes and and older userbase did in the 90s.

I don't know what that revolution might be. Downloadable PSP games? Some kind of internet delivery mechanism for the new consoles? Subscribe-to-play models?

I just don't know.

 

[dynamitejim]

Nope. If Nintendo takes their next console in the gimmicky direction of the DS then I'll be very disappointed as I'm a big fan of their games. The GC is a nice piece of hardware, as RE4 has shown quite well. If they can provide the same releative amount of power (somewhere between Xbox 2 and PS3) then I'll be happy. I just hope they don't hold the Revolution back with a small storage medium again. And they need to start off with bigger memory cards. The MC 59 was a rip-off and even the 251 got filled up fairly quick.

 

[Razoric]

I think Resident Evil 4 proves that the tride and true way is still the best. Give me a controller and a TV screen... and concentrate on the game, not the gimmicks surrounding the game.

 

[human5892]

If the Revolution is interesting enough, I'll pick one up, but I still like the good old fashioned "controller-box-TV" method just fine. I mean, I've never booted up a game and thought, "You know what would make this a lot better? If I could somehow wave my arms around to control my character, or have it displayed as a hologram in the middle of the room that people would constantly be walking through."

 

[Virgin Wii]

I think Resident Evil 4 proves that the tride and true way is still the best. Give me a controller and a TV screen... and concentrate on the game, not the gimmicks surrounding the game.

It's hard to judge a new game input as inferior to the standard method when we haven't seen the new input.

I don't understand the tendancy some people have to judge the revolution before we have any real details on it. Wait and see people, is that so fucking hard? You know, people hated CD-based consoles when they were first unveiled too.

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

See you dont declare your product Revolutionary without sounding presumptious.

Something truly revolutionary happens not is thought up in a meeting for marketing purposes.

I definitely agree. And it could even have some sort of a backlash, if Revolution won't be really revolutionary like everyone is now expecting.

However, I don't think we really need a revolution in gaming, intended as the way we play and we interact with games. I find the actual joypads very comfortable: they permit you to sit or lay down eveywhere (on the ground, sofa, chair, bed), with your arms in a relaxed position and only moving your fingers for controlling the game, without having to look at the controller during the game.

I really can't imagine anything more comfortable, unless it's a mind-operated controller, but I don't think Nintendo's R&D department can achieve mind controlling so soon :lol

However I hope Nintendo had some "revolutionary" tech in its hands and thought to use it for the next generation, rather than deciding to forcedly do something revolutionary simply for differentiating themselves from their competitors, because this is a very dangerous way of thinking.

 

[MrPing1000]

anything to slow/halt EA's advance

 

[Razoric]

It's hard to judge a new game input as inferior to the standard method when we haven't seen the new input.

I don't understand the tendancy some people have to judge the revolution before we have any real details on it. Wait and see people, is that so fucking hard? You know, people hated CD-based consoles when they were first unveiled too.

No Nintendo did.

I will wait and see, I'm not judging revolution... I'm judging Nintendo's stance on gaming. "We are in last because games suck now only good graphics... " BS, last year proves that gaming is stronger than ever.

 

[ge-man]

However I hope Nintendo had some "revolutionary" tech in its hands and thought to use it for the next generation, rather than deciding to forcedly do something revolutionary simply for differentiating themselves from their competitors, because this is a very dangerous way of thinking.

I actually think this is the right path for them. The industry may not need a revolution, but Nintendo won't be able to stop their their bleeding of marketshare if they don't revolutionize themselves. They need to set themselves up as a valid alternative, because the industry as changed to much for Nintendo regain the kind of stature they had at the time of the NES and SNES.

 

[Virgin Wii]

No Nintendo did.

I will wait and see, I'm not judging revolution... I'm judging Nintendo's stance on gaming. "We are in last because games suck now only good graphics... " BS, last year proves that gaming is stronger than ever.

Well, that's what we call PR. Listen to the PR from MS and Sony, and you'd probably be annoyed at those companies too.

Assuming that because gaming is great now it can't be better by doing something different is a logical fallacy that you shouldn't be too wrapped up in. It's this kind of thinking that creates stagnation.

 

[Gattsu25]

Your whole thread fails. The Commodore 64 made 1.5 BILLION dollars in the years 1983 and 1984. Arcade machines were everywhere. Gaming was fine.

Interesting bit of game history...never knew that (loved the C64, too)

 

[Deg]

Revolutions dont always happen when an industry is on its knees.

People forget that its not about the 'need' to revolutionize.

Revolutions can happen anytime.

Striving for new directions and redefining what makes a product great changes all the time.

 

[Virgin Wii]

Revolutions dont always happen when an industry is on its knees.

People forget that its not about the 'need' to revolutionize.

Revolutions can happen anytime.

Striving for new directions and redefining what makes a product great changes all the time.

Yup. And if the Revolution isn't all it's cracked up to be it will fail, leaving Xenon and PS3 to continue with the way it's been. There's really nothing to loose from this experiment.

 

[Razoric]

Well, that's what we call PR. Listen to the PR from MS and Sony, and you'd probably be annoyed at those companies too.

Assuming that because gaming is great now it can't be better by doing something different is a logical fallacy that you shouldn't be too wrapped up in. It's this kind of thinking that creates stagnation.

