This all reeks of "We're Nintendo, we do things differently, we're supposed to have learned from our mistakes but we're still gonna do a damn good job at making the same ones"
Not suprisingly over 75% of people who voted found Iwatas comments discouraging.
Sure, Nintendo had a bigger share of it back in the days of the Nes, but since then the Playstation has been bigger.
2) Yes, modern gaming is getting a little stale because things aren't as new as they were when consoles first came out or when it all went 3D.
But Nintendo have tried being different for the sake of being different before and fallen flat on their face.
Basically, if the revolution is so good as to alienate most third party devellopers then it had better be something REALLY worth going for, and Nintendo haven't pulled that off (as far as the mass market is concerned atleast) in a long while.
Personally, I don't think there's going to be so much of a change and they're over exadurating something like fur covered, touch sensitive buttons or something...
To be honest, I think they should make a bit more out of the Gamecube first. Sure, the PS3 and Xbox2 are rolling in soon, but they'll start at £200+ with no games or software.
If Nintendo start bundling Prime with the Cube (or perhaps a choice of ANY players choice game) for £50 then they'll be on to a budget market winner!
The Nintendo DS after all was regarded by Iwata as Nintendo's answer to "Revive" the industry, that many in the know-how have described it as stale- Nintendo especially.
I have read over and over Nintendo's comments on the problem in the past year and a half or so. And agree...reluctantly.
Yes Nintendo DS seems to be something fresh, but will the Video Games industry steam past the illusive boundaries that was reached long ago?
Who knows...But I think Iwata is 100% correct in that it is really make or break time with regards to the Revolution and how it is percieved by the Third Party publishers, which most people could say are: EA, Capcom, Sega, Ubi Soft, Namco and Square-Enix. They are the big hitters and it is they who will determine whether or not Nintendo's revolution is a huge success- but yet only in the long run.
It's no good Nintendo pulling all stops with the console at launch and not keeping it up, remember that Gamecube had a great enough launch, a pretty successful one at that, which seen a relatively cheap console being snapped up. It was late to the party, granted, PS2 was the gargantuan console and unstoppable, but the Gamecube after its successful run went down hill in terms of support (sitting narrowly at Number 2 world wide) only to be took over by X-Box late last year.
With the Revolution Nintendo should be a little bit experienced this time, they are licking their wounds after the Gamecube release and hopefully they will have learned from their mistakes. Many people are critising Nintendo for taking risks, but to be honest who else is going to do this? Do we all really want just Graphical improvements with every system release? Do we want the same thing over and over? Things we have seen before only for better graphics and sound?
Eventually most people will get tired of it and not only that, but developers will run out of viable options. Nintendo are the only ones being bold enough, from past experiences everyone else sits back and watches, then copies what they have done.
It's time for a change and with the Revolution, I look forward to E3 to see what tricks Nintendo have came up with. I have every faith in them after witnessing the splendours of the DS and I am confident that for the first time Sony won't be the market leader.
It's a bold statement, but Nintendo themselves had to fall from its perch at one stage and it seems to be coming back through Iwata.
Only time will tell.
If it's the latter, then Nintendo will have done well. If it is just a lower spec machine will tilt controls, then I will be rather disappointed with Nintendo, but wont judge it as a whole until I've tried it.
The Revolution will have to be something pretty special to be a success. It will have to be geniunly workable and not just a gimmick, like we keep saying. If it really is something completely new that changes the way games are played, like the analog stick or whatever, then that's great because it means 3rd parties will still make a load of great games for it and we won't really miss out.
To be honest I wouldn't really be happy with being just part of a niche market, because niche = less choice. As much as I love Nintendo games, I love other games equally. Of my top 5 games of all time list only Zelda is made by Nintendo (admittedly it's at no.1), and my top 10 probably only has 2 other Nintendo games in it (Metroid Prime/Echoes + Majora's Mask).
Like people have said, it seems as if Nintendo is hinting at a less capable machine than Sony and Microsoft will offer, becuase they know they can't compete. Maybe that's what they've really "learned" in this generation of consoles - that they aren't the best anymore.
But to base a console around something of a similiar nature, it's gotta be someting pretty fecking special if it wants to stand a chance against the competition and get people intrested. Not just Ninty's who have bought Nintendo all their life.
I can't see it working to be honest, but then you never know and I hope for Nintendo's sake that I'm eating my own words when E3 comes around.
Using Dringos favourite quote*
"the hardcore gamers will get it"
*may not be actual phrase, but you get the idea
Is true to this.
From what I can see, I very much doubt your average mainstream gamer will bother with Nintendo's new machine because they have no time for something that may have an uncertain future.
If you see what the PS3 and Xbox360 are promising, people will automatically go for them. Online gaming, Grand Theft Auto, the brand name of Xbox/Playstation etc.
Seeing the Revolution compared to that sort of thing is a bit of a let down. Yes, the Rev. might boast some cool 'original' gaming features, but I doubt anyone would take a further look in to care.
In my opinion Nintendo need to rethink their strategy in order to keep up with probably the most fiercest battle in gaming history.
Otherwise just stick to handhelds.
It's hard to say.
With the DS they seem to be genuinely on to something, which is encouraging.
But they've done "being different" for the sake of "being different" before and it didn't work.
I think I see their plan though.
I think they see the main console battle as a bit of a rat race, especially as far as they're concerned.
Basically, Sony and MS throw as much money at the console as possible, through specs, large scale online plans, advertising etc, and there's no way that Nintendo can keep up with that.
Nintendo on the other hand can do what they do best.
Now without third party support, they'll never touch the sales of the more mainstream market but they'll have their own little niché market of their own. And because the system will be almost exclusively Nintendo games, they'll almost have the monopoly on game sales for it (something that MS have come close-ish to with Halo and Sony can only dream of).
Ofcourse, it does mean that Nintendo's own games will have to be REALLY special to get people to buy it in the first place.
How many "different" Gamecube games were actually that special?
I count Pikmin.
The rest of the GC games were either fairly close to anything else around or were "different" but in a shallow gimmicky way which kind of got old quickly. Not that they were fun, but they weren't mind blowing system sellers.
Dringo'll come in and tell us to have faith.
Time will tell. :-)
> Whats a noe
It also smells of no multiformat games, which is utter utter ear-balls. People buy Nintendo consols for Nintendo games, yes, but without any 3rd party games, that means we're all going to have to buy a Sony or Microsoft console, and give our money to them, instead of Nintendo. How can you be happy with that?