 danawhitakerSpace...The Final Frontier
Premium Member
join:2002-03-02
Thorndale, ON
1 recommendation |
to RedMageX
Re: Thinking of getting a Wii Usaid by RedMageX:Old school gaming, Yes, it wasn't all about graphics, back in the day, but gameplay and design. Nowadays people are expecting a good experience overall, through graphics, story telling, gameplay and the overall immersive experience.
I've felt that since the SNES/N64 era, Nintendo just lost it's Mojo over the years. Losing the exclusive rights to the Final Fantasy series (and other Square-Enix games), rinsing and repeating the same old tired franchises and just not innovating in the right ways or providing a decent console since the 90's.
Games exclusive to Nintendo now are just rehashes of the same old tired content. The "New" Super mario bros they recently released (I think for 3DS) was just a carbon copy of the previous game repackaged and resold. Why would I want to support a company that blatently treats it's customer base like idiots that wouldn't know the difference. It is just simply offensive and I wouldn't give Nintendo a penny until they change their ways and stop creating stupid gimick consoles (wiimotes and tablets?? come on!)
Again, that's your opinion. Not all "people" require awesome graphics in order to enjoy a game. I'm not a Nintendo worshiper. I appreciate and enjoy aspects of what each company has to offer. Graphics are only a tiny portion of the fun that many types of games have to offer. I've been playing the Angry Birds Trilogy for the 360. Yeah, it looks pretty, but that's the furthest thing from my mind when I'm 3-starring a level. I just finished the Cars game on the 360 too. The graphics were so-so, the camera angles were terrible, but the story and the mini-games were fun. When I'm playing Band Hero, graphics are the last thing on my mind. When my daughter and I fire up the Wii U, I don't care about graphics. I care about having fun with her. Mock the tablet all you want, but it offers a level of gameplay I've never experienced from the Xbox or Playstation in any of its forms. It gives gamers of different skill levels the opportunity to play together without one player feeling incredibly frustrated. And mock Nintendo for rehashing the same franchises if you want, but Sony and Microsoft do the same thing too. Except they go by names like Forza and Halo and Call of Duty and Gran Turismo and iteration after iteration of the same tired sports franchises. What you're blaming Nintendo for, all the companies are guilty of. The newest Super Mario Bros for the Wii U is incredibly fun, is hard compared to older versions, and offers great co-op via the Wii U's gamepad. My daughter, who found the core game frustrating with its difficulty, *loves* helping me on the Game Pad while I play. And, mock the gimmick aspect of the Nintendo consoles, but if it was such a stupid idea that no one liked, than why did Microsoft and Sony make sure to compete with them by pushing the Kinect and Move peripherals? I will be completely floored if at least Sony or Microsoft doesn't offer a similar controller to the Wii U's gamepad. Again, I want to stress, I am *not* a Nintendo fangirl. It just seems like somewhere along the way some people lost the focus about what's supposed to be fun about games. If graphics are everything, why are Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo tripping all over each other to re-release rehashes of old games in their respective digital shops? Humor me and check out a release list for the last month or so. Most of it is download only content, and most of it ends up being rehashes of older games, or graphically unintensive games that also end up on smartphones. Sony in particular does a lot of this, with the Vita and PS3. |
|
| |
My point about franchises being rehashed is that the latest entry from the Mario franchise was an EXACT COPY of the previous game with nothing really new added to it.
The Halo, CoD Madden Warfare, Forza, Gran Turismo, Battlefield series all bring NEW things to the table. New campaigns, new multiplayer features, updated graphics. Hell, they completely revamped Halo: Combat Evolved with completely new graphics (and you can revert back to the old graphics in real time if you want) and they even say straight up it's a HD re-release of the old game.
My argument stands in that Nintendo are still rehashing franchises that are almost as old as I am. How many Mario games do we need? I don't even know how many Mario Party games their at now, but sometimes the classics (Super Smash Bros, Crono Trigger, Final Fantasy series) can be rereleased and repackaged with better graphics, or in the case of Crono Trigger, just add the FMV into it and leave the rest, and people will still buy it (Hell, I did because it's a game that stands up to the test of time).
I'm not doubting your level of enjoyment, my opinion (and I stress the word opinion) is that Nintendo needs to really step up to the plate or they will get left behind. The 3DS is a great example of poor marketing ideas, Price dropped within 3 months of initial release because nobody was buying it at the time.
I'm not saying the Wii U is a terrible console, but some of their practices over the years are questionable.
I grew up with Nintendo systems only until the PS2 era, and as an old Ninteno fan boy, I'm just left wondering about the decisions they've made since the GameCube system |
|
 ·Metronet
|
quote:
I'm just left wondering about the decisions they've made since the GameCube system
The Wii itself certainly was not questionable - they made a ton of money off of it and had 2 other companies scrambling to get their own controllers done... |
|
| |
It certainly is. Good sales doesn't equate to good product, just a market that isn't discerning about their purchasing habits. Marketing a gaming console only to little kids and retirement homes and having it "sell great" doesn't mean anything but a customer base that doesn't get it. Sales figures don't lie, and once the initial fad of the Wii died off and people used them as expensive dust collectors, we find that Microsoft and Sony have a stronger market share than the Wii. It's fact, they ARE gaming machines that stepped up to the plate to properly compete in the market.
I've seen the games Library for the Wii (and DS systems), it's mostly terrible shovelware that you couldn't even pay me to take.
The motion control system with the Wiimotes was BY DESIGN not good enough, hence the reason for the Wii-Motion Plus cash grab. |
|
·Metronet
|
I think you are intentionally short changing the Wii when it came out. Their problem was not changing with competition sooner. I know plenty of adults who play the Wii - not just seniors and kids. The decisions of the Wii is NOT questionable at all - like you want it to be. |
|
 Ghastlyone
Premium Member
join:2009-01-07
Nashville, TN
1 recommendation |
to RedMageX
said by RedMageX:It certainly is. Good sales doesn't equate to good product, just a market that isn't discerning about their purchasing habits. Marketing a gaming console only to little kids and retirement homes and having it "sell great" doesn't mean anything but a customer base that doesn't get it. Sales figures don't lie, and once the initial fad of the Wii died off and people used them as expensive dust collectors, we find that Microsoft and Sony have a stronger market share than the Wii. It's fact, they ARE gaming machines that stepped up to the plate to properly compete in the market.
I've seen the games Library for the Wii (and DS systems), it's mostly terrible shovelware that you couldn't even pay me to take.
LOL. I've read it all now. Let me get this straight.... Massive amounts of sales to a demographic that doesn't suit you = failed product? Okay. If you want to include handheld systems in your "market share" comment also, then Nintendo dominates the other companies by miles. There's a huge market out there geared toward the younger crowd. Nintendo is simply capitalizing on it. Goddamn, the anti-Nintendo crowd are relentless in their agenda. |
|
 Metatron2008You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state |
It WAS a failure. As far as games go it had pretty much nothing. Mine just sat on the shelf, I had more fun with my gamecube.
Your defense is that it sold alot and made Nintendo lots of money. If he's anti-nintendo, you are a fanboy. |
|
Ghastlyone
Premium Member
join:2009-01-07
Nashville, TN |
said by Metatron2008:It WAS a failure. As far as games go it had pretty much nothing. Mine just sat on the shelf, I had more fun with my gamecube.
Your defense is that it sold alot and made Nintendo lots of money. If he's anti-nintendo, you are a fanboy.
So because yours sat on the shelf, every single other person on the planet have their Wii games sitting on the shelf also? Gotcha. Makes total sense. And no...I'm not a Nintendo fanboy. I play PC. I stop in here occasionally to read the anti-Nintendo horeshit. |
|
| |
to Ghastlyone
I'm a gamer of discriminate taste, I won't stand for a company that turns it's back on the customers that helped make them the juggernaut they once were, but are no more.
I had HUGE love for Nintendo back in the day (even getting Nintendo Power magazine every month), but ever since the PS2 days, they have not been able to compete with the next-gen console market. The Wii itself was using outdated hardware AT RELEASE! And the Wii-U is no different, just with another gimick tablet...and WOW, they can support FIVE people playing at the same time.
Competition brings innovation and inspiration, plain and simple. Having a system that isn't competing means Nintendo isn't keeping up with trends.
And Sure, currently Nintendo has the lion's share of the handheld market, but look at the "typical" user nowadays, Kids. the DS systems are cute, work great for what they are, but I can get far more enjoyment for mobile gaming on my Samsung Galaxy SII X playing old SNES games than I do with my DS.
Keep in mind, I'm not Anti-Nintendo, I'm upset with the lack of competitive marketing, lackluster library and the obvious repeat games relaunched as "NEW" |
|
Ghastlyone
Premium Member
join:2009-01-07
Nashville, TN |
You make no sense. What do you mean... said by RedMageX:I won't stand for a company that turns it's back on the customers that helped make them the juggernaut they once were, but are no more.
So Mario games, Zelda, etc. aren't fun anymore like they used to be? Seems to me, Nintendo has stuck to it's guns about making fun games and sticking to their tradition. How did they turn their back? said by RedMageX:I had HUGE love for Nintendo back in the day (even getting Nintendo Power magazine every month), but ever since the PS2 days, they have not been able to compete with the next-gen console market. The Wii itself was using outdated hardware AT RELEASE! And the Wii-U is no different, just with another gimick tablet...and WOW, they can support FIVE people playing at the same time.
Oh...I got it. It's all about graphics ^ How fun a game is, doesn't mean anything. As long as it's displayed with a huge amount of pixels, then you're good to go, right? Don't try and fool anyone here with that non sense dude. |
|
Metatron2008You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state |
You know, for someone who isn't a Nintendo fan boy, you sure are going out of your way to defend them......
And its not about graphics? Did you see the nes versus the Atari 2600, the snes versus everything else, and the n64 versus psx? |
|
danawhitakerSpace...The Final Frontier
Premium Member
join:2002-03-02
Thorndale, ON
2 recommendations |
said by Metatron2008:You know, for someone who isn't a Nintendo fan boy, you sure are going out of your way to defend them......
And its not about graphics? Did you see the nes versus the Atari 2600, the snes versus everything else, and the n64 versus psx?
If you're referring to me, I'll show up in just about any thread and defend any console against the people hating on it because I love gaming and think each console and company has strengths and weaknesses. So I guess if I had to be labeled any type of fangirl, it would be for consoles in general. The only console I don't have is the PS3, and that's because I can't justify the money on a third major console right now. But if someone were to make a thread just slamming Sony and the PS3, I'd show up there and defend it to the best of my abilities. To be quite honest, I never thought about graphics differences when I was 12-13 years old and playing my SNES. I was still begging my parents for a Genesis because I wanted to be able to play Sonic games. And Nintendo 64 vs. Playstation, again, no, I wasn't thinking about graphics. At all. I got a Playstation first (late to the game, not until 1999) after playing Gran Turismo. It didn't stop me from getting a Nintendo 64 a year or so later and enjoying those games. When I think back on those games and systems, and visualize them in my head. You know what I don't see? Graphics. You know what I do see? All the fun times that I had with friends and boyfriends playing the various games. When I look at the current generation of consoles, I see something similar - fun times with friends and now with my daughter. |
|
Ghastlyone
Premium Member
join:2009-01-07
Nashville, TN |
to Metatron2008
said by Metatron2008:You know, for someone who isn't a Nintendo fan boy, you sure are going out of your way to defend them......
And its not about graphics? Did you see the nes versus the Atari 2600, the snes versus everything else, and the n64 versus psx?
You're comparing the original NES to the Atari 2600? Really? LOL Why didn't you compare it to the Sega Master System? NES had inferior graphics to Sega Master, people flocked to the NES in droves because of more entertaining games. Not graphics. SNES had inferior graphics to the Genesis. People bought the SNES because it blew the Genesis out of the water with more entertaining games. See a pattern yet? The Wii has sold millions upon millions of consoles because of fun, entertaining games. Not because of how many pixels it can output to. It's astounding you guys bag on Nintendo about "inferior hardware and graphics". If you have such a hard on for hardware and graphics, then why don't we see you guys posting in the PC gaming section more often then you do? |
|
 sleuth3
Premium Member
join:2001-08-30
West Des Moines, IA |
to RedMageX
said by RedMageX:I had HUGE love for Nintendo back in the day (even getting Nintendo Power magazine every month), but ever since the PS2 days, they have not been able to compete with the next-gen console market. The Wii itself was using outdated hardware AT RELEASE! And the Wii-U is no different, just with another gimick tablet...and WOW, they can support FIVE people playing at the same time.
You're focusing far too much on the short comings. Nintendo has always been an innovator. That goes without saying. While the Wii did have lackluster specs the competitors scrambled to catch up to the motion sensor tech idea. Microsoft seems to have hit a homerun with the Kinect which will be continued in its next console, while the Sony wand was kind of lame. My understanding is now Microsoft is experimenting with a touch screen controller as well for the next gen XBox. I'm sure some sort of Microsoft TV won't be far behind either. Seems to me Nintendo has been dictating the market and forcing competition. |
|
Metatron2008You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state |
to Ghastlyone
The master system came out AFTER the nes was out for about a year, genius.
Also, the genesis could show 64 on screen colors while the SNES COULD DO 256. The snes also had special effects like mode 7.
What the genesis had was a much faster cpu, which they used to make a bullshit marketing term called 'blast processing'.
If you are gonna shill for a company, at least have some clue of their history and their products kay? |
|
Ghastlyone
Premium Member
join:2009-01-07
Nashville, TN |
said by Metatron2008:The master system came out AFTER the nes was out for about a year, genius. So you're saying the Master System was a next gen console to the NES? Does that mean we can no longer compare the Xbox 360 with the PS3? LOL Why then did you compare the NES with the Atari 2600?? said by Metatron2008:Also, the genesis could show 64 on screen colors while the SNES COULD DO 256. The snes also had special effects like mode 7. I don't give a fuck how many screen colors the SNES could display. The Genesis had better graphics. Period. And Mode 7 was a joke. You can try and argue all you want that the reason the SNES sold well was because of the awesome graphics, but we all know, you're full of shit. |
|
 Weirdal
Premium Member
join:2003-06-28
Grand Island, NE |
to Metatron2008
said by Metatron2008:The master system came out AFTER the nes was out for about a year, genius.
Also, the genesis could show 64 on screen colors while the SNES COULD DO 256. The snes also had special effects like mode 7.
What the genesis had was a much faster cpu, which they used to make a bullshit marketing term called 'blast processing'.
If you are gonna shill for a company, at least have some clue of their history and their products kay?
Nobody except apparently you has cared about that console war for years, man. |
|
danawhitakerSpace...The Final Frontier
Premium Member
join:2002-03-02
Thorndale, ON |
to Metatron2008
said by Metatron2008:The master system came out AFTER the nes was out for about a year, genius.
Also, the genesis could show 64 on screen colors while the SNES COULD DO 256. The snes also had special effects like mode 7.
What the genesis had was a much faster cpu, which they used to make a bullshit marketing term called 'blast processing'.
If you are gonna shill for a company, at least have some clue of their history and their products kay?
You are right that the Master System came out after the NES - by about two years and change actually in Japan, 1983 vs. 1985. 1985 vs 1986 if you're talking about North American releases. Being that I was 4-5 years old at the time of the North American releases, it would be hard for me to speculate on why one did better than the other. I'd never even heard of the Master System until I started getting into researching and collecting older games a little over a decade ago. I didn't know anyone who had one. None of my friends had them when they were kids either. Regardless of the fact they came out in different years, they are both considered "third generation" consoles. The Genesis came out two years before the SNES, both in Japan and the U.S. (give or take a few months either direction, I'm not in the mood to do the math). My cousin had an SNES, so that was what I had the most experience with first. I spent a lot of time watching him play, and I don't remember him really caring much about awesome graphics. He enjoyed the games that were available. It wasn't until I was a little older and I started running into friends who had Sega stuff that I started wanting a Genesis too. What's fascinating to me here are some of the arguments for why one was better than the other. 64 vs. 256 colors? I can honestly say that never crossed my mind when I was playing Sonic 2 or Sonic Spinball or Donkey Kong Country or Mario Kart or Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. And for reference, here are consoles that can be fairly compared to the Atari 2600, which was part of the 2nd generation: » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi ··· systems). |
|
Metatron2008You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state
1 recommendation |
to Ghastlyone
said by Ghastlyone:said by Metatron2008:The master system came out AFTER the nes was out for about a year, genius. So you're saying the Master System was a next gen console to the NES? Does that mean we can no longer compare the Xbox 360 with the PS3? LOL Why then did you compare the NES with the Atari 2600?? said by Metatron2008:Also, the genesis could show 64 on screen colors while the SNES COULD DO 256. The snes also had special effects like mode 7. I don't give a fuck how many screen colors the SNES could display. The Genesis had better graphics. Period. And Mode 7 was a joke. You can try and argue all you want that the reason the SNES sold well was because of the awesome graphics, but we all know, you're full of shit. You have to be a troll. WE all know? Anybody who ever played the snes and the genesis knows the snes had better graphics. |
|
·