Oh I'm not against change, I'm against a company trying to force a change because they're attempting to prove their legitimacy. When a revolution is needed it will come... and come natural, not as some PR tactic.

 

[Virgin Wii]

Oh I'm not against change, I'm against a company trying to force a change because they're attempting to prove their legitimacy. When a revolution is needed it will come... and come natural, not as some PR tactic.

So you'd rather wait until gaming hits a low and we go through a generation or two of suffering through boring rehashed ideas before getting a change?

 

[ge-man]

Oh I'm not against change, I'm against a company trying to force a change because they're attempting to prove their legitimacy. When a revolution is needed it will come... and come natural, not as some PR tactic.

Nintendo isn't forcing change, though. They don't have that kind of power anyway at least. If it bothers you, then don't buy Nintendo's next system. However, I think people are exaggerating the situation a bit and acting like Nintendo is forcing the whole industry into another direction--that's not the case. Sony is the lead player right now.

 

[Bob White]

Jesus.

Just by seeing what some people think the revolution will be I can already see the mass suicides when nintendo debuts "A FIFTH controller port!!11" at E3.

 

[Spider_Jerusalem]

Revolutions can happen anytime.

Striving for new directions and redefining what makes a product great changes all the time.

Right, and this often produces good innovation. But if someone begins telling me he will revolutionize something TWO years before the thing comes out, It stinks a little to me.

 

[Link316]

if no longer plastering their mascots into every single game that they can is what Nintendo means by "revolutionizing" then I'm all for it, however the "Revolution" is gonna be nothing more than a gimmick if its just gonna be another outlet for the next installments of Mario, Zelda, SSB, F-Zero, Metroid, Starfox, Kirby, Pokemon, Yoshi, Mario Party, Golf, Tennis, etc, etc

 

[human5892]

if no longer plastering their mascots into every single game that they can is what Nintendo means by "revolutionizing" then I'm all for it, however the "Revolution" is gonna be nothing more than a gimmick if its just gonna be another outlet for the next installments of Mario, Zelda, SSB, F-Zero, Metroid, Starfox, Kirby, Pokemon, Yoshi, Mario Party, Golf, Tennis, etc, etc

Come on. It's not the characters that make a game.

 

[Virgin Wii]

if no longer plastering their mascots into every single game that they can is what Nintendo means by "revolutionizing" then I'm all for it, however the "Revolution" is gonna be nothing more than a gimmick if its just gonna be another outlet for the next installments of Mario, Zelda, SSB, F-Zero, Metroid, Starfox, Kirby, Pokemon, Yoshi, Mario Party, Golf, Tennis, etc, etc

Yeah, Nintendo is going to need new IPs if they want to win next generation. Unless the hardware really is hot shit... but that remains to be seen.

 

[Amir0x]

I always welcome an experimental section of the industry to keep things fresh and to keep companies on their feet and I appreciate that Nintendo is behind it.

But gaming as a whole does not need to be revolutionized. Not yet. Maybe in 20-30 years I'll be thinking that it's time to move to holograms or virtual reality, but not yet.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I think Nintendo is longing for the days of Space Invaders and Pac Man, when the people who played videogames were a huge group, old people, young people, women and men of all ages. Nowadays videogaming is this huge industry, but for the most part, it's made up of young men. I think revolution will be an attempt to bring back the "good old days" when many more people played videogames.

 

[madara]

Current gaming feels hollow, soulless and withering. If someone can change that while still appealing to a mass crowd and pave a way for the little developer to make a living again instead of bleak world of 5 big ones then, yes I am all for that type revolution.

 

[jimbo]

Yeah someone needs to figure out how to do VR cheap and mass-market, the thing they've been promissing us since the 80's.

"I think revolution will be an attempt to bring back the "good old days" when many more people played videogames."

Am I missing something here?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I think Nintendo is longing for the days of Space Invaders and Pac Man, when the people who played videogames were a huge group, old people, young people, women and men of all ages. Nowadays videogaming is this huge industry, but for the most part, it's made up of young men. I think revolution will be an attempt to bring back the "good old days" when many more people played videogames.

Gaming was more male-dominated then than now.

Pac-Man and Centipede got attention becuase women would play them at all.

 

[Razoric]

I think Nintendo is longing for the days of Space Invaders and Pac Man, when the people who played videogames were a huge group, old people, young people, women and men of all ages. Nowadays videogaming is this huge industry, but for the most part, it's made up of young men. I think revolution will be an attempt to bring back the "good old days" when many more people played videogames.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Gaming is more diverse today than it's ever been.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Yeah someone needs to figure out how to do VR cheap and mass-market, the thing they've been promissing us since the 80's.

Virtual Boy!

 

[Link316]

Come on. It's not the characters that make a game.

try telling that to EA and Nintendo

 

[jarrod]

See you dont declare your product Revolutionary without sounding presumptious.

Something truly revolutionary happens not is thought up in a meeting for marketing purposes.

We're talking about Nintendo here, not XNA.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Gaming was more male-dominated then than now.

Pac-Man and Centipede got attention becuase women would play them at all.

I've read entirely differently. I find it hard to believe that the Space Invaders induced coin shortage in Japan could be caused entirely by young men. It only sounds possible if you factor in that the game was huge regardless of sex or age. I've read that this was the same in North America as well.