The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It always bothers me. I mean sure GTA and MGS are quality games as are Halo and Knights of the Old Republic. But Nintendo's roster of system shifting genius has that little bit more. Mario, Kart, Zelda, Pikmin and Metroid are epic titles, games that are made to near perfection and, at least in my opinion wipe the floor with the competiton.
So why is the battle so harshly swung in the direction of Nintendo's bigger and blacker rivals?
The in-between games.
You know what I mean, the big third party titles or in the case of Nintendo, the smaller Nintendo ones. It must be great to be a PS2 owner, sure your games of pure genius are few and far between but titles like Silent Hill, Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy, Jax, Burnout 3, The Suffering (etc... etc...) come out all the time. These are all fantastic "in-between" games, the games that you play in-between up coming classics. The reason why Sony's and to a lesser extent Microsoft's are so much better is due to their relations with Third Parties. A top quality Nintendo title can surpass anything any third parties can offer. Yet a top quality third party title, one that had taken years to master, is far superior to one of Nintendo's lesser offerings.
Mario Golf, Kirby's Air Ride, Mario Tennis, Jungle Beat, Four Swords, Paper Mario, Starfox etc... Some are quality titles, Jungle Beat and Paper Mario in particular. But they are variations of what we've already seen, Four Swords is a slightly different Zelda game simplified. Paper Mario, Mario Tennis and Mario Golf are, well, Mario games. Different Mario games, but also somewhat similar.
Sony's collection of platformers, realistic racers, non-realistic racers, cartoon games, violent games, horror games, RPG's and so forth are these in-between games and the quality is just as good (and at times better) but with an increased variety.
When I was playing Second Sight last year I thought it was amazing, as I did with Beyond Good and Evil, Prince of Persia, XIII and Timesplitters. These are all titles that Sony are, well, used to. Whilst a Nintendo fan such as myself feel privaliged to play them.
On the flip side there are a lot of naff games in this list but there are a few quality little gems too. And what makes me increasingly frustarted is that these games COULD be on the Gamecube.
All it takes is a little encouragement from the Big N. But Nintendo need to do more than that. They need to cut out their "in-between games". Mario Golf and Mario Tennis are okay, and certain titles like Jungle Beat and Donkey Konga can be useful. But is there ANY need for Doshin the Giant? Kirby's Air Ride? Pokemon Channel? Wario Ware? Wario World? Zelda Four Swords? Starfox Armada? It is only by doing this that Nintendo fans would be forced to playing some third party games, rather than sticking with Nintendo each and every time.
Nintendo had a bright idea to cut ties with their second parties. The idea was to encourage developers to make games for their system instead of relying on special exclusive companies. It simply has not worked. Because there are still tonnes of these silly little Nintendo titles that well, just aren't worth it!
I want to stick by Nintendo, I do, but I am losing faith. Nintendo make some of the best games in the world but they cannot do this all year round. To survive Nintendo need to start getting these third parties to make some of their best games in the world.
Sony fans do not have to wait long for the next big release, this is why PS2 sales are so high, because quality games come out so frequently on it. Whilst us Nintendo freaks, will have to wait for Pokemon XD and The Legend of Zelda to finally get some quality.
On the flip side at least this quality is true, unspeakable quality (probably).
But this is what worries me. Nintendo's talk of "simplifying gaming"? For a while I was terrified that it meant the complex but enjoyable Mario Platformers, the stunning Zelda's and the addictive Pikmin's were at an end. And that Nintendo will release a consistant supply of "in-between games". I can see their point, we can't make games all year round by making loads of complex epics. How about we stop making these complex epics and just release a series of good fun games all year round. Simple games that everyone can play.
But what Nintendo fail to realise is that, with the possible exception of Donkey Konga (which is probably where Nintendo have been given their justification to do this), is that these games do not shift consoles. It is the big FUN games that do it, notice how their sales doubled in March thanks to the constantly sold out Resident Evil 4? Notice how Nintendo are living off the success of Mario Kart even today?
Big and clever Nintendo games are big and they are clever. Nintendo just NEED to push them. I mean come on! Why the hell was Metroid Prime 2: Echoes and Pikmin 2 advertised and pushed so limited whereas a decent but quickly boring party game like Donkey Konga was pushed as if the next big thing?
Where were the posters, the flyers, the round the country "buy me" events? These 2 games sold terribly, Metroid Prime 2 did alright over time but Pikmin 2 sold roughly half of the original. Which is a shame because Pikmin 2 is about 100 times better than Pikmin.
ARGH just does not do it justice. I can see why Nintendo would want to push new gams but both Pikmin 2 and Metroid Prime 2 ACTUALLY stood a chance against Halo and GTA. It could have been a closer fight than the steamrolled effect which is what we got. Nintendo are reeling from the effects today. Thankfully with Zelda and Pokemon due this Christmas Sony will need something special to counteract it. Microsoft are releasing a new console, which may dent Nintendo's plans somewhat.
I know this has become a rant but I don't care.
Despite my fear that Nintendo were moving towards "simple games", George Harrison recently said this:
"But in addition to expanding upon the genres and experiences that players already know and love, Nintendo is pushing to take games into new directions. Products such as Nintendogs and Electroplankton for Nintendo DS are original enough to not only excite the hardcore audience but to intrigue people who don't traditionally play games. As video games take their place as a primary entertainment option for all ages, both genders and every conceivable taste, Nintendo wants to be the leaders in sales and innovation. So don't worry -- as we expand our product line-up to match the expanding industry, we'll also continue to push the envelope to bring hardcore fans even bigger Nintendo adventures. And hopefully, a number of adventures they could have never imagined before they saw it play on a Nintendo system."
Sounds a little better to me.
And Electroplankton looks quality. As does Nintendogs.
So maybe I'm moaning about nothing.
We'll see.
So why is the battle so harshly swung in the direction of Nintendo's bigger and blacker rivals?
The in-between games.
You know what I mean, the big third party titles or in the case of Nintendo, the smaller Nintendo ones. It must be great to be a PS2 owner, sure your games of pure genius are few and far between but titles like Silent Hill, Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy, Jax, Burnout 3, The Suffering (etc... etc...) come out all the time. These are all fantastic "in-between" games, the games that you play in-between up coming classics. The reason why Sony's and to a lesser extent Microsoft's are so much better is due to their relations with Third Parties. A top quality Nintendo title can surpass anything any third parties can offer. Yet a top quality third party title, one that had taken years to master, is far superior to one of Nintendo's lesser offerings.
Mario Golf, Kirby's Air Ride, Mario Tennis, Jungle Beat, Four Swords, Paper Mario, Starfox etc... Some are quality titles, Jungle Beat and Paper Mario in particular. But they are variations of what we've already seen, Four Swords is a slightly different Zelda game simplified. Paper Mario, Mario Tennis and Mario Golf are, well, Mario games. Different Mario games, but also somewhat similar.
Sony's collection of platformers, realistic racers, non-realistic racers, cartoon games, violent games, horror games, RPG's and so forth are these in-between games and the quality is just as good (and at times better) but with an increased variety.
When I was playing Second Sight last year I thought it was amazing, as I did with Beyond Good and Evil, Prince of Persia, XIII and Timesplitters. These are all titles that Sony are, well, used to. Whilst a Nintendo fan such as myself feel privaliged to play them.
On the flip side there are a lot of naff games in this list but there are a few quality little gems too. And what makes me increasingly frustarted is that these games COULD be on the Gamecube.
All it takes is a little encouragement from the Big N. But Nintendo need to do more than that. They need to cut out their "in-between games". Mario Golf and Mario Tennis are okay, and certain titles like Jungle Beat and Donkey Konga can be useful. But is there ANY need for Doshin the Giant? Kirby's Air Ride? Pokemon Channel? Wario Ware? Wario World? Zelda Four Swords? Starfox Armada? It is only by doing this that Nintendo fans would be forced to playing some third party games, rather than sticking with Nintendo each and every time.
Nintendo had a bright idea to cut ties with their second parties. The idea was to encourage developers to make games for their system instead of relying on special exclusive companies. It simply has not worked. Because there are still tonnes of these silly little Nintendo titles that well, just aren't worth it!
I want to stick by Nintendo, I do, but I am losing faith. Nintendo make some of the best games in the world but they cannot do this all year round. To survive Nintendo need to start getting these third parties to make some of their best games in the world.
Sony fans do not have to wait long for the next big release, this is why PS2 sales are so high, because quality games come out so frequently on it. Whilst us Nintendo freaks, will have to wait for Pokemon XD and The Legend of Zelda to finally get some quality.
On the flip side at least this quality is true, unspeakable quality (probably).
But this is what worries me. Nintendo's talk of "simplifying gaming"? For a while I was terrified that it meant the complex but enjoyable Mario Platformers, the stunning Zelda's and the addictive Pikmin's were at an end. And that Nintendo will release a consistant supply of "in-between games". I can see their point, we can't make games all year round by making loads of complex epics. How about we stop making these complex epics and just release a series of good fun games all year round. Simple games that everyone can play.
But what Nintendo fail to realise is that, with the possible exception of Donkey Konga (which is probably where Nintendo have been given their justification to do this), is that these games do not shift consoles. It is the big FUN games that do it, notice how their sales doubled in March thanks to the constantly sold out Resident Evil 4? Notice how Nintendo are living off the success of Mario Kart even today?
Big and clever Nintendo games are big and they are clever. Nintendo just NEED to push them. I mean come on! Why the hell was Metroid Prime 2: Echoes and Pikmin 2 advertised and pushed so limited whereas a decent but quickly boring party game like Donkey Konga was pushed as if the next big thing?
Where were the posters, the flyers, the round the country "buy me" events? These 2 games sold terribly, Metroid Prime 2 did alright over time but Pikmin 2 sold roughly half of the original. Which is a shame because Pikmin 2 is about 100 times better than Pikmin.
ARGH just does not do it justice. I can see why Nintendo would want to push new gams but both Pikmin 2 and Metroid Prime 2 ACTUALLY stood a chance against Halo and GTA. It could have been a closer fight than the steamrolled effect which is what we got. Nintendo are reeling from the effects today. Thankfully with Zelda and Pokemon due this Christmas Sony will need something special to counteract it. Microsoft are releasing a new console, which may dent Nintendo's plans somewhat.
I know this has become a rant but I don't care.
Despite my fear that Nintendo were moving towards "simple games", George Harrison recently said this:
"But in addition to expanding upon the genres and experiences that players already know and love, Nintendo is pushing to take games into new directions. Products such as Nintendogs and Electroplankton for Nintendo DS are original enough to not only excite the hardcore audience but to intrigue people who don't traditionally play games. As video games take their place as a primary entertainment option for all ages, both genders and every conceivable taste, Nintendo wants to be the leaders in sales and innovation. So don't worry -- as we expand our product line-up to match the expanding industry, we'll also continue to push the envelope to bring hardcore fans even bigger Nintendo adventures. And hopefully, a number of adventures they could have never imagined before they saw it play on a Nintendo system."
Sounds a little better to me.
And Electroplankton looks quality. As does Nintendogs.
So maybe I'm moaning about nothing.
We'll see.
Page:
Macintosh, I can't argue as I don't know WHAT Nintendo are planning.
Going on past reputation, it could be anything from the stupidest flop the world as seen to the most amazing revolution the games industry has seen yet.
Whatever they're going, they've no limits by "can't afford" or "isn't capable of". They always make deliberate decisions. Sometimes we disagree with their decisions but they're never "forced" or "limited" to. You seem to thikn that just because they don't have MS and Sony's bulging bellies that their skeletons are poking through their skin. They just can't afford to throw money around mindlessly is all.
If Nintendo choose a less powerful console, it's down to their expert opinion. Sony and MS make games, but their games designers aren't as involved in the design of the system as Nintendo's are. So Sony and MS hand out the "standard" system that people work with, wheras Nintendo's tend to have the little edge being directly influence by those with inspirations for next gen games. Now I can't stop you from trying to poetically represent Nintendo as some failing, dying motion of it's laugh breath, but you're kind of making yourself like a nonsical mongol.
Gerrid, yeah there's more to the use of power than merely better graphics, but I still think that this next generation gap is too small to be anything more than superficial. There'll be a few things earlier consoles couldn't do, perhaps... but it's going to get depressingly familiar all too qiuckly, especially as it means that the prices will rocket again.
If Nintendo are going to release anything decent within the next 4-5 years then it's strengths won't lie in the power.
Personally, I think it's a waste them doing anything at all when there's so much they can still do with the Gamecube, and they should wait until the technology/ideas are available to make a genuine difference.
Ofcourse, I'm assuming that they DO have an idea else they wouldn't be going for it, so I reckon they have SOMETHING.
Thing is, Nintendo have promised some great ideas before, and sometimes they are but sometimes... :-S
Going on past reputation, it could be anything from the stupidest flop the world as seen to the most amazing revolution the games industry has seen yet.
Whatever they're going, they've no limits by "can't afford" or "isn't capable of". They always make deliberate decisions. Sometimes we disagree with their decisions but they're never "forced" or "limited" to. You seem to thikn that just because they don't have MS and Sony's bulging bellies that their skeletons are poking through their skin. They just can't afford to throw money around mindlessly is all.
If Nintendo choose a less powerful console, it's down to their expert opinion. Sony and MS make games, but their games designers aren't as involved in the design of the system as Nintendo's are. So Sony and MS hand out the "standard" system that people work with, wheras Nintendo's tend to have the little edge being directly influence by those with inspirations for next gen games. Now I can't stop you from trying to poetically represent Nintendo as some failing, dying motion of it's laugh breath, but you're kind of making yourself like a nonsical mongol.
Gerrid, yeah there's more to the use of power than merely better graphics, but I still think that this next generation gap is too small to be anything more than superficial. There'll be a few things earlier consoles couldn't do, perhaps... but it's going to get depressingly familiar all too qiuckly, especially as it means that the prices will rocket again.
If Nintendo are going to release anything decent within the next 4-5 years then it's strengths won't lie in the power.
Personally, I think it's a waste them doing anything at all when there's so much they can still do with the Gamecube, and they should wait until the technology/ideas are available to make a genuine difference.
Ofcourse, I'm assuming that they DO have an idea else they wouldn't be going for it, so I reckon they have SOMETHING.
Thing is, Nintendo have promised some great ideas before, and sometimes they are but sometimes... :-S
Being able to snipe from the moon.
Tphi wrote:
> What will they have that's different to the current generation?
> Better graphics? Ooooh, great!!
I'm tiredof explaining this to you people. It's obvious that you don't understand, so I'm going to just give up and let you all live in your "more power only = better graphics" worlds.
> What will they have that's different to the current generation?
> Better graphics? Ooooh, great!!
I'm tiredof explaining this to you people. It's obvious that you don't understand, so I'm going to just give up and let you all live in your "more power only = better graphics" worlds.
Bigger online environments.
Containment on Halo 2 is quite mental, needs helicopters though.
Containment on Halo 2 is quite mental, needs helicopters though.
Macintosh wrote:
> If they make their next home console too much slower than
> next gen PS3 and Xbox 360, they will further fail to draw support.
Slower? Ahahaha. You rolling them down a hill or something?
> I think the future games on PS3 and XBox 360 will blow peoples minds.
What will they have that's different to the current generation? Better graphics? Ooooh, great!!
> If they make their next home console too much slower than
> next gen PS3 and Xbox 360, they will further fail to draw support.
Slower? Ahahaha. You rolling them down a hill or something?
> I think the future games on PS3 and XBox 360 will blow peoples minds.
What will they have that's different to the current generation? Better graphics? Ooooh, great!!
Strafio wrote:
> Dude, I don't mean to be harsh, but you still don't have a clue about
> ANYTHING... :-S
>
> :-)
>
>
> Don't worry. We all have to learn it from somewhere.
> I guess I could sum a few things up for you:
>
> a) The sort of PS2 games that "everyone wants", bar a few
> notable exceptions, most of the are bland, generic games that proper
> gamers have no interest in. There are a fair few decent games
> (although they don't tend to be such big seller as the crap).
>
> b) Nintendo have this big fanbase because these people actually LIKE
> "Nintendo" games. And no one else can makes
> "Nintendo" games, so Nintendo have the monopoly of this
> time of game. Even if Nintendo could/would make better versions of
> PS2 style games, Sony would still trounce them using pure marketing
> power.
>
> c) If you'd been keeping up with talks of Nintendo's next machine
> you'd know that the "more expensive" and "more
> powerful" ratrace is one that Nintendo are dropping out of,
> instead making the best with relatively low power compared to the new
> Xbox and Playstation (and let's face it, 95% of these new generation
> games will turn out to be the sort would've worked on this generation
> of consoles!) and instead gone for a new-ish approach.
>
> No one really knows what this new approach is, except Nintendo, and
> all they're telling us is that it's going to make some big changes
> (and seeing as they always say that...). So don't lose heart.
> Nintendo may still ballz it up yet! :-)
Sounds like thats just another way of saying Nintendo cant afford to keep up. If they make their next home console too much slower than next gen PS3 and Xbox 360, they will further fail to draw support. As time passes, the less spec/slower speed of the Nintendo box will make it more difficult to support the next gen games. You are right - but only in regard to "launch titles" in that they don't really require all the extra processng power or extra memory, but 1-2 years after it will be a different story. The games will be larger, with more complex code, and high def graphics output. If Nintendo do make a "lesser" console, it will be difficult for them to support games like that. You could say that it doesnt matter, since Nintendo are not in the same mrket as Sony and Microsoft - but I just can't see many people going for a "neutered" console over PS3 and XBox 360. I think the future games on PS3 and XBox 360 will blow peoples minds. It will be such a step up, that a lesser console won't stand much chance.
