The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Nintendo continue to bring out console after console after console. Take the GameBoy for example, simple, little hand-held console, amuses kids for hours on end. Parents spend about £69.99 on their kid's GameBoy. Later on, they bring out The GameBoy Colour, the kid wants this as well because Nintendo make great games for it and its got better graphics. So the parents spend another £80 or so on this. Then there's the games, the accessories and all that. Next Nintendo release the GameBoy advance, I'm not sure how much this costs, although my parents spent a lot of money on this for my brother. Then theres the games and accessories for that. My brother has had: Nintendo Console, Super Nintendo, PsOne, now he has a PS2, GameBoy, GameBoy Colour, GameBoy advance.
What I'm trying to say is that when a console has been out for a while, and sales start to go down, they just bring out a new one, and the kid wants that, then another, and the next. My parents have wasted loads of money on these games consoles, but most of them are sitting in our attic getting rusty.
So why dont kids want replacements for PCs, because PC games have been around for years? Parents spend loads of money on these games consoles and they just end up in attics and never get used again after the new one has been brought out.
What I'm trying to say is that when a console has been out for a while, and sales start to go down, they just bring out a new one, and the kid wants that, then another, and the next. My parents have wasted loads of money on these games consoles, but most of them are sitting in our attic getting rusty.
So why dont kids want replacements for PCs, because PC games have been around for years? Parents spend loads of money on these games consoles and they just end up in attics and never get used again after the new one has been brought out.
Page:
Microgarlicbread wrote:
> xy2k wrote:
> games.
>
> I take your point. But what I meant was graphics doesn't add depth
> to
> the game itself, merely the surface,
>
> ummm I don't think crying over a game character is just the surface do
> you? It shows true interaction with the person playing, its so in
> depth they feel as if they have lost someone they know. What your
> saying is, to be honest, a big crock 'o' sh*te.
>
> (don't take that too personally, at least your not an idiot spamming
> newb :D)
I am not an idiot spamming newbie, I was merely questioning why Nintendo do that, because I did not know why. I did not want to create a whole new argument so people could call me names.
> xy2k wrote:
> games.
>
> I take your point. But what I meant was graphics doesn't add depth
> to
> the game itself, merely the surface,
>
> ummm I don't think crying over a game character is just the surface do
> you? It shows true interaction with the person playing, its so in
> depth they feel as if they have lost someone they know. What your
> saying is, to be honest, a big crock 'o' sh*te.
>
> (don't take that too personally, at least your not an idiot spamming
> newb :D)
I am not an idiot spamming newbie, I was merely questioning why Nintendo do that, because I did not know why. I did not want to create a whole new argument so people could call me names.
Microgarlicbread wrote:
> Limited? LIMITED!? I'm not going to bother with this discussion
> anymore as your obviously an idiot, they are far more different types
> of games on present day consoles then there were in the past. Pikmin
> on the SNES anyone? I didn't think so. Metroid Prime? Animal Crossing?
> Mario game set in a beatufil world with tons of things to do? Smash
> Brothers? Rogue Leader? Tony Hawks? Waverace? Super Monkey Ball?
> Next gen consoles usually bring at least one or two new 'genres' to
> the gaming world.
Actuuuually the original Metroid......
And why on earth do you keep going on about crying when a character dies dies in FF? come oooon, you didn't cry like a little girl did you?
> Limited? LIMITED!? I'm not going to bother with this discussion
> anymore as your obviously an idiot, they are far more different types
> of games on present day consoles then there were in the past. Pikmin
> on the SNES anyone? I didn't think so. Metroid Prime? Animal Crossing?
> Mario game set in a beatufil world with tons of things to do? Smash
> Brothers? Rogue Leader? Tony Hawks? Waverace? Super Monkey Ball?
> Next gen consoles usually bring at least one or two new 'genres' to
> the gaming world.
Actuuuually the original Metroid......
And why on earth do you keep going on about crying when a character dies dies in FF? come oooon, you didn't cry like a little girl did you?
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Keeping your PC up to date with the latest upgrades is a hell of a lot
> more expensive than buying a new console every 5 years.
If that was aimed at me, I agree. I haven't touched the inside of my PC for about 4 or 5 years (except for replacing my broken CD drive and adding a completely useless graphics card).
> Keeping your PC up to date with the latest upgrades is a hell of a lot
> more expensive than buying a new console every 5 years.
If that was aimed at me, I agree. I haven't touched the inside of my PC for about 4 or 5 years (except for replacing my broken CD drive and adding a completely useless graphics card).
xy2k wrote:
> games.
>
> I take your point. But what I meant was graphics doesn't add depth to
> the game itself, merely the surface,
ummm I don't think crying over a game character is just the surface do you? It shows true interaction with the person playing, its so in depth they feel as if they have lost someone they know. What your saying is, to be honest, a big crock 'o' sh*te.
(don't take that too personally, at least your not an idiot spamming newb :D)
> games.
>
> I take your point. But what I meant was graphics doesn't add depth to
> the game itself, merely the surface,
ummm I don't think crying over a game character is just the surface do you? It shows true interaction with the person playing, its so in depth they feel as if they have lost someone they know. What your saying is, to be honest, a big crock 'o' sh*te.
(don't take that too personally, at least your not an idiot spamming newb :D)
xy2k wrote:
> I think GC games are repetitive in style of the old Nintendo and I'm
> not really a console person, but might consider investing in one if
> something like Halo was on it.
>
> There is also limited games for the format, plus they're expensive. I
> play a bit of SNES games.
Limited? LIMITED!? I'm not going to bother with this discussion anymore as your obviously an idiot, they are far more different types of games on present day consoles then there were in the past. Pikmin on the SNES anyone? I didn't think so. Metroid Prime? Animal Crossing? Mario game set in a beatufil world with tons of things to do? Smash Brothers? Rogue Leader? Tony Hawks? Waverace? Super Monkey Ball?
Next gen consoles usually bring at least one or two new 'genres' to the gaming world.
> I think GC games are repetitive in style of the old Nintendo and I'm
> not really a console person, but might consider investing in one if
> something like Halo was on it.
>
> There is also limited games for the format, plus they're expensive. I
> play a bit of SNES games.
Limited? LIMITED!? I'm not going to bother with this discussion anymore as your obviously an idiot, they are far more different types of games on present day consoles then there were in the past. Pikmin on the SNES anyone? I didn't think so. Metroid Prime? Animal Crossing? Mario game set in a beatufil world with tons of things to do? Smash Brothers? Rogue Leader? Tony Hawks? Waverace? Super Monkey Ball?
Next gen consoles usually bring at least one or two new 'genres' to the gaming world.
Microgarlicbread wrote:
> I'm not critiscising the SNES, I have one, I love it and still play it
> today. But do you not think games would be lacking a little in
> originality if we had lived with 10 years of 2D platformers?
>
> I also have to disagree with a previous statement of yours, graphics
> do add depth to a game. I'm definalty a 'gameplay over graphics'
> person, but incredible games like Skies of Arcadia wouldn't have been
> as good on the SNES, a top down view of a little pixalted ship with
> 'all one colour green' islands. Instead it's a huge, expansive and
> immersive world, filled with magnificant ships sailing through the
> sky, over large cities and lush forest islands. Would some people have
> really cried in Final Fantasy games when a character died if they were
> about an inch big and lacking in detail? I don't think so, but some
> people do cry when a character dies in a beautiful renderd FMV scene
> with characters that display a full range of human emotions and look
> real. Graphics aren't the most important thing, but they do count.
>
>
> Shoot em ups wouldn't be as good either, look at Starwing and Lylat
> Wars on the SNES and N64, althought they are fantastic games, compare
> them with the likes of Rogue Leader, which is a true 3D world, your
> not forced to fly in a straight line and always forwards. You can have
> real dogfights instead of just shooting enemies they fly horizontally
> across the screne every now and then. Developers need more powerful
> machines to give us much more interesting games.
I take your point. But what I meant was graphics doesn't add depth to the game itself, merely the surface, which is what makes you think initially "WOW! I MUST have this game!" (then you find it lacks inspiration). Compared to the playability of a game, graphics only matters to (perhaps) a small extent. Since some of us prefer the former and others the latter, "Graphics vs. Gameplay" has been and still is a largely-debated topic.
I stick by "never judge a game by its pixels".
> I'm not critiscising the SNES, I have one, I love it and still play it
> today. But do you not think games would be lacking a little in
> originality if we had lived with 10 years of 2D platformers?
>
> I also have to disagree with a previous statement of yours, graphics
> do add depth to a game. I'm definalty a 'gameplay over graphics'
> person, but incredible games like Skies of Arcadia wouldn't have been
> as good on the SNES, a top down view of a little pixalted ship with
> 'all one colour green' islands. Instead it's a huge, expansive and
> immersive world, filled with magnificant ships sailing through the
> sky, over large cities and lush forest islands. Would some people have
> really cried in Final Fantasy games when a character died if they were
> about an inch big and lacking in detail? I don't think so, but some
> people do cry when a character dies in a beautiful renderd FMV scene
> with characters that display a full range of human emotions and look
> real. Graphics aren't the most important thing, but they do count.
>
>
> Shoot em ups wouldn't be as good either, look at Starwing and Lylat
> Wars on the SNES and N64, althought they are fantastic games, compare
> them with the likes of Rogue Leader, which is a true 3D world, your
> not forced to fly in a straight line and always forwards. You can have
> real dogfights instead of just shooting enemies they fly horizontally
> across the screne every now and then. Developers need more powerful
> machines to give us much more interesting games.
I take your point. But what I meant was graphics doesn't add depth to the game itself, merely the surface, which is what makes you think initially "WOW! I MUST have this game!" (then you find it lacks inspiration). Compared to the playability of a game, graphics only matters to (perhaps) a small extent. Since some of us prefer the former and others the latter, "Graphics vs. Gameplay" has been and still is a largely-debated topic.
I stick by "never judge a game by its pixels".
I'm not critiscising the SNES, I have one, I love it and still play it today. But do you not think games would be lacking a little in originality if we had lived with 10 years of 2D platformers?
I also have to disagree with a previous statement of yours, graphics do add depth to a game. I'm definalty a 'gameplay over graphics' person, but incredible games like Skies of Arcadia wouldn't have been as good on the SNES, a top down view of a little pixalted ship with 'all one colour green' islands. Instead it's a huge, expansive and immersive world, filled with magnificant ships sailing through the sky, over large cities and lush forest islands. Would some people have really cried in Final Fantasy games when a character died if they were about an inch big and lacking in detail? I don't think so, but some people do cry when a character dies in a beautiful renderd FMV scene with characters that display a full range of human emotions and look real. Graphics aren't the most important thing, but they do count.
Shoot em ups wouldn't be as good either, look at Starwing and Lylat Wars on the SNES and N64, althought they are fantastic games, compare them with the likes of Rogue Leader, which is a true 3D world, your not forced to fly in a straight line and always forwards. You can have real dogfights instead of just shooting enemies they fly horizontally across the screne every now and then. Developers need more powerful machines to give us much more interesting games.
I also have to disagree with a previous statement of yours, graphics do add depth to a game. I'm definalty a 'gameplay over graphics' person, but incredible games like Skies of Arcadia wouldn't have been as good on the SNES, a top down view of a little pixalted ship with 'all one colour green' islands. Instead it's a huge, expansive and immersive world, filled with magnificant ships sailing through the sky, over large cities and lush forest islands. Would some people have really cried in Final Fantasy games when a character died if they were about an inch big and lacking in detail? I don't think so, but some people do cry when a character dies in a beautiful renderd FMV scene with characters that display a full range of human emotions and look real. Graphics aren't the most important thing, but they do count.
Shoot em ups wouldn't be as good either, look at Starwing and Lylat Wars on the SNES and N64, althought they are fantastic games, compare them with the likes of Rogue Leader, which is a true 3D world, your not forced to fly in a straight line and always forwards. You can have real dogfights instead of just shooting enemies they fly horizontally across the screne every now and then. Developers need more powerful machines to give us much more interesting games.
Page: