The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This is not meant as a big offenisve remark to people who really love nintendo and the nintendo company but i feel that it is about time that they should give up on the larger game console market. Throughout the years nintendo have always been second best to some other game consoles(that you must all admit), first it was that the master system and the megadrive which clearly overtook the market from nintendo. Now we have the playstation and PS2 and do nintendo seriously think that the Game Cube will be able to stand up against the PS2, in my own opinion the PS2 should outsell the game cube my popularity alone, and games made for it (eg Gran Turismo 3) Could sell the console by themselves. This, compared to the cutsie, sickening twaddle(Mario, Kurby etc...)that has been presented to the world by Nintendo and their associates, will once again send Nintendo's Game Cube scuttling back to it's creators all bloodied and bashed in the same way that the Playstaion duffed up the "more advanced" N64. Every time i walk into my city centre "GAME" shop there is always someone trading in a nintendo64 for a playstation or PS2, never the other way around. I have seen what the nintendo64 could do and to be honest i was not impressed, the graphics were shoddy and blured and the games are still on cartridges!!! aren't nintendo going to learn that cartridges were years ago and gamers have moved onto discs, will the game cube be still on cartridge. I do admit that the gameboy has been very successfull, luckly for nintendo, but look at the new gameboy advance. The technolgy that is being here was being used in the early 90's by sega's game gear (remember that?) and the graphics were still better then as they didn't use a dot matrix screen and it could double as a portable TV, plus the new gameboy advance does strangly look like the poor old game gear.
Page:
Meka_Dragon wrote:
How can one game not be as
> good simply because it has cartoony graphics? It may appeal to you
> more, but it really doesn't make the game better.
for me if the game looks real the game is more involving which is all i really want from a game, if i feel involved then to me its a damn good game, for example GT3 this is one of my best game because it looks and feels real.
i don't really dislike cartoony graphics but weighed out id go with realism.
How can one game not be as
> good simply because it has cartoony graphics? It may appeal to you
> more, but it really doesn't make the game better.
for me if the game looks real the game is more involving which is all i really want from a game, if i feel involved then to me its a damn good game, for example GT3 this is one of my best game because it looks and feels real.
i don't really dislike cartoony graphics but weighed out id go with realism.
asda wrote:
> i ve got to agree with Turbonutter, there are better developers than
> Nintendo easily. obviosly most of you will not admit it but its
> true.
Yes, there are many fine developers out there. I see Nintendo as making some of the best games though.
if the final fantasy series were for the n64 then alot of you
> would be saying "FF8 is the best game ever, its alot better
> than MGS" instead of Zelda, sorry but its not as good as FF8.
> this is because of the cartoony graphics, ok its said ovedr and over
> again but its true, and its the reason more poeple choose
> sony.
How can one game not be as good simply because it has cartoony graphics? It may appeal to you more, but it really doesn't make the game better.
the gaming experience given from the likes of devil may cry
> and MGS2 will be more than Zelda as the player is more involved as
> the graphics show realism true to life.
But it's not true to life. I find that the graphics have to suit the world you're playing in, and I find a more 'fantasy-based' world to be a better gaming environment, sometimes it's more suitable to be set in a real-world environment, but again it depends on the game. Mario would look daft set in the 'real world' and Resident Evil would look daft with fluffy bunnies for enemies.
> i ve got to agree with Turbonutter, there are better developers than
> Nintendo easily. obviosly most of you will not admit it but its
> true.
Yes, there are many fine developers out there. I see Nintendo as making some of the best games though.
if the final fantasy series were for the n64 then alot of you
> would be saying "FF8 is the best game ever, its alot better
> than MGS" instead of Zelda, sorry but its not as good as FF8.
> this is because of the cartoony graphics, ok its said ovedr and over
> again but its true, and its the reason more poeple choose
> sony.
How can one game not be as good simply because it has cartoony graphics? It may appeal to you more, but it really doesn't make the game better.
the gaming experience given from the likes of devil may cry
> and MGS2 will be more than Zelda as the player is more involved as
> the graphics show realism true to life.
But it's not true to life. I find that the graphics have to suit the world you're playing in, and I find a more 'fantasy-based' world to be a better gaming environment, sometimes it's more suitable to be set in a real-world environment, but again it depends on the game. Mario would look daft set in the 'real world' and Resident Evil would look daft with fluffy bunnies for enemies.
i ve got to agree with Turbonutter, there are better developers than Nintendo easily. obviosly most of you will not admit it but its true.
if the final fantasy series were for the n64 then alot of you would be saying "FF8 is the best game ever, its alot better than MGS" instead of Zelda, sorry but its not as good as FF8. this is because of the cartoony graphics, ok its said ovedr and over again but its true, and its the reason more poeple choose sony.
the gaming experience given from the likes of devil may cry and MGS2 will be more than Zelda as the player is more involved as the graphics show realism true to life.
by the way please dont say that the graphics of FF7 and FF( are the same as Zelda because i dont like them at all, in my opinion they'd be better suited on the N64
if the final fantasy series were for the n64 then alot of you would be saying "FF8 is the best game ever, its alot better than MGS" instead of Zelda, sorry but its not as good as FF8. this is because of the cartoony graphics, ok its said ovedr and over again but its true, and its the reason more poeple choose sony.
the gaming experience given from the likes of devil may cry and MGS2 will be more than Zelda as the player is more involved as the graphics show realism true to life.
by the way please dont say that the graphics of FF7 and FF( are the same as Zelda because i dont like them at all, in my opinion they'd be better suited on the N64
Muffy wrote:
> This is not meant as a big offenisve remark to people who really
> love nintendo and the nintendo company but i feel that it is about
> time that they should give up on the larger game console market.
Why, when they are still making a profit from it?
Theonly reason why Sega had to stop making consoles was financial.
> Throughout the years nintendo have always been second best to some
> other game consoles(that you must all admit), first it was that the
> master system and the megadrive which clearly overtook the market
> from nintendo.
The NES way outsold the Sega Master System, especially in the USA. And the SNES was a far superior console to the Megadrive. I should know, I had both, and felt that the SNES had a better range of games.
. This, compared to the cutsie,
> sickening twaddle(Mario, Kurby etc...)that has been presented to the
> world by Nintendo
It's foolish to dismiss these excellent games as 'sickening twaddle' they're amongst the most playable games I've ever experienced.
The technolgy that is being here was being used in
> the early 90's by sega's game gear (remember that?) and the graphics
> were still better then.
No they weren't.
The GG had similar graphical capabilities to the Sega Master System. It went through batteries too quickly.
The GBA has the graphical ability of the SNES.
And Muffy, ever heard of paragraphs?
> This is not meant as a big offenisve remark to people who really
> love nintendo and the nintendo company but i feel that it is about
> time that they should give up on the larger game console market.
Why, when they are still making a profit from it?
Theonly reason why Sega had to stop making consoles was financial.
> Throughout the years nintendo have always been second best to some
> other game consoles(that you must all admit), first it was that the
> master system and the megadrive which clearly overtook the market
> from nintendo.
The NES way outsold the Sega Master System, especially in the USA. And the SNES was a far superior console to the Megadrive. I should know, I had both, and felt that the SNES had a better range of games.
. This, compared to the cutsie,
> sickening twaddle(Mario, Kurby etc...)that has been presented to the
> world by Nintendo
It's foolish to dismiss these excellent games as 'sickening twaddle' they're amongst the most playable games I've ever experienced.
The technolgy that is being here was being used in
> the early 90's by sega's game gear (remember that?) and the graphics
> were still better then.
No they weren't.
The GG had similar graphical capabilities to the Sega Master System. It went through batteries too quickly.
The GBA has the graphical ability of the SNES.
And Muffy, ever heard of paragraphs?
well, Turbonutter, you may diss zelda, which was rated 97%! which i think was more than ff7,8 or 9! but i think zelda is the best game in the world and it has tons more originality, gameplay, lush graphics, cinematic sequqnces, and replay value than all the final fantsy,s put together! and i have also played them both, i own zelda ocarina of time and majoras mask and i have played ff7,8 and 9 and i have got bored of playing all 3 within about 5 mins!
Zelda is a true epic, a masterpiece, and a prime example of what gaming genius lies behind shigsy and his army of co-workers, in my opinion Zelda ocarina of time is The Best Game In The World, and Majoras Mask is not far behind, and i'm sure more people will agree that zelda is better than final fantasy than vise versa, and for all you people who actually prefer final fantasy...well i leave you with your inferiour console and all your ff-pointless sequels while I and many others like me shall savour the delights of masterpiece, after masterpiece of sheer gaming brilliance, and awe-inspiring graphics that is Zelda! shigsy we salute you!
slik !_!
Zelda is a true epic, a masterpiece, and a prime example of what gaming genius lies behind shigsy and his army of co-workers, in my opinion Zelda ocarina of time is The Best Game In The World, and Majoras Mask is not far behind, and i'm sure more people will agree that zelda is better than final fantasy than vise versa, and for all you people who actually prefer final fantasy...well i leave you with your inferiour console and all your ff-pointless sequels while I and many others like me shall savour the delights of masterpiece, after masterpiece of sheer gaming brilliance, and awe-inspiring graphics that is Zelda! shigsy we salute you!
slik !_!
ZElda: OOT. rated best game of all time by any all format mag. Rare made the most enjoyable and oringinal platformer ever with Conkers bad fur day, also added hugely to the world of FPS with Goldeneye and Perfect dark.
yes, Sony is all u know.
yes, Sony is all u know.
While I don't agree with Muffy, Nintendo could have done a bit better than what it is.
Whether Nintendo are the best games company in the world is a matter of opinion. Personally I would argue either AM2, AM8, Sony Studios Liverpool, Sony Studios Soho or EA Sports Big. Naughty Dog could also be good contenders but we'll see how Jak and Daxter does.
Lots of people think Rare shoud be in there as well. Well, many people would have them in their list but I actually don't like many of their games, and as for Shigsy, Mario 64? Don't make me laugh. Zelda 64 (both)? Not a patch on FF VII and before you all start shouting at me, yes I have played them.
Well, maybe I'm just a biased Sonyphile or maybe Sony's all I know. More likely however is it's just a fact that Nintendo games don't appeal to half the gaming population. Why? I don't know.
Still, here I am, a Sonyphile in the enemy ranks setting straight a few facts.
Whether Nintendo are the best games company in the world is a matter of opinion. Personally I would argue either AM2, AM8, Sony Studios Liverpool, Sony Studios Soho or EA Sports Big. Naughty Dog could also be good contenders but we'll see how Jak and Daxter does.
Lots of people think Rare shoud be in there as well. Well, many people would have them in their list but I actually don't like many of their games, and as for Shigsy, Mario 64? Don't make me laugh. Zelda 64 (both)? Not a patch on FF VII and before you all start shouting at me, yes I have played them.
Well, maybe I'm just a biased Sonyphile or maybe Sony's all I know. More likely however is it's just a fact that Nintendo games don't appeal to half the gaming population. Why? I don't know.
Still, here I am, a Sonyphile in the enemy ranks setting straight a few facts.
Indian-DudeY2K wrote:
> the new smaller discs will also cut the loading times in half of a
> normal dvd , as the laser which carries the info wont have to travel
> as far to reach the info on the disc and then take it back to the
> reciever (or whatever the bits are called) so unlike the playstation
> and ps2 the loading times will be far less , which lets face it , we
> all get fed up with waiting. and shigsy also said that he would hate
> to leave the carts as there are no loading times , so thats why i
> think nintendo opted for the smaller discs for very small loading
> times !
GODDAMNIT!!! How many fudging times do I have to drill this into people's heads? The Optical disc's do have a shorter seek time but it's only about half a second shorter than a standard DVD!!! What's more, the laser seeks whilst the OS is loading, so it really makes no difference. The only way to get better loading times is by careful programming. That's it. GT3 loads masses of track data for every race, and the loading times are only about 3-4 seconds. Yamuchi also said he could get them faster next time as they didn't have much time to concentrate on it for GT3.
ODs have no advantages over DVDs, apart from they are (at the moment) uncopiable. Urgh...
> the new smaller discs will also cut the loading times in half of a
> normal dvd , as the laser which carries the info wont have to travel
> as far to reach the info on the disc and then take it back to the
> reciever (or whatever the bits are called) so unlike the playstation
> and ps2 the loading times will be far less , which lets face it , we
> all get fed up with waiting. and shigsy also said that he would hate
> to leave the carts as there are no loading times , so thats why i
> think nintendo opted for the smaller discs for very small loading
> times !
GODDAMNIT!!! How many fudging times do I have to drill this into people's heads? The Optical disc's do have a shorter seek time but it's only about half a second shorter than a standard DVD!!! What's more, the laser seeks whilst the OS is loading, so it really makes no difference. The only way to get better loading times is by careful programming. That's it. GT3 loads masses of track data for every race, and the loading times are only about 3-4 seconds. Yamuchi also said he could get them faster next time as they didn't have much time to concentrate on it for GT3.
ODs have no advantages over DVDs, apart from they are (at the moment) uncopiable. Urgh...
BOGGY wrote:
> there mini dvds and they hold more than a normal DVD,
You idiot.
DVD = 4.7gb x 4 layers
Optical disc = 1.5gb x 3 layers
> there mini dvds and they hold more than a normal DVD,
You idiot.
DVD = 4.7gb x 4 layers
Optical disc = 1.5gb x 3 layers
Page: