Viewing Thread:
"Come on, Wave the White Flag"

I've been a fan of Nintendo games ever since the N64 / GBC and I have been pretty loyal since. But i have to admit, I’d now like Nintendo to take the same path as Sega - or something similar.

At first, when rumors started to fly about Xbox buying Nintendo I wasn’t very keen - because after all, it wouldn’t have been the same, would it?

But now, if either Microsoft or Sony bought Nintendo out, and had Nintendo making quality games without having to worry about console sales then everybody would be a winner.

Obviously this won’t happen in the current consoles, and I don't think it will happen in the next wave either, although I would like it to. But it’s bound to happen one day.

Just imagine; a Playstation with Zelda, Jak, Mario, Final Fantasy’s and GTA all on one console.

Or an Xbox with Halo, Ninja Gaiden mixed with some of Nintendo’s laid back classics. In fact - if Microsoft bought Nintendo maybe we could see some Nintendo & Rare calibrations. Donkey Kong Country 2 perhaps?

This is the way forward, I’m inclined to admit. Been stubborn never got anybody anywhere.

I think the main problem, Dringo, is that no matter what the game is, if it has a Nintendo sticker on it, it's immediately 'special'.

Look at it this way, if Viewtiful Joe, Ikaruga, or any of the other niche thid-party titles that have hti the market were made by Nintendo, you'd say that they have the Nintendo difference that nobody else could replicate. Yes, Zelda, Metroid Prime and Mario Sunshine are brilliant titles, and they are special, but not because of some special dust Nintendo sprinkles on them, simply because Nintendo are brilliant developers.

I'd say Prince of Persia and Beyond Good & Evil felt special, they were just flawed and not quite as good as Nintendo's offerings. I think the only real special properties that Nintendo games have is the Nintendo logo when it loads up.

For example, Silicon Knights is a third party, yes they created the most unique horror title ever, thus it was brandished with the 'Nintendo Difference' moniker by various people. Was that because Nintendo made it? No, it's ebcause it was a brilliant, unique title.

Then there are games like Donkey Konga, which, if it was released o nanother format with a different mascot, would be deemed as just another average rhythm game. As it is, it's going to be a 'classic' because it has a Nintendo character on the box.

It also shocks me that games like Mario Golf are deemed classic simply because of it's presentation. As a game, it's dated and certainly nothing special, but because there are Pikmin, Chain Chomps and the like, it's seemingly a masterpiece.

There is no 'Nintendo Difference', it's a figment of your imagination, Nintendo just happen to be brilliant developers.

Yes, you can't ignore that fact that Nintendo has some great games, which are indeed unusual.

I think that sums you up perfectly memo.

Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil, Resident Evil etc... etc...

All good games, just as Nintendo games are good... but there has not been one third party that has made a game... well like Nintendo.

Nintendo games are uniquely different, they play differently the the other games... a third party could never make a game like Pikmin for example.

Nintendo games for me play in such a better way to the normal "good game"... Mario had something Prince of Persia did not, Zelda has something beyond good and evil doesn't... Pikmin has a unique charm that command and conquer will never mimic.

Yes a good game is a good game and a good game isn't always a Nintendo game.

But Nintendo games have something special about them, an x-factor which has made Nintendo the most popular developer of all time. And that is the Nintendo difference, and that is why I play Nintendo games.

You summed it up well Memo.

Dringo wrote:
> Meanwhile if you own a Gamecube and don't like the Nintendo
> difference then, truth be told, you've confused me good and proper.

I did own a Gamecube and I was not impressed by this 'Nintendo Difference' at all. After the N64 the Gamecube was a massive disappointment, to me at least.

The 'Nintendo Difference' is just a stupid marketing phrase anyway. In reality it means little to nothing. A game doesn't have to fall under a category to be good. If a Nintendo game is good, it's because it's fun, not because it's made by Nintendo and not because it's part of a 'Nintendo Difference'. A good game is a good game, no matter who makes it and no matter what console it's on.

The 'Nintendo Difference' is about as real as the 'Third Place', if you ask me.

Memorandum!: wrote:


>
> And I said that I don't care if it bores YOU... doesn't bore me. If
> it bores you it begs the question why you own the console.
>
> Did I say I owned the console anymore?

That's irrelevant because that half of the post was aimed at Hedfix.

All I'm saying is that if you are a supporter of Nintendo's system then I presume that's because you enjoy Nintendo games. If you were a fan of the trend in gameplay, online gaming and third party software then you don't want a Gamecube now do you.

Meanwhile if you own a Gamecube and don't like the Nintendo difference then, truth be told, you've confused me good and proper.

AfroJoe wrote:
> Xbox wouldn't appeal to all ages even if it did have the top Nintendo
> games available. It's a console aimed at 18 and overs, in really, and
> a few colourful titles isn't going to change that. The original
> price, the massive range of FPS titles, and the fact that it's
> probably got more in common with a PC than with any other games
> console shows that the Xbox has not been created with anyone younger
> than 16 in mind.

But it's not the console that makes the games, it's the games that make the console.

If MS had Nintendo's games then it would inherit Nintendo's entire fanbase.
MS doesn't choose an image and market around it, it uses whatever it has to market them.

If they have something as precious as the entire Nintendo catalogue to shout about then heavy marketing of this can be almost garaunteed.

Dringo wrote:
> Memorandum! wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> that's why everyone should
> own a Gamecube.
>
> I had to laugh at this.
>
> Why?

Because in the way you s**tructured your sentence it could have read in two ways:

1) You were arrogantly sugges**ting that everyone should own a Gamecube whether they want one or not.

or, the one that jumps out mos**t obviously:

2) That people should get one to bore the sh*t out of them.

"I don't give a s*** that you are bored with the Nintendo difference, but that's why everyone should own a Gamecube."


> Makes sense to me.
>
> And I said that I don't care if it bores YOU... doesn't bore me. If
> it bores you it begs the ques**tion why you own the console.

Did I say I owned the console anymore?

I didn't even make any comment on the console anyway, jus**t your s**tatement.

"I think Nintendo are good, and that's why EVERYONE should own one."
Why mus**t you always shove your own opinion down everyone's throats as if it was fact?

Strid, RS3 is absoloute diabolical crap.

Online it's not, offline it is. No way does it do anything for the FPS genre, at all.

Plus, you said you hated it.

Cyclone wrote:
> Strid wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
>
> Go away and play on your first person shooters, which are
> always somehow exactly the same.
>
> Ah yes...
>
> *plays Halo*
>
> So you agree then?

No.

*plays RS3*