The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Thought you guys would be intrested in this if you haven't already see it
Please not that none of this article has been confirmed yet, and it's all just rumour.
Activision didn't have enough money, but Bill 'Richie Rich' Gates's company was willing to knock down 350 million for them. This is about 500 million Euro/dollar.
Microsoft is said to have held a meeting recently with Rare in a hotel near Twycross, the developer's base. A deal was made, and Microsoft will make make a big announcement at their X02 event in Seville later this month, where the company will showcase new exclusive Xbox titles.
The rumour continues. Perfect Dar Zero will be developed exclusively for Xbox. That would also be the reason why we haven't heard from it anymore since last year's E3.
Hmmmmm is this true, you guess is as good as mine.
Please not that none of this article has been confirmed yet, and it's all just rumour.
Activision didn't have enough money, but Bill 'Richie Rich' Gates's company was willing to knock down 350 million for them. This is about 500 million Euro/dollar.
Microsoft is said to have held a meeting recently with Rare in a hotel near Twycross, the developer's base. A deal was made, and Microsoft will make make a big announcement at their X02 event in Seville later this month, where the company will showcase new exclusive Xbox titles.
The rumour continues. Perfect Dar Zero will be developed exclusively for Xbox. That would also be the reason why we haven't heard from it anymore since last year's E3.
Hmmmmm is this true, you guess is as good as mine.
Page:
Strafex, that was a good post, but I don't think you get my point.
I enjoyed Mickey Mouse: Castle of Illusion too - on the Master System.
Its all well Nintendo having that knack for making great games, but if they don't appeal to these people that see this kiddie image, they're not going to rush off to the company.
The games you mentioned such as Halo, GT3, GTA3, etc are all excellent games, but I don't think they've neccesarily peaked. I think there are still things that can be done.
I enjoyed Mickey Mouse: Castle of Illusion too - on the Master System.
Its all well Nintendo having that knack for making great games, but if they don't appeal to these people that see this kiddie image, they're not going to rush off to the company.
The games you mentioned such as Halo, GT3, GTA3, etc are all excellent games, but I don't think they've neccesarily peaked. I think there are still things that can be done.
No, actually.
And not that I care, but your recent posts have become more and more moronic. I guess being in Res' bloodline does make a difference after all.
And not that I care, but your recent posts have become more and more moronic. I guess being in Res' bloodline does make a difference after all.
Whitestripes wrote:
> Shows what you know, the Zelda story has never been repeated. More
> than half of the games don't even feature Zelda or Gannondorf.
Oh yeah sorry - they added "dorf" to the end of Gannon didn't they.
> Shows what you know, the Zelda story has never been repeated. More
> than half of the games don't even feature Zelda or Gannondorf.
Oh yeah sorry - they added "dorf" to the end of Gannon didn't they.
Savatt, firstly I'd like you to say that your point about Sega being more varied in their games than Nintendo was wrong.
I think Dringo already covered that though.
Another point you made about me lying about getting a Disney game if it was good - well I liked Castle of Illusion on the Master System...
Your main problem with Mario seemed to be going from level to level, doing the same thing over and over...
That's nothing less than what you'd do in a game like Halo.
In one you go jumping across things, in the other you go around shooting things. I understand that you might prefer one, but does that mean that you should totally dismiss the other?
Also, we know that Nintendo aren't the only devellopers with good gameplay, but they are one of the very few devellopers with an strong imagination. We enjoy our FPS, and realistic fighters etc. too, but they're two-a-penny - anyone can do them.
Nintendo, Sega and Rare are some of the few companies that bring genuinely new ideas into the industry.
Nintendo revolutionised 3D gaming with Mario 64 and Zelda, and games like Pikmin and Smash brothers show that they're far from running out of original ideas.
Sega started the whole 3D fighter thing, as well as churning out the likes of Crazy Taxi and Jet Set Radio on the Dreamcast.
Rare completely revolutionised the FPS with Goldeneye, and games like Blast Corps show that they too are stuffed to the gills with originality (although they do often clone Nintendo games too - like Banjo).
Other examples are DMA:
Lemmings, Unirally, and the first Grand theft Auto were all incredibly original. And the third grand theft auto redesigned the entire series.
You see, it's the original ideas that make games really stick out.
And that's what both Nintendo and Sega do best.
I personally think that Nintendo have the upper hand when it comes to games design, others would disagree.
Either way, they both hold the game industry future.
3D fighters have peaked with VF4, DOA3 and SC2.
The FPS has pretty much peaked with Halo.
Realistic Racers don't get much better than MSR and GT3.
Improvements on these games will be minimal and insignificant.
People will get bored.
That's when new idea's will TRULLY stick out over the mass FPS/realistic racer/realistic fighter clones.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Nintendo and Sega are the ONLY companies that can come up with new ideas, I'm just saying that they are leagues ahead of the rest.
Mario's got a new watergun for a new twist.
It's not going to revolutionise the platformer in anyway - it's not meant to.
Mario Sunshine is just going to add a new twist to a great formula, adding a hugely playable system to some of the best level design around.
And there's going to be very little remotely like it.
That's why MS need devellopers like Sega and Rare to keep it up to competition in the originality stakes.
Blinx and JSRF are examples of what Sega can do.
But while Sega are also working for rival systems, MS can't claim ALL of it's game design expertise and inspiration to itself.
Taking Rare for themselves could be the best thing MS ever do.
I think Dringo already covered that though.
Another point you made about me lying about getting a Disney game if it was good - well I liked Castle of Illusion on the Master System...
Your main problem with Mario seemed to be going from level to level, doing the same thing over and over...
That's nothing less than what you'd do in a game like Halo.
In one you go jumping across things, in the other you go around shooting things. I understand that you might prefer one, but does that mean that you should totally dismiss the other?
Also, we know that Nintendo aren't the only devellopers with good gameplay, but they are one of the very few devellopers with an strong imagination. We enjoy our FPS, and realistic fighters etc. too, but they're two-a-penny - anyone can do them.
Nintendo, Sega and Rare are some of the few companies that bring genuinely new ideas into the industry.
Nintendo revolutionised 3D gaming with Mario 64 and Zelda, and games like Pikmin and Smash brothers show that they're far from running out of original ideas.
Sega started the whole 3D fighter thing, as well as churning out the likes of Crazy Taxi and Jet Set Radio on the Dreamcast.
Rare completely revolutionised the FPS with Goldeneye, and games like Blast Corps show that they too are stuffed to the gills with originality (although they do often clone Nintendo games too - like Banjo).
Other examples are DMA:
Lemmings, Unirally, and the first Grand theft Auto were all incredibly original. And the third grand theft auto redesigned the entire series.
You see, it's the original ideas that make games really stick out.
And that's what both Nintendo and Sega do best.
I personally think that Nintendo have the upper hand when it comes to games design, others would disagree.
Either way, they both hold the game industry future.
3D fighters have peaked with VF4, DOA3 and SC2.
The FPS has pretty much peaked with Halo.
Realistic Racers don't get much better than MSR and GT3.
Improvements on these games will be minimal and insignificant.
People will get bored.
That's when new idea's will TRULLY stick out over the mass FPS/realistic racer/realistic fighter clones.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Nintendo and Sega are the ONLY companies that can come up with new ideas, I'm just saying that they are leagues ahead of the rest.
Mario's got a new watergun for a new twist.
It's not going to revolutionise the platformer in anyway - it's not meant to.
Mario Sunshine is just going to add a new twist to a great formula, adding a hugely playable system to some of the best level design around.
And there's going to be very little remotely like it.
That's why MS need devellopers like Sega and Rare to keep it up to competition in the originality stakes.
Blinx and JSRF are examples of what Sega can do.
But while Sega are also working for rival systems, MS can't claim ALL of it's game design expertise and inspiration to itself.
Taking Rare for themselves could be the best thing MS ever do.
Savatt78 wrote:
>
> Zelda is a prime example of an overused storyline. Really wonder how
> many times Nintendo will find different ways of telling the same
> story.
> And yes games are based on fun - what you have to remember is its not
> just a Ninty's right to say what games bring that fun.
>
Shows what you know, the Zelda story has never been repeated. More than half of the games don't even feature Zelda or Gannondorf.
>
> Zelda is a prime example of an overused storyline. Really wonder how
> many times Nintendo will find different ways of telling the same
> story.
> And yes games are based on fun - what you have to remember is its not
> just a Ninty's right to say what games bring that fun.
>
Shows what you know, the Zelda story has never been repeated. More than half of the games don't even feature Zelda or Gannondorf.
Intoxicated Hippy wrote:
> You said Banjo Tooie was childish, I was proving that it wasn't. As I
> said have you ever come across an episode of Sesame Street where that
> goes on?
>
> Didn't think so, so don't compare Banjo games to kids cartoons.
I used the likes of Sesame Street as an example. Ninty's will say they've grown out of that kind of stuff, then scream and b!tch at another poster for saying they've grown out of a number of Nintendo's characters.
I played Banjo and it was ok, but not a game that kept me drawn to it.
> You said Banjo Tooie was childish, I was proving that it wasn't. As I
> said have you ever come across an episode of Sesame Street where that
> goes on?
>
> Didn't think so, so don't compare Banjo games to kids cartoons.
I used the likes of Sesame Street as an example. Ninty's will say they've grown out of that kind of stuff, then scream and b!tch at another poster for saying they've grown out of a number of Nintendo's characters.
I played Banjo and it was ok, but not a game that kept me drawn to it.
Dringo wrote:
> No cause Disney make children cartoons, Nintendo make adult games with
> cute graphics.
They also make animated features and films that are aimed at entertaining the whole family.
> Conker felt like Banjo, even when you laughed Banjo made you laugh.
I didn't really laugh much through Banjo.
> Yet if they played Mario they'd discover it isn't a kids game, and
> therefore simply looking at the cute graphics relays a false
> impression.
Nintendo's idea of advertising doesn't do a great job of attracting older audiences either. I've played Mario games over the years and they aren't as appealing for me now as they were. Its the same for plenty of others.
> Shame that it is these games that will destroy the true meaning of
> games... to have fun not to live out movies.
And who has the right to dictate what games equal this fun ? And if these games are living out movies, aren't Nintendo games living out cartoons ?
> Yet Nintendo games are always different, so how can you comment on
> Nintendo games as a whole? Sure Pikmin has a similar graphic style yet
> it is like no other Nintendo game.
Its not so much just a graphics style, more a style of a Nintendo world. Nintendo games are different to eachother of course, but they share that familier Nintendo world style.
> What does that change exactly?
The fact that a Ninty could ever say I'm not a gamer just because I don't enjoy Nintendo games as much as other games. A lot of Ninty's seem to think playing Nintendo games makes you much more of a gamer.
> But the fact that Sony are seen as the "Townie" company, the
> sheep company my mate got it so I will too. You've just proved
> yourself in that boat, you say Nintendo games aren't to your appeal
> but what of the games that aren't from Nintendo? Mafia, True Crime,
> Resident Evil etc... all GTA3 style games, the fact is Nintendo have
> just as many Sony style games as Sony but Nintendo advertise their
> cute games and so therefore they're a kids company? Pish surly a
> hardcore gamer will take note of the more adult orientated side to
> Nintendo.
"Townie" - that is such a stupid word. No doubt invented by outcast kids who are trying to look "cool".
Would you care to list these games you have just as much of as Sony ? I'm guessing these would be the games that are considered to attract older players.
I don't play the other games "cause my mates are". I don't give a crap what everyone else is playing, I play them because I enjoy them.
I know Nintendo make quality games, but its easy to see how they got their reputation and they don't do a very good job of changing it if thats what they're really aiming to do.
> Considering Nintendo are the only Company willing to stay with the
> gaming market and not the Internet fueld mini PC orgy that the PS2 and
> X-box are following.
Actually the X-Box is just as much a games console as the GC. Its not even going to have web-browsing. X-Box Live is aimed purely at online gaming, not web surfing.
> Except all games are based on the gameplay and how fun they are and
> each games are different.
Zelda is a prime example of an overused storyline. Really wonder how many times Nintendo will find different ways of telling the same story.
And yes games are based on fun - what you have to remember is its not just a Ninty's right to say what games bring that fun.
> I cannot argue Conker rules to bits but that was because of the varied
> Gameplay not because of the humour.
I think both those things contributed to making Conker's an excellent game.
> F Zero and Metroid? F zero, Wave Race, 1080, Eternal Darkness,
> Excitebike, Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Sin and Punishment, Pikmin. All
> Different games that feel different. SEGA's monkey ball is an adult
> title full stop.
How does Pokemon particularly out of that list not come off as for kids ? It was a massive kids craze not long ago. I meant to include Wave Race and I forgot 1080, so I'll concede those. But overall, people look at Nintendo's games and for them, the amount of games they'd consider as kiddie far outweigh the number of titles they'd consider as aimed at an older audience.
> Except Nintendo's biggest market is children, you cannot expect
> Nintendo to risk its entire childrens market by advertising in the
> mainstream adult games. Adult games are advertised on Playboy TV and
> in Playboy magazines cause children aren't likely to read it.
I'm not saying they should abandon the childrens market. What I'm saying is its understandable that others don't find Nintendo's games appealing and its laughable how some Ninty's stamp their feet and scream how they are gamers while anyone who doesn't enjoy Nintendo games as much as the games they like, aren't proper gamers.
> No cause Disney make children cartoons, Nintendo make adult games with
> cute graphics.
They also make animated features and films that are aimed at entertaining the whole family.
> Conker felt like Banjo, even when you laughed Banjo made you laugh.
I didn't really laugh much through Banjo.
> Yet if they played Mario they'd discover it isn't a kids game, and
> therefore simply looking at the cute graphics relays a false
> impression.
Nintendo's idea of advertising doesn't do a great job of attracting older audiences either. I've played Mario games over the years and they aren't as appealing for me now as they were. Its the same for plenty of others.
> Shame that it is these games that will destroy the true meaning of
> games... to have fun not to live out movies.
And who has the right to dictate what games equal this fun ? And if these games are living out movies, aren't Nintendo games living out cartoons ?
> Yet Nintendo games are always different, so how can you comment on
> Nintendo games as a whole? Sure Pikmin has a similar graphic style yet
> it is like no other Nintendo game.
Its not so much just a graphics style, more a style of a Nintendo world. Nintendo games are different to eachother of course, but they share that familier Nintendo world style.
> What does that change exactly?
The fact that a Ninty could ever say I'm not a gamer just because I don't enjoy Nintendo games as much as other games. A lot of Ninty's seem to think playing Nintendo games makes you much more of a gamer.
> But the fact that Sony are seen as the "Townie" company, the
> sheep company my mate got it so I will too. You've just proved
> yourself in that boat, you say Nintendo games aren't to your appeal
> but what of the games that aren't from Nintendo? Mafia, True Crime,
> Resident Evil etc... all GTA3 style games, the fact is Nintendo have
> just as many Sony style games as Sony but Nintendo advertise their
> cute games and so therefore they're a kids company? Pish surly a
> hardcore gamer will take note of the more adult orientated side to
> Nintendo.
"Townie" - that is such a stupid word. No doubt invented by outcast kids who are trying to look "cool".
Would you care to list these games you have just as much of as Sony ? I'm guessing these would be the games that are considered to attract older players.
I don't play the other games "cause my mates are". I don't give a crap what everyone else is playing, I play them because I enjoy them.
I know Nintendo make quality games, but its easy to see how they got their reputation and they don't do a very good job of changing it if thats what they're really aiming to do.
> Considering Nintendo are the only Company willing to stay with the
> gaming market and not the Internet fueld mini PC orgy that the PS2 and
> X-box are following.
Actually the X-Box is just as much a games console as the GC. Its not even going to have web-browsing. X-Box Live is aimed purely at online gaming, not web surfing.
> Except all games are based on the gameplay and how fun they are and
> each games are different.
Zelda is a prime example of an overused storyline. Really wonder how many times Nintendo will find different ways of telling the same story.
And yes games are based on fun - what you have to remember is its not just a Ninty's right to say what games bring that fun.
> I cannot argue Conker rules to bits but that was because of the varied
> Gameplay not because of the humour.
I think both those things contributed to making Conker's an excellent game.
> F Zero and Metroid? F zero, Wave Race, 1080, Eternal Darkness,
> Excitebike, Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Sin and Punishment, Pikmin. All
> Different games that feel different. SEGA's monkey ball is an adult
> title full stop.
How does Pokemon particularly out of that list not come off as for kids ? It was a massive kids craze not long ago. I meant to include Wave Race and I forgot 1080, so I'll concede those. But overall, people look at Nintendo's games and for them, the amount of games they'd consider as kiddie far outweigh the number of titles they'd consider as aimed at an older audience.
> Except Nintendo's biggest market is children, you cannot expect
> Nintendo to risk its entire childrens market by advertising in the
> mainstream adult games. Adult games are advertised on Playboy TV and
> in Playboy magazines cause children aren't likely to read it.
I'm not saying they should abandon the childrens market. What I'm saying is its understandable that others don't find Nintendo's games appealing and its laughable how some Ninty's stamp their feet and scream how they are gamers while anyone who doesn't enjoy Nintendo games as much as the games they like, aren't proper gamers.
Savatt78 wrote:
> Intoxicated Hippy wrote:
> When was the last time you saw an episode of Sesame Street with a
> camp
> frog that the storyline keeps hinting at is gay, he's lost his
> 'partner', he wears a sailor outfit and he waves his hands around
> more
> than someone who's trying to pull at the Blue Oyster Bar.
>
> And that has what relevence to the point I was making ?
You said Banjo Tooie was childish, I was proving that it wasn't. As I said have you ever come across an episode of Sesame Street where that goes on?
Didn't think so, so don't compare Banjo games to kids cartoons.
> Intoxicated Hippy wrote:
> When was the last time you saw an episode of Sesame Street with a
> camp
> frog that the storyline keeps hinting at is gay, he's lost his
> 'partner', he wears a sailor outfit and he waves his hands around
> more
> than someone who's trying to pull at the Blue Oyster Bar.
>
> And that has what relevence to the point I was making ?
You said Banjo Tooie was childish, I was proving that it wasn't. As I said have you ever come across an episode of Sesame Street where that goes on?
Didn't think so, so don't compare Banjo games to kids cartoons.
Savatt78 wrote:
>
> I'm not saying Nintendo lack in this area, its their approach. They
> have their kiddie reputation for a reason and thats because although
> their games can be played by all ages, they don't appeal to
> everyone.
> In a way I guess their like the Disney of videogames.
No cause Disney make children cartoons, Nintendo make adult games with cute graphics.
> I know, but going on past reputations, Disney games are often aimed
> PURELY at kids - not just down to cutesy graphics but
> over-simplistic
> gameplay.
> If a great Disney game did come along, we'd hear about it.
>
> Its not just about cutesy graphics, its the atmosphere of the games.
> A lot of people don't want to play games that feel "kiddie".
> Conker's had cutesy graphics but it was the atmosphere of it that had
> people enjoying it. Gameplay is important, but overall its important
> to enjoy the feel of the game too.
Conker felt like Banjo, even when you laughed Banjo made you laugh.
> I'm not saying they should dismiss everything, but if a game doesn't
> appeal then they won't play it. There are loads of highly playable
> games around and if they don't want to control a fluffy bear then why
> should they feel they have to ?
> If one of your friends said "lets watch muppet babies" you'd
> probably worry about him. Just cause something is playable doesn't
> mean it has to appeal to everyone.
Yet if they played Mario they'd discover it isn't a kids game, and therefore simply looking at the cute graphics relays a false impression.
> So why don't we all watch saturday morning cartoons ? People have
> tastes in games and many don't want to play Nintendo games because a
> lot of the time they feel like the story isn't aimed at them.
> For me, games have developed to a point where its like films and TV.
> Your into action or your not, your into romance or your not -
> sometimes you might try something different.
> People see Nintendo games and think of cartoons, etc and of course a
> lot of people think cartoons, cutsey graphics, storybook style
> storyline = kiddie.
> Then they'll look at another game and think, group of SAS soldiers,
> stuck over enemy lines, realistic graphics = thats for me.
Shame that it is these games that will destroy the true meaning of games... to have fun not to live out movies.
> As I said, theres loads of playable games around beyond Nintendo, the
> fact you say Nintendo is the best for playability is down to your
> opinion - at the same time, others are entitled to theirs.
> I agree Nintendo are very good for making games, but a lot of their
> games don't appeal to me much now as my tastes have changed. I don't
> strictly kick away Nintendo games, but I wouldn't have many listed
> nowadays as must haves because I enjoy other types of games more.
Yet Nintendo games are always different, so how can you comment on Nintendo games as a whole? Sure Pikmin has a similar graphic style yet it is like no other Nintendo game.
> I've been known to get an RPG at like 9am and not stop playing till
> 6am the following morning except maybe a 20 minute break to eat my
> dinner.
> I even got up at like 5am and did an hour bike ride to a shop to pick
> up MGS2 when it opened early for the game. Combine this too with
> midnight openings for console releases and I don't think you get much
> more of a hardcore gamer.
What does that change exactly?
> Of course many will say thats sad and in all honesty, I couldn't argue
> that, because it is. But at the same time I enjoy playing games and I
> always have. I'd much rather be sat in front of a console all night
> playing games online than standing in a club, drinking till I puke.
> One thing that has changed over time though is my taste in games,
> wether its my age or other interests that have influenced my tastes.
> Either way, a lot of Nintendo games don't appeal to me so much, but
> knowone can tell me I'm not a gamer or know nothing about games.
> I think a lot of Ninties think that liking Nintendo gives them some
> sort of gaming guru status and puts their tastes above eveyone
> elses.
But the fact that Sony are seen as the "Townie" company, the sheep company my mate got it so I will too. You've just proved yourself in that boat, you say Nintendo games aren't to your appeal but what of the games that aren't from Nintendo? Mafia, True Crime, Resident Evil etc... all GTA3 style games, the fact is Nintendo have just as many Sony style games as Sony but Nintendo advertise their cute games and so therefore they're a kids company? Pish surly a hardcore gamer will take note of the more adult orientated side to Nintendo.
>>
> Nintendo's past reputation isn't something to be sneered at, but at
> the same time, it doesn't make all of Nintendo's competitors evil pigs
> who are out to ruin gaming while Nintendo are apparently some kind of
> saint.
Considering Nintendo are the only Company willing to stay with the gaming market and not the Internet fueld mini PC orgy that the PS2 and X-box are following.
> Mario and Zelda are also great characters and as everyone knows, they
> generated a lot of money for Nintendo. But I think like their
> favourite cartoons, a lot of people have left them behind or just
> gotten bored of the overfamilier storylines of them.
Except all games are based on the gameplay and how fun they are and each games are different.
> The difference is, before Sony came along, gaming was seen as more for
> kids and there were no real "adult orientated" plots and
> characters around. I mean, look at the stink Mortal Kombat kicked up
> when it came out - Nintendo even had their version severely
> censored.
With the games around now, people have the choice to leave Nintendo
> characters behind and look into games they feel they'll enjoy more.
> Awhile back, leaving cutesy cartoon style games just wasn't an option,
> hence why the games industry was seen as "just for kids".
> > Thats a matter of opinion. I've played Mario games, I've also played
> Banjo and Donkey Kong. Conker's, for me, was no worse than any of
> these to play. The one thing it did have an advantage for me
> personally was that its humour drew me in and made me want to carry on
> playing a lot more than the others did.
> With Mario, although the worlds would look nice, I was like a zombie
> going through it thinking "must save princes.......again".
> With Conker's, it was more a case of thinking "this games
> hilarious ! I wanna see the next bit !"
I cannot argue Conker rules to bits but that was because of the varied Gameplay not because of the humour.
>> Sega also release quirky games.
> Most of the people who bought Monkey Ball might've ignored it if
> they
> didn't like Sega.
> JSR also looks weird - again, people trusted Sega and, from what
> I've
> heard, rightly so.
>
> If I slated JSR as a stupid looking 2D game, I think I'd get a whole
> lot of flak from Sega fans who would tell me about how playable it
> is.
>
> It's similar with Nintendo fans.
>
> Thing is with Sega, they're games don't stick strictly to the same
> style. Monkeyball has a different style to the looks and feel of say
> the Crazy Taxi series or the Sports games Sega do.
> All Sega games have that special Sega feel to them, but while someone
> might like JSRF, they might not like Monkeyball too much as again,
> they might feel that Monkeyball isn't really aimed at them much. Not
> that I feel that way, I tried out Monkeyball and just didn't like it
> much for other reasons. But for other people, they may feel this
> way.
> Basically Sega seem to have various styles with their games whereas
> Nintendo tend to stick more to one style (although games such as
> F-Zero and Metroid are an exception). Its hard to explain, you might
> get what I'm saying or you won't.
F Zero and Metroid? F zero, Wave Race, 1080, Eternal Darkness, Excitebike, Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Sin and Punishment, Pikmin. All Different games that feel different. SEGA's monkey ball is an adult title full stop.
> This isn't because Nintendo is aimed at kids.
> Nintendo games are aimed at gamers for all ages, shapes and sizes.
>
> The fact that they can't advertise properly is irrelevant!
>
> Yes they make their games suitable for all ages. But theres a thin
> line between family and kiddie. Thing is, I don't think Nintendo have
> too much trouble advertising - they've had years of experience.
> Over here, you can see they were trying to attract the crowd that
> usually turn to Sony by trying to give off this cool image. Only
> problem is, how do you attach that cool image to Luigi's Mansion ?
> In the U.S, the advertising is blatently kiddie and I think thats what
> Ninties hate.
> Afterall, they spend all this time defending Nintendo against these
> kiddie comments, only for the company to underline what the critics
> are saying.
Except Nintendo's biggest market is children, you cannot expect Nintendo to risk its entire childrens market by advertising in the mainstream adult games. Adult games are advertised on Playboy TV and in Playboy magazines cause children aren't likely to read it.
>
> I'm not saying Nintendo lack in this area, its their approach. They
> have their kiddie reputation for a reason and thats because although
> their games can be played by all ages, they don't appeal to
> everyone.
> In a way I guess their like the Disney of videogames.
No cause Disney make children cartoons, Nintendo make adult games with cute graphics.
> I know, but going on past reputations, Disney games are often aimed
> PURELY at kids - not just down to cutesy graphics but
> over-simplistic
> gameplay.
> If a great Disney game did come along, we'd hear about it.
>
> Its not just about cutesy graphics, its the atmosphere of the games.
> A lot of people don't want to play games that feel "kiddie".
> Conker's had cutesy graphics but it was the atmosphere of it that had
> people enjoying it. Gameplay is important, but overall its important
> to enjoy the feel of the game too.
Conker felt like Banjo, even when you laughed Banjo made you laugh.
> I'm not saying they should dismiss everything, but if a game doesn't
> appeal then they won't play it. There are loads of highly playable
> games around and if they don't want to control a fluffy bear then why
> should they feel they have to ?
> If one of your friends said "lets watch muppet babies" you'd
> probably worry about him. Just cause something is playable doesn't
> mean it has to appeal to everyone.
Yet if they played Mario they'd discover it isn't a kids game, and therefore simply looking at the cute graphics relays a false impression.
> So why don't we all watch saturday morning cartoons ? People have
> tastes in games and many don't want to play Nintendo games because a
> lot of the time they feel like the story isn't aimed at them.
> For me, games have developed to a point where its like films and TV.
> Your into action or your not, your into romance or your not -
> sometimes you might try something different.
> People see Nintendo games and think of cartoons, etc and of course a
> lot of people think cartoons, cutsey graphics, storybook style
> storyline = kiddie.
> Then they'll look at another game and think, group of SAS soldiers,
> stuck over enemy lines, realistic graphics = thats for me.
Shame that it is these games that will destroy the true meaning of games... to have fun not to live out movies.
> As I said, theres loads of playable games around beyond Nintendo, the
> fact you say Nintendo is the best for playability is down to your
> opinion - at the same time, others are entitled to theirs.
> I agree Nintendo are very good for making games, but a lot of their
> games don't appeal to me much now as my tastes have changed. I don't
> strictly kick away Nintendo games, but I wouldn't have many listed
> nowadays as must haves because I enjoy other types of games more.
Yet Nintendo games are always different, so how can you comment on Nintendo games as a whole? Sure Pikmin has a similar graphic style yet it is like no other Nintendo game.
> I've been known to get an RPG at like 9am and not stop playing till
> 6am the following morning except maybe a 20 minute break to eat my
> dinner.
> I even got up at like 5am and did an hour bike ride to a shop to pick
> up MGS2 when it opened early for the game. Combine this too with
> midnight openings for console releases and I don't think you get much
> more of a hardcore gamer.
What does that change exactly?
> Of course many will say thats sad and in all honesty, I couldn't argue
> that, because it is. But at the same time I enjoy playing games and I
> always have. I'd much rather be sat in front of a console all night
> playing games online than standing in a club, drinking till I puke.
> One thing that has changed over time though is my taste in games,
> wether its my age or other interests that have influenced my tastes.
> Either way, a lot of Nintendo games don't appeal to me so much, but
> knowone can tell me I'm not a gamer or know nothing about games.
> I think a lot of Ninties think that liking Nintendo gives them some
> sort of gaming guru status and puts their tastes above eveyone
> elses.
But the fact that Sony are seen as the "Townie" company, the sheep company my mate got it so I will too. You've just proved yourself in that boat, you say Nintendo games aren't to your appeal but what of the games that aren't from Nintendo? Mafia, True Crime, Resident Evil etc... all GTA3 style games, the fact is Nintendo have just as many Sony style games as Sony but Nintendo advertise their cute games and so therefore they're a kids company? Pish surly a hardcore gamer will take note of the more adult orientated side to Nintendo.
>>
> Nintendo's past reputation isn't something to be sneered at, but at
> the same time, it doesn't make all of Nintendo's competitors evil pigs
> who are out to ruin gaming while Nintendo are apparently some kind of
> saint.
Considering Nintendo are the only Company willing to stay with the gaming market and not the Internet fueld mini PC orgy that the PS2 and X-box are following.
> Mario and Zelda are also great characters and as everyone knows, they
> generated a lot of money for Nintendo. But I think like their
> favourite cartoons, a lot of people have left them behind or just
> gotten bored of the overfamilier storylines of them.
Except all games are based on the gameplay and how fun they are and each games are different.
> The difference is, before Sony came along, gaming was seen as more for
> kids and there were no real "adult orientated" plots and
> characters around. I mean, look at the stink Mortal Kombat kicked up
> when it came out - Nintendo even had their version severely
> censored.
With the games around now, people have the choice to leave Nintendo
> characters behind and look into games they feel they'll enjoy more.
> Awhile back, leaving cutesy cartoon style games just wasn't an option,
> hence why the games industry was seen as "just for kids".
> > Thats a matter of opinion. I've played Mario games, I've also played
> Banjo and Donkey Kong. Conker's, for me, was no worse than any of
> these to play. The one thing it did have an advantage for me
> personally was that its humour drew me in and made me want to carry on
> playing a lot more than the others did.
> With Mario, although the worlds would look nice, I was like a zombie
> going through it thinking "must save princes.......again".
> With Conker's, it was more a case of thinking "this games
> hilarious ! I wanna see the next bit !"
I cannot argue Conker rules to bits but that was because of the varied Gameplay not because of the humour.
>> Sega also release quirky games.
> Most of the people who bought Monkey Ball might've ignored it if
> they
> didn't like Sega.
> JSR also looks weird - again, people trusted Sega and, from what
> I've
> heard, rightly so.
>
> If I slated JSR as a stupid looking 2D game, I think I'd get a whole
> lot of flak from Sega fans who would tell me about how playable it
> is.
>
> It's similar with Nintendo fans.
>
> Thing is with Sega, they're games don't stick strictly to the same
> style. Monkeyball has a different style to the looks and feel of say
> the Crazy Taxi series or the Sports games Sega do.
> All Sega games have that special Sega feel to them, but while someone
> might like JSRF, they might not like Monkeyball too much as again,
> they might feel that Monkeyball isn't really aimed at them much. Not
> that I feel that way, I tried out Monkeyball and just didn't like it
> much for other reasons. But for other people, they may feel this
> way.
> Basically Sega seem to have various styles with their games whereas
> Nintendo tend to stick more to one style (although games such as
> F-Zero and Metroid are an exception). Its hard to explain, you might
> get what I'm saying or you won't.
F Zero and Metroid? F zero, Wave Race, 1080, Eternal Darkness, Excitebike, Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Sin and Punishment, Pikmin. All Different games that feel different. SEGA's monkey ball is an adult title full stop.
> This isn't because Nintendo is aimed at kids.
> Nintendo games are aimed at gamers for all ages, shapes and sizes.
>
> The fact that they can't advertise properly is irrelevant!
>
> Yes they make their games suitable for all ages. But theres a thin
> line between family and kiddie. Thing is, I don't think Nintendo have
> too much trouble advertising - they've had years of experience.
> Over here, you can see they were trying to attract the crowd that
> usually turn to Sony by trying to give off this cool image. Only
> problem is, how do you attach that cool image to Luigi's Mansion ?
> In the U.S, the advertising is blatently kiddie and I think thats what
> Ninties hate.
> Afterall, they spend all this time defending Nintendo against these
> kiddie comments, only for the company to underline what the critics
> are saying.
Except Nintendo's biggest market is children, you cannot expect Nintendo to risk its entire childrens market by advertising in the mainstream adult games. Adult games are advertised on Playboy TV and in Playboy magazines cause children aren't likely to read it.
Dringo wrote:
> and I know very few who ever
> actually said we have Rare so up your spout.
You obviously haven't been in this forum too much in the past then. They might not have said so up your spout, but there were certainly comments along those lines.
> and I know very few who ever
> actually said we have Rare so up your spout.
You obviously haven't been in this forum too much in the past then. They might not have said so up your spout, but there were certainly comments along those lines.
Page: