-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
So how many of you that didn't want Nintendo online are hyped about DS online play?
- Thread starter Wellington
- Start date
Razoric said:
Fixed.
Just because you think "online is the future of gaming" doesn't mean everybody else has to buy into it. Quit bitching just because Nintendo doesn't put out what you want. I'm perfectly fucking happy with their business model and future plans if it means they are going to keep putting out awesome games, like they have been since the NES.
Razoric said:
What is about online gaming?
Would you start up a thread about platform gaming?
Sports gaming?
Fishing simulators?
You act as if online gaming is a whole different type of gaming or something.
It is an extension of just gaming as a whole. some games are online, some aren't. A couple of games were online on the GCN. More games will be online on the DS.
I guess I just don't get your fixation with it. Nintendo chose to save money, Microsoft chose to bleed money. Not a really big deal. Either way you got to play games online on one system and on another system got to play some great games that weren't online.
It's like Nintendo killed your mother to stay offline or something. Must be something like that for you to be taking this so personal. Me, I'm going back to Donkey Konga and waiting for Paper Mario 2 to finally come out.
borghe said:
:lol Such an unbiased gamer you are.
I'm merely stating how idiotic it is to defend a company that chose to leave out key features in games so they can save a buck. You cant tell me Mario Kart wouldnt be great online? F-Zero? Come on. But Nintendo saved money! I'm glad you are happy!
Razoric said:
unbiased because I pointed out good games on a system? umm... you may have deep seeded issues.
You're right. I was happy with those games. I guess I am just a glass half full kind of guy. Instead of sitting here pouting about them not being online, I got over it and still managed to enjoy some pretty great games.
Which would be exactly my point. You doinks that think a game HAS TO HAVE online in it to be enjoyable... I guess I don't get it. A game is what it is. Could have should have didn't. You enjoy a game for what's there. Hell, I wish madden had naked women in it. WHAT??? NO NAKED WOMEN IN MADDEN!?!?!? This games sucks...
So you can sit there and get all worked up that Silent Hill 4 or Liesure Suit Larry isn't online or something, meanwhile I'll be enjoying some fun games.
My god, what did the video game world do before this generation???????
Scottlarock
Banned
buy companies like Rare who fail to perform
these games was to be on GC. And I doubt you would hate them like now...
and conker and kameo look great. lets see if you wish PDO was still on GC.
Whoops indeed. My Virtual Boy comment stands. Nintendo has had the exact same business practices with "throwing stuff on the wall and seeing what sticks". And for people to spout as fact that Nintendo has made the right decision by staying offline can look to Nintendo's failures to see that their precious company is not infallible.
IAWTP.
and if revoltution has online do you really think its free? do you think free is whats best for a company worrying about about the bottom line?
these games was to be on GC. And I doubt you would hate them like now...
and conker and kameo look great. lets see if you wish PDO was still on GC.
Whoops indeed. My Virtual Boy comment stands. Nintendo has had the exact same business practices with "throwing stuff on the wall and seeing what sticks". And for people to spout as fact that Nintendo has made the right decision by staying offline can look to Nintendo's failures to see that their precious company is not infallible.
IAWTP.
and if revoltution has online do you really think its free? do you think free is whats best for a company worrying about about the bottom line?
Scottlarock said:
This is highly debatable. Rare was second party and it is unknown as to what degree these games were developed when Rare was bought out. Between Nintendo guiding Rare and the possibility that some games would have been reworked or dropped (Grabbed by the Ghoulies would have NEVER come out on GCN as Nintendo kept telling Rare to shelve it). As for my feelings, I hold no bias. Star Fox was ok but far from great. If Grabbed by the Ghoulies came out on GCN I would have hated it just as much as I do on the XBox. The truth is that most of Rare's great programmers left years ago. Rare today is hardly the same Rare that made those amazing N64 games.
Conker is a simple port of an already developed game.
Nintendo made the right decision for what they were trying to accomplish. I never endorsed it or said I approved of it. You just act as if staying offline is a without certainty bad choice. I contend that MS' position in relation to the GCN remained IDENTICAL before and after Live. Sony's position to the two remained IDENTICAL before and after the NA. So with everything remaining the same, how did online hurt Nintendo. Of course I would have loved to see Nintendo games online, but as for being right or wrong, unless Nintendo was HURT by not being online or the others BENEFITTED from being online, I think it is hardly possible to make an objective statement either way.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't think Microsoft has made a clear cut case for an encompassing service. I think if Revolution Online isn't doing anything except for game matching there is a good chance it will be free or subsdized through other costs.
lol.. a fanboy for having an opinion. Nope.. have no problems with my xbox.. play pletny of games on it. I just think Rare lost most of what they had when the last team left after CBFD.
I love how anyone who says anything negative about Rare these days is a fanboy or an angry nintendo fan. if rare would actually put out games like Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, CBFD, Donkey Kong Country, Banjo Kazooie, etc these days I would love Rare. I really couldn't care less what system they release games for. But they aren't. They are releasing games like GbtG and the incredibly generic konker and the searching for identity Kameo (when is that supposed to come out again and how many times has it been retooled?)
talk about backing a company who is WELL past their prime.....
I love how anyone who says anything negative about Rare these days is a fanboy or an angry nintendo fan. if rare would actually put out games like Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, CBFD, Donkey Kong Country, Banjo Kazooie, etc these days I would love Rare. I really couldn't care less what system they release games for. But they aren't. They are releasing games like GbtG and the incredibly generic konker and the searching for identity Kameo (when is that supposed to come out again and how many times has it been retooled?)
talk about backing a company who is WELL past their prime.....
please oh please tell me why conker looks so amazing?
edit - ok, maybe it will be amazing to the people who didn't play the N64 version. sorry, I forgot there are many of you out there. BUT, my point still stands that everything that makes the game awesome was done by people who are no longer with the company. So unless they plan on upgrading all of their N64 games to XBox games, I have very little faith that Rare will put out anything up to the caliber of their N64 games anytime soon.
So yes, Conker is great, as long as you haven';t already gone through it 2 or 3 times on the N64 (which it is worth going a few times).
edit - ok, maybe it will be amazing to the people who didn't play the N64 version. sorry, I forgot there are many of you out there. BUT, my point still stands that everything that makes the game awesome was done by people who are no longer with the company. So unless they plan on upgrading all of their N64 games to XBox games, I have very little faith that Rare will put out anything up to the caliber of their N64 games anytime soon.
So yes, Conker is great, as long as you haven';t already gone through it 2 or 3 times on the N64 (which it is worth going a few times).
I only played it once at release, and that was a long time ago. I wouldn't mind doing it again. Every time I see new screenshots, my jaw hits the floor.borghe said:
Didn't Conker bomb miserably anyway? I'm guessing not too many people have played it.
Scottlarock
Banned
ummm... its conker ONLINE.... U loved conker on N64 but now that it has improved graphics with online play its just OK?
yes, conker bombed. 
That's what you get for releasing a $70 game 8 months before your new system and 6 months after the new generation launched. Though again, that didn't have so much to do with Nintendo as it did for Rare who couldn't hit a deadline. Nintendo was left in the crap role of either having to release the game at such a "great" time, or scrapping it for the N64 (like they did SFA) and releasing it for the GCN.
Arguably Conker was one of the big reasons Nintendo dumped Rare.
Also of note is that the Conker team is long since gone AFAIK. Everything that is being done on Reloaded is pretty much art assets (graphics and sound). Even the AI is ported from the N64 in most spots from what most previews are saying.
That's what you get for releasing a $70 game 8 months before your new system and 6 months after the new generation launched. Though again, that didn't have so much to do with Nintendo as it did for Rare who couldn't hit a deadline. Nintendo was left in the crap role of either having to release the game at such a "great" time, or scrapping it for the N64 (like they did SFA) and releasing it for the GCN.
Arguably Conker was one of the big reasons Nintendo dumped Rare.
Also of note is that the Conker team is long since gone AFAIK. Everything that is being done on Reloaded is pretty much art assets (graphics and sound). Even the AI is ported from the N64 in most spots from what most previews are saying.
Scottlarock
Banned
BTW: I would love to play halo 1 with improved graphics and online play for xenon. and halo 1 did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>way over conker for n64
clipunderground
Member
I've always wanted nintendo to be online, but it didn't start really bothering me until FZERO GX AND MARIO KART: DOUBLE DASH!!!! Motherfuckers!!! How could they let such an awesome addition slip through their fingers on these games?!!!
Anyway, I'm really excited about the DS because I'll finally be able to play games like Mario Kart and FZero ONLINE!! (hopefully)
Anyway, I'm really excited about the DS because I'll finally be able to play games like Mario Kart and FZero ONLINE!! (hopefully)
evilromero
Member
Official topics fail.fennec fox said:
Scottlarock said:
Yes, just like the same way that all of the Mario Advance games are merely "ok" and Pokemon Fire and Leaf are "ok" despite how much I loved those originally. Ok, maybe not Super Mario World, but the other Mario Advances.
As for online, ummm.. yeah, so.. I already played plenty of the deathmatch.. online or offline it doesn't matter.
which of course has NOTHING to do with what I am saying. I am saying Rare has lost what they had. Your guys best defense is that they can take a game developed over three years ago by a different team and add online to it... great defense.
Razoric said:
wow, the most popular way of saying "I'm going to make baseless claims and then say I'm reading between the lines"
so let's see, I never said I was against online. Then I said I was for online. hmm.. I don't know what the fuck you think reading between the lines is but you obviously need to recheck it.
Wellington
BAAAALLLINNN'
borghe said:
What the, no one ever said that. The point of this topic is that you doinks didn't want nor care about online gaming up until DS showed the potential for it.
I think it's sad and pathetic that the company that introduced the industry to four controller slots per console to facilitate multiplayer gaming has not yet gone to the online frontier. Especially considering how 'multiplayercentric' so many of its titles are.
Let alone the fact that they introduced the broadband adapter and modem with absolutely no intention of supporting it. To date there are what, two games that support it?
How much did it cost Nintendo to let Sega run their servers and have the PSO games online? How much would it have cost Nintendo to court other developers that were interested in online console gaming? At this stage in the game for GC, any online title that isn't a massive Nintendo endeavor would obviously fail because of the lack of BBAs out there, but had this been sought after since day 1 it wouldn't have been an issue. Cost to Nintendo? Setting up a new production line for their BBAs and modems that are overpriced and would have ended up netting them a good profit on markup alone (excluding money they would have to put out for exclusivity deals or shit like that).
Your argument is stupid, plain and simple. As I said, a lot of the natural evolution of MANY of Nintendo's franchise titles is online play. The capability for it is there this generation and they totally missed the boat. It's not a matter of ALL games needing online play, as you put it.
And yes, I would like naked women in Madden NFL 2006.
Kobun Heat
Member
No, the point of this topic is that the usual suspects would like it if that were the case. But so far you've yet to dig up a single person with that opinion.Wellington said:
The problem with that is that Nintendo also wanted to find a way to ensure that anything communicated between "strangers" via online gaming was locked down. Kids are a big part of their demographic and they didn't see eye to eye with the idea of small children playing an online title with a stranger whose identity was completely unknown and who could possibly say very strange things without ever being responsible for consequences.
There are many, many factors and reasons that Nintendo hasn't pursued online gaming. Only one of those is the profitability issue. I don't claim to know anything about Nintendo's aspirations on this front, but I do know I read an interview a year or more ago in which these things were mentioned.
Duck of Death
Member
*Duck of Death enters thread after an intense battle in Starcraft over Battle.net*
*He looks around to see what all the fuss is about.*
*Duck of Death is frightened and confused and goes back to playing Starcraft*
The moral of the story is: WTF!?
*He looks around to see what all the fuss is about.*
*Duck of Death is frightened and confused and goes back to playing Starcraft*
The moral of the story is: WTF!?
jedimike said:
You forgot "Spectator" mode, which if you think about it, is the pinnacle of "lazy."
You're sitting in front of your XBox - not doing anything - watching other people play an XBox game against each other. It's kinda like watching your Sim watch TV for hours on end.
jedimike said:
You're either ignoring the context of Nintendo's collective statements, or just have a shoddy memory. Nintendo said nothing of costs to go online in general, they said everything of the costs of wanting to play games with said Internet connection. They don't believe there should be a monthly fee for the privilege, just as they don't send you a bill everytime you decide to have a 4-player grudge match in Smash Brothers. They also feel that it should be easy; that you should just turn on the system and have it work, the DS - they claim, anyway - should make that as much of a reality as possible.
:lolakascream said:
ravingloon
Member
Razoric said:
And the pisser is, they didn't even save money. Daytona USA Network Edition network code and Gamespy (Which they supposedly licensed, but God knows why) matching service wouldn't have added any significant cost to F-Zero. But this is why it's like bashing your head against the wall making this arguement to some. They wouldn't have spent any money developing code and the hosting bandwith could have been all user side. And there would have been a lot more sales than they had (Heck, it would still be the premier online racer out there). For those of you who don't believe this, examine titles like Socom and ask yourself how they would have sold without the online. Online in killer titles does make a sales difference.
What Nintendo and some of the apologists ignore is options are killing Nintendo. I'm the only one of my game playing circle who still supports Nintendo (Because of my love for their 1st party titles and the experience that has taught me they're a cut above everything else). But where MS and Sony are all about giving their userbase options so that everyone is happy, Nintendo feels they can dictate what people play. And these people simply have moved to platforms where they can play the type of game they want. All games for all people.
P.S. Until Nintendo actually has an online (internet) game running on the DS, this is all talk. And until Nintendo quits talking and starts acting, most people are gonna completely ignore what they say on this issue. You wanna get this people excited about online DS games, release something that actually plays online.... otherwise zip it. We the gameplayers are tired of empty words.
ravingloon
Member
xsarien said:
I'm sorry. But how does limiting play to people with wireless routers make things easier? I can just imagine little Johnny wanting to play online and telling his parents to dump the router and configure a wireless one so he can play. It's a nice arguement if everyone were wireless, but it's still a minority and configuring a wireless router is a lot more difficult than a normal router (Unless security is not a concern to you).
ravingloon said:
For a portable gaming system, you kind of need it. Unless your idea of "fun" is to only be able to play a game online when you've got an ethernet jack around, instead of a public (or private) hotspot.
You have to configure shit to play games online anyway, at least with the DS (and presumably the Revolution), you won't have to worry about how close your TV is to your cable modem and router.
Maybe so, but it certainly seems to be a primary factor, since its one they mention frequently.Rahul said:
They've mentioned that they see no self-sustaining business model for online gaming at this time, which certainly implies that they are concerned about the costs of going online in general.xsarien said:
xsarien: I assumed that by distinguishing between "costs to go online in general" and ISP costs, you were referring to the infrastructure cost to Nintendo in the first part of your statement, and it was that first part of your statement that I was responding to. If I've misinterpreted, then what were you referring to?
-Edit-
Rahul: the only one that can dampen the "absolute interpretation" convincingly is Nintendo, by presenting the factors in a more balanced fashion.
-Edit-
Rahul: the only one that can dampen the "absolute interpretation" convincingly is Nintendo, by presenting the factors in a more balanced fashion.
kaching said:
I was referring to ISP costs, not how much it would cost Nintendo to go online. They can't control how much of a hit an Internet connection will cost you, they can control how much it would cost them - and cost you - to play their games online. They want it to be free on their end, and easy on your end. WiFi peer-to-peer seems to be their solution.