> Dude, I don't mean to be harsh, but you still don't have a clue about
> ANYTHING... :-S
>
> :-)
>
>
> Don't worry. We all have to learn it from somewhere.
> I guess I could sum a few things up for you:
>
> a) The sort of PS2 games that "everyone wants", bar a few
> notable exceptions, most of the are bland, generic games that proper
> gamers have no interest in. There are a fair few decent games
> (although they don't tend to be such big seller as the crap).
>
> b) Nintendo have this big fanbase because these people actually LIKE
> "Nintendo" games. And no one else can makes
> "Nintendo" games, so Nintendo have the monopoly of this
> time of game. Even if Nintendo could/would make better versions of
> PS2 style games, Sony would still trounce them using pure marketing
> power.
>
> c) If you'd been keeping up with talks of Nintendo's next machine
> you'd know that the "more expensive" and "more
> powerful" ratrace is one that Nintendo are dropping out of,
> instead making the best with relatively low power compared to the new
> Xbox and Playstation (and let's face it, 95% of these new generation
> games will turn out to be the sort would've worked on this generation
> of consoles!) and instead gone for a new-ish approach.
>
> No one really knows what this new approach is, except Nintendo, and
> all they're telling us is that it's going to make some big changes
> (and seeing as they always say that...). So don't lose heart.
> Nintendo may still ballz it up yet! :-)
Sounds like thats just another way of saying Nintendo cant afford to keep up. If they make their next home console too much slower than next gen PS3 and Xbox 360, they will further fail to draw support. As time passes, the less spec/slower speed of the Nintendo box will make it more difficult to support the next gen games. You are right - but only in regard to "launch titles" in that they don't really require all the extra processng power or extra memory, but 1-2 years after it will be a different story. The games will be larger, with more complex code, and high def graphics output. If Nintendo do make a "lesser" console, it will be difficult for them to support games like that. You could say that it doesnt matter, since Nintendo are not in the same mrket as Sony and Microsoft - but I just can't see many people going for a "neutered" console over PS3 and XBox 360. I think the future games on PS3 and XBox 360 will blow peoples minds. It will be such a step up, that a lesser console won't stand much chance.
Macintosh wrote:
> Stuff.
He returns :D
> Stuff.
He returns :D
Macintosh wrote:
> Its clear that Nintendo has a loyal customer base (for the most part),
> but is that enough to keep the company going?
Yes.
> Its clear that Nintendo has a loyal customer base (for the most part),
> but is that enough to keep the company going?
Yes.
Macintosh wrote:
> And I can't
> see game prices going up (most people say all games on all platforms
> already cost too much already)
EA, Activision and most of the big publishers are saying that their game prices will rise to around $60 for the next generation, because the complexity of games means that each game needs multi million dollar investment and large development teams, and the only way to cover the higher production costs is to increase the prices on the shop floors.
So games prices ARE going to rise. In a way, Nintendo are being quite clever with their 'less complex' approach, because publishers should buy into it, as the games will be much cheaper, easier and faster to produce (small teams, simple programming etc), meaning that there will be more of games and publishers will be more willing to take a risk on unproven ideas as the outlay is less. Cheaper games should also appeal to the consumer, but you can't really tell, as the slack jawed casual gamer often equates price with quality (to their own detriment).
> And I can't
> see game prices going up (most people say all games on all platforms
> already cost too much already)
EA, Activision and most of the big publishers are saying that their game prices will rise to around $60 for the next generation, because the complexity of games means that each game needs multi million dollar investment and large development teams, and the only way to cover the higher production costs is to increase the prices on the shop floors.
So games prices ARE going to rise. In a way, Nintendo are being quite clever with their 'less complex' approach, because publishers should buy into it, as the games will be much cheaper, easier and faster to produce (small teams, simple programming etc), meaning that there will be more of games and publishers will be more willing to take a risk on unproven ideas as the outlay is less. Cheaper games should also appeal to the consumer, but you can't really tell, as the slack jawed casual gamer often equates price with quality (to their own detriment).
Nintendo games are like Disneyland. Both may be considered childish by some there is a certain charm about them that keeps people buying/ visiting. Mixed within the child friendly aspects of both are the more adult themed things, but the 'childish' aspects can be enjoyed by older people as well as long as they are open minded.
Page: