Support NeoGAF

[Belfast]

It's funny that people who are speaking about "Nintendo fanboys" are trolling 24/7 Nintendo threads while they're getting annoyed for trivial things.

And yes I'm gonna say "OMG" when someone dismisses some of the best games the last two gens according to thousands of journalists and gamers, as "boring" (what a great explanation). I didn't call him an idiot or something, I was just surprised.

Who said we were trolling 24/7? Is this not a thread entitled "Who wants Nintendo to fail?" Its not exactly meant to garner Nintendo-only support. Drinky's pretty much right. They need to go 3rd party. They put out some pretty good games every so often, but the frequency of such doesn't precipitate the need to own an entirely different system.

 

[monkeyrun]

They put out some pretty good games every so often, but the frequency of such doesn't precipitate the need to own an entirely different system.

neither does Sony or Microsoft

the fact is , it's not the 1st party that's killing Nintendo, it's their 2nd party failure and 3rd party relations hurting them.

 

[human5892]

They put out some pretty good games every so often, but the frequency of such doesn't precipitate the need to own an entirely different system.

That's pretty subjective, though; personally, I would say the same about the Xbox.

 

[SantaC]

They need to go 3rd party.

And why is that? So you can see them start sucking like sega?


They are making a profit you know.

 

[j^aws]

Nintendo nees to stay in the console war, to keep a check and balance on Sony and Microsoft.

I haven't read the whole thread so excuse me if this has already been repeated. I picked the first post from the first page that was sensible.

You guys cannot be serious bashing a company that you can just ignore if it's product doesn't satisfy you as a consumer.

A monopoly is crap for a consumer. An oligopoly, i.e. two companies in control of an industry is not much better. The tendency would be to just leap frog each other. A third participant, i.e. Ninty would be positive for the consumer as they could differntiate their products from the other two and so on and so forth...

If people don't realise competition is healthy for gamers then they need a reality check. This principle pretty much applies to all industries and sectors. It keeps innovation and prices in check for all consumers.

Don't get me wrong, criticism where critisism is due is perfectly valid. But to state that you want a competitor to die and leave an industry is not healthy.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

neither does Sony or Microsoft

the fact is , it's not the 1st party that's killing Nintendo, it's their 2nd party failure and 3rd party relations hurting them.

Bingo. ANd has been, slowly, for years. (The relations part, not the 2nd party part).


Perhaps Yamauchi can insult whole classes of gamers and developers again. That might help.

 

[monkeyrun]

Bingo. ANd has been, slowly, for years. (The relations part, not the 2nd party part).


Perhaps Yamauchi can insult whole classes of gamers and developers again. That might help.

as much as I like Yamauhi as a God ... :lol he's not good for Nintendo.

 

[jarrod]

Oh, regarding Sony and the Playstaion--

They certaily did change the market in some ways. I think they actively targetted older gamers with things like Gran Turismo. A "serious" style game was a rarer thing on consoles before the PSX.

But Gran Turismo didn't release on PlayStation until mid 1998... a good 2-3 years after PlayStation had launched. "Serious" minded games were also available on other platforms, racing simulations in particular.

Also, I think their publishing philosophy allowed more games that previously had been only on computers-- like old arcade compilations and the like. There was a while (96-97) when the oddball games flowed fast and free on the PSX.

I'd say that had more to do with the optical medium encouraging more experimental releases than Sony's particluar publishing philosophies. And Saturn was just as heavy with those sorts of games, again I'm not seeing anything unique on Sony's part here.

Whether or not that would have happened on the other consoles if Sony weren't around, I don't know. But I recall interviews to the effect that they were trying to encourage such diversifying of the market.

Early on yes, though they were also rather hardline against 2D content and traditional game design. They wanted to differentiate PlayStation from SNES, and were particluarly hard on content they felt didn't uphold a certain "advanced" image. The squabbles with Capcom over MegaMan being a good example.

SCEA picked up a lot of odd stuff and pulished it in the US, for instance (like Carnage Heart, Tail of the Sun).

Man, I really miss the SCEA of 1996-1998... they actually did do a lot in terms of risky localization and progressive publishing. These days, they might as well be Nintendo, relying on mainly established brands, teams and concepts. In fact, Nintendo seems to be the more daring publisher now with oddities like Animal Crossing, Odama or Wario Ware.

SCEA has also turned rather tyrannical in terms of product approval and publisher relations. Might be time for another change of the guard...

 

[SantaC]

as much as I like Yamauhi as a God ... :lol he's not good for Nintendo.

He created Nintendo. Saying that he is not "good" for them is putting it wrong.

I want to see Iwata make some smart moves instead. He has the responsbility to turn this ship around.

 

[GDGF]

How about just not buying Nintendo products, and letting Nintendo worry about Nintendo, rather than wanting them to fail. Seems sensible enough. Hell, I don't even want Sony to fail (although I do joke about it) and i'm a pretty big NBOT, as you kids like to say.

Keeps Nintendo on their toes and vice versa.

Without Nintendo, you'd all probably be paying 300 bucks plus for a PSP, remember

 

[Spike]

Man, I really miss the SCEA of 1996-1998... they actually did do a lot in terms of risky localization and progressive publishing. These days, they might as well be Nintendo, relying on mainly established brands, teams and concepts. In fact, Nintendo seems to be the more daring publisher now with oddities like Animal Crossing, Odama or Wario Ware.

SCEA has also turned rather tyrannical in terms of product approval and publisher relations. Might be time for another change of the guard...

That is my problem with Sony currently. Where are all the quirky type of games that were on the PS1? This is why I fell in love with the PS1 last gen.

 

[DJPS2]

That is my problem with Sony currently. Where are all the quirky type of games that were on the PS1? This is why I fell in love with the PS1 last gen.

I wish I knew, but I have a feeling that poor sales for games like UmJammer Lammy, PaRappa the Rapper 2, Incredible Crisis, and many others that developers have taken a bath on might have something to do with it.

The general public doesn't seem to want to buy games that take chances anymore. It's sequels or bust.

 

[jarrod]

I wish I knew, but I have a feeling that poor sales for games like UmJammer Lammy, PaRappa the Rapper 2, Incredible Crisis, and many others that developers have taken a bath on might have something to do with it.

The general public doesn't seem to want to buy games that take chances anymore. It's sequels or bust.

Sure, but Carnage Heart and Tail of the Sun weren't exactly flying off the shelves either. There's been a definite change in SCEA's attitudes, and I don't think it's directly related to software performance. SCEJ and SCEE still publish a wide range of boutique products, to smaller audiences and weaker sales even. What's SCEA's problem? :/

 

[Spike]

I wish I knew, but I have a feeling that poor sales for games like UmJammer Lammy, PaRappa the Rapper 2, Incredible Crisis, and many others that developers have taken a bath on might have something to do with it.

The general public doesn't seem to want to buy games that take chances anymore. It's sequels or bust.

True, and according to the Sony rep that I spoke with today, they didn't even want to approve Katamari Damancy over here!!

 

[Spike]

What's SCEA's problem? :/

Okay, according to the Sony representative that I spoke with today they want the "PS2 library to appeal to the Xbox crowd." Yes, those were her words. She explained that they want the transition from PS2 to PS3 to remain in their favour, and if they offer quirky titles instead of titles that have "summer blockbuster movie" appeal, their current userbase might migrate to the Xbox 2.

 

[jarrod]

Okay, according to the Sony representative that I spoke with today they want the "PS2 library to appeal to the Xbox crowd." Yes, those were her words. She explained that they want the transition from PS2 to PS3 to remain in their favour, and if they offer quirky titles instead of titles that have "summer blockbuster movie" appeal, their current userbase might migrate to the Xbox 2.

BIZARFF

 

[DJPS2]

Okay, according to the Sony representative that I spoke with today they want the "PS2 library to appeal to the Xbox crowd." Yes, those were her words. She explained that they want the transition from PS2 to PS3 to remain in their favour, and if they offer quirky titles instead of titles that have "summer blockbuster movie" appeal, their current userbase might migrate to the Xbox 2.

Wow... if you take these comments at face value, it seems to me like Sony's almost frightened of Microsoft's potential come next generation.

We've seen a changing of the guard before... I have to say that I wouldn't be shocked if Sony was rudely pushed from its pedestal come the next round of console wars.

 

[jarrod]

Sony's just smart, they're not planning on giving Microsoft any advantages. I do think Xenon will surprise though, and force the next gen cycle early. Sony/Nintendo will almost immediately have to counter with details on their upcoming machines, which could very negatively impact their current platforms in 2005/2006.

 

[Catchpenny]

They put out some pretty good games every so often, but the frequency of such doesn't precipitate the need to own an entirely different system.

Same with Sony, as mentioned above. Of course, they have far superior third party support, but that's not a constant. As far as hardware goes, I think Microsoft killed Sony this gen...better controller and four controller ports, easier to design for Xbox, better online system, etc. Gamecube was superior in some of these aspects as well.

I'd be happy with Microsoft ruling as #1, and Nintendo existing as an alternative with optional, "radical" control elements, as well as providing a safe haven should Microsoft start trying to fuck with developers. Can't say I see much of a use for Sony, though. Microsoft does what they do, only better.

 

[Liquid_Bike]

Same with Sony, as mentioned above. Of course, they have far superior third party support, but that's not a constant. As far as hardware goes, I think Microsoft killed Sony this gen...better controller and four controller ports, easier to design for Xbox, better online system, etc. Gamecube was superior in some of these aspects as well.

I'd be happy with Microsoft ruling as #1, and Nintendo existing as an alternative with optional, "radical" control elements, as well as providing a safe haven should Microsoft start trying to fuck with developers. Can't say I see much of a use for Sony, though. Microsoft does what they do, only better.

That could change with PS3. If xbox 2 comes out a year early, the ps3 could(and should) have better graphics. Also if the PS3 did ship with a built in internet adapter *and* free online play it could be a real deterrent to Microsoft...console specs change every generation and so the does the graphical leader...

 

[nubbe]

It’s not as if anything would magically change if Nintendo went 3rd party. They would still be the greatest menace for the other 3rd parties out there.
One of the major reasons for Nintendo’s “failure” in the console sector is because of their own games, not because they are bad… quite the opposite. They are too highly desired by the consumers so they make 3rd party developers nearly unable to compete on the platform Nintendo make games on.
If they where to make games for another major console things would be the same and probably even greater since they would have access to a much larger “refuge” & “virgin” group which would take away sales from everyone else, it would probably make 3rd parties flee again too some platform Nintendo didn’t support.

 

[soundwave05]

I think Revolution is going to be incredible. Because Prince says so

How about you and your crew against me ... and the Revolution?

I'm sorry, we just can't have a Revolution discussion without the Purple One involved.

Shoot the J .... SHOOT IT!

 

[monkeyrun]

That could change with PS3. If xbox 2 comes out a year early, the ps3 could(and should) have better graphics. Also if the PS3 did ship with a built in internet adapter *and* free online play it could be a real deterrent to Microsoft...console specs change every generation and so the does the graphical leader...

look at Dreamcast .... look at PS2 .....

actually coming out later =/= better graphics ...

BUT again ... better graphisc =/= bigger user base either

 

[Kanbee-san]

Why can't they be civil and normal like Xbox fans?

Precisely. Dig deeper, i dare you.

 

[SomeDude]

So can we expect another thread like this tommorrow?

 

[ironichaos]

I think this post by j^aws needs to be reiterated.

...You guys cannot be seriously bashing a company that you can just ignore if its product doesn't satisfy you as a consumer.

A monopoly is crap for a consumer. An oligopoly, i.e. two companies in control of an industry is not much better. The tendency would be to just leap frog each other. A third participant, i.e. Ninty would be positive for the consumer as they could differentiate their products from the other two and so on and so forth...

If people don't realise competition is healthy for gamers then they need a reality check. This principle pretty much applies to all industries and sectors. It keeps innovation and prices in check for all consumers.

Don't get me wrong, criticism where critisism is due is perfectly valid. But to state that you want a competitor to die and leave an industry is not healthy.

Seriously, this industry requires the checks and balances.

Sony needs Microsoft and Nintendo to keep it on its toes.

Just like Microsoft needs Sony and Nintendo to keep it on its toes.

And like Nintendo needs Microsoft and Sony to keep it on its toes.

Seriously, until we reach a graphical and processing capability that consoles can last ten years and a standard format is feasible...competition and the innovation that results is absolutely necessary. And the more, the better. If any of the companies suddenly become a "me-too", then that's the time when one needs to step out. But as it is, each company is offering something different and something unique.

I will conclude this post with the wise words of GAF's Merlin.

"Son of a bitch!"

Indeed.

 

[PC Gaijin]

I don't hate Nintendo or want them to fail. I don't want any company (even big bad ol' EA) to fail. They're all out to make a buck by hook or by crook. If they produce games I want to play, I'll buy them. I still stand by my statement that the only grudge I have against Nintendo is that they've created the most detestable fanboys on Earth. Still, some of you hardcore Nintendo drones are like self-flagellating masochists. Why are you upset about a comments "against" Nintendo in a thread whose sole purpose was to invite such comments?

Ah, Carnage Heart and Tale of the Sun. Those two games (along with the promise of FFVII) were what convinced me to buy a PSX over Saturn. Throughout the 16-bit years I had always been frustrated by the non-release in the West of "quirky" games from Japan. I admired Sony for releasing software like that for the PSX (and I don't recall Sega releasing the same sort of "different" software for the Saturn in that time frame). Of course, once I got ahold of the games I realized that I wasn't that much of a fan of "quirky" software :lol

It would be interesting to try and pinpoint exactly where in history the alleged shift in priorities took place, when graphics and visuals arguably superseded gameplay in terms of importance to the "average gamer". Was it just an evolutionary thing, as we were so mesmerized by polygons and 3D that we couldn't accept the standard 2D anymore? Did the demographic shift?

It's always been about better graphics and audio. The 5200 and Colecovision were all about having better graphics than 2600. The first thing that caught my eye on NES wasn't Super Mario Bros, it was the vastly improved graphics over my Atari 800. The lure of the Turbografx-16 for me? Not different or better gameplay (the games were about what the NES offered). It was the much better graphics.

I think at least some credit is due Sony for making (console) games "acceptable" for adults to play. Anectdotally, I remember the number of people I knew at school that played video games dropped from from nearly 100% to a handful going from junior high to high school in the late 80s during the heyday of the NES. By the time the SNES dropped in 91, I was a senior and about the only person I knew that bought one. Sure my friends would play my SNES now and then, but by that age most disregarded console games as kids stuff. The same happened all through my undergraduate years. This was before the mythical Goldeneye that I now hear was played so much in college dorms (an aside, WTH kind of dorms did you guys live in that everyone was playing multiplayer Mario Kart, Mario Party, and Goldeneye all the time?) No one that I can recall played console games in college (maybe a PC game here or there, but not SNES or Genesis). Graduate college and start working and notice the same thing: people my age (early to mid 20s) are not playing console games. This is when the the PSX starts to make it big.

Flash forward a few years to my 30s. Now I notice my younger co-workers straight out of college pretty much all play console games (PS2 and Xbox mainly). I'm also surprised by the number of my friends from back in high school (who stopped playing games back during the 8-bit or 16-bit days) are getting back into gaming with a PS2 or Xbox. And they're buying the systems to play games themselves, not for their kids. Something happened in the intervening years between 8/16-bit and the present. And I don't think it's entirely the "generation that grew up on NES getting older and still playing games". Something drew them back into gaming, and I don't think it was Mario and company that were responsible for it.

 

[soundwave05]

Nothing "mysterious" happened.

Technology evolved and people who grew up on the NES *did* continue to play games, which allowed developers to make edgier types of software, which in turn may have also caused people who quit playing games to come back after seeing the new types of games availible.

Nintendo sort of got left behind this trend, although they have had some notable successes with older players (GoldenEye, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, 1080 Snowboarding, Wave Race 64) themselves. They've just never been consistent enough with this, as such their "mascot" stuff overwhelms everything else and thus the "kiddie stigma" sticks.

 

[Socreges]

Precisely. Dig deeper, i dare you.

You dare me? What? Does danger await? You make this sound like a conspiracy that goes above and beyond Gaming-Age. Does this involve the President??

How exactly would I "dig deeper"? Am I being misled as to my perception that you are most likely clinically retarded? Is there more to this?

 

[Amir0x]

The NES, Gameboy, and the SNES had no less drek than the Playstation or later consoles, percentage-wise, and the NES probably had MORE crap licensed titles and half-baked bugware than most.

This, my friends, this is very true. If you take a hard look at the SNES and NES and original Gameboy library... there's no denying the level of pure shit that is on those respective systems.

But that is what happens when you're #1. The company that is #1 gets the most shit. Tis' the way of the world.