The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
As you all know, Nintendo have been encumbered with a kiddie, cartoony stigma for a while now. I think this tpoic deserves a thread of it's own (because I want to argue about it).
I don't think the anti-nintendo (or is it pro-sony?) bias this causes is at all fair. With greater grpahical potential, games can be (and have been) made more realistic. Being a big fan of retro gaming, I look back to days before the PSX/N64 generation to see what the games were like then. Sure enough, they were mostly cartoony. I didn't hear anyone complaining back then! The style of games Nintendo have been producing has remained the same: highly playable cartoonish style games, which by and large have been benchmarks in gaming history. Nintendo haven't changed a winning formula, yet they're no longer regarded with the same respect as before. Is that fair?
This is where we look at the effect of the Playstation. With this console, Sony promoted the idea of a more casual gamer. Sony brought gaming to the masses and the industry grew enourmously. Sony got the 'cool' image - leaving Nintendo with a less than 'cool' image. Sony brought Nintendo down with marketing and public image, not great games. That's why I don't like Sony.
Graphical capabilities are constantly improving. If games can be made more realistic, should they? Sony had a lot of realistic games produced for their console, and Nintendo had primarily slighly blurred cartoony games as the best of the bunch.
Well, to all those of you that have ever moaned about shallow gameplay hidden by nice graphics I say:
"You're the ones who bought the d*mn Playstations!"
I feel really strongly about this unfair image Nintendo have got, and I'll finish with a quote I made once before.
Sony are for people who play games.
Nintendo are for people who love games.
I don't think the anti-nintendo (or is it pro-sony?) bias this causes is at all fair. With greater grpahical potential, games can be (and have been) made more realistic. Being a big fan of retro gaming, I look back to days before the PSX/N64 generation to see what the games were like then. Sure enough, they were mostly cartoony. I didn't hear anyone complaining back then! The style of games Nintendo have been producing has remained the same: highly playable cartoonish style games, which by and large have been benchmarks in gaming history. Nintendo haven't changed a winning formula, yet they're no longer regarded with the same respect as before. Is that fair?
This is where we look at the effect of the Playstation. With this console, Sony promoted the idea of a more casual gamer. Sony brought gaming to the masses and the industry grew enourmously. Sony got the 'cool' image - leaving Nintendo with a less than 'cool' image. Sony brought Nintendo down with marketing and public image, not great games. That's why I don't like Sony.
Graphical capabilities are constantly improving. If games can be made more realistic, should they? Sony had a lot of realistic games produced for their console, and Nintendo had primarily slighly blurred cartoony games as the best of the bunch.
Well, to all those of you that have ever moaned about shallow gameplay hidden by nice graphics I say:
"You're the ones who bought the d*mn Playstations!"
I feel really strongly about this unfair image Nintendo have got, and I'll finish with a quote I made once before.
Sony are for people who play games.
Nintendo are for people who love games.
Page:
As you all know, Nintendo have been encumbered with a kiddie, cartoony stigma for a while now. I think this tpoic deserves a thread of it's own (because I want to argue about it).
I don't think the anti-nintendo (or is it pro-sony?) bias this causes is at all fair. With greater grpahical potential, games can be (and have been) made more realistic. Being a big fan of retro gaming, I look back to days before the PSX/N64 generation to see what the games were like then. Sure enough, they were mostly cartoony. I didn't hear anyone complaining back then! The style of games Nintendo have been producing has remained the same: highly playable cartoonish style games, which by and large have been benchmarks in gaming history. Nintendo haven't changed a winning formula, yet they're no longer regarded with the same respect as before. Is that fair?
This is where we look at the effect of the Playstation. With this console, Sony promoted the idea of a more casual gamer. Sony brought gaming to the masses and the industry grew enourmously. Sony got the 'cool' image - leaving Nintendo with a less than 'cool' image. Sony brought Nintendo down with marketing and public image, not great games. That's why I don't like Sony.
Graphical capabilities are constantly improving. If games can be made more realistic, should they? Sony had a lot of realistic games produced for their console, and Nintendo had primarily slighly blurred cartoony games as the best of the bunch.
Well, to all those of you that have ever moaned about shallow gameplay hidden by nice graphics I say:
"You're the ones who bought the d*mn Playstations!"
I feel really strongly about this unfair image Nintendo have got, and I'll finish with a quote I made once before.
Sony are for people who play games.
Nintendo are for people who love games.
I don't think the anti-nintendo (or is it pro-sony?) bias this causes is at all fair. With greater grpahical potential, games can be (and have been) made more realistic. Being a big fan of retro gaming, I look back to days before the PSX/N64 generation to see what the games were like then. Sure enough, they were mostly cartoony. I didn't hear anyone complaining back then! The style of games Nintendo have been producing has remained the same: highly playable cartoonish style games, which by and large have been benchmarks in gaming history. Nintendo haven't changed a winning formula, yet they're no longer regarded with the same respect as before. Is that fair?
This is where we look at the effect of the Playstation. With this console, Sony promoted the idea of a more casual gamer. Sony brought gaming to the masses and the industry grew enourmously. Sony got the 'cool' image - leaving Nintendo with a less than 'cool' image. Sony brought Nintendo down with marketing and public image, not great games. That's why I don't like Sony.
Graphical capabilities are constantly improving. If games can be made more realistic, should they? Sony had a lot of realistic games produced for their console, and Nintendo had primarily slighly blurred cartoony games as the best of the bunch.
Well, to all those of you that have ever moaned about shallow gameplay hidden by nice graphics I say:
"You're the ones who bought the d*mn Playstations!"
I feel really strongly about this unfair image Nintendo have got, and I'll finish with a quote I made once before.
Sony are for people who play games.
Nintendo are for people who love games.
Ah!! But.....
Nintendo have the 'kiddie' factor about them, yes, I agree, and as a Sony player this is the only prejudice I have against them. If you like cartoony graphics, well and good, but I prefer the realism that a large range of Sony games can provide. The range on Nintendo at present just isn't large enough for me to warrant getting an N64.
Which is why, when I went to next-gen from my PSX, I opted for the DC (I already have a DVD player and don't need the one added to the PS2, but if they'd brought out a version of the PS2 WITHOUT the DVD then I'd have probably gone for that instead of the DC).
I went for the DC because they have a huge catalogue of games, most of which are the genres I like, whereas Nintendo couldn't offer that. And the N64 will be superceeded by the GC in the next year or so anyway, whereas (ignoring press for a moment) the DC's catalogue of games is going to continue to be expanded.
If Nintendo pulled their finger out and started to get some more realistic games (i.e. lose Mario, if I see anything with Mario on it I avoid it like the plague), then I might consider the GC over the X-Box, but seeing as they have yet to do anything at all to dissuade me, the X-Box it will be in 2003.
Nintendo have the 'kiddie' factor about them, yes, I agree, and as a Sony player this is the only prejudice I have against them. If you like cartoony graphics, well and good, but I prefer the realism that a large range of Sony games can provide. The range on Nintendo at present just isn't large enough for me to warrant getting an N64.
Which is why, when I went to next-gen from my PSX, I opted for the DC (I already have a DVD player and don't need the one added to the PS2, but if they'd brought out a version of the PS2 WITHOUT the DVD then I'd have probably gone for that instead of the DC).
I went for the DC because they have a huge catalogue of games, most of which are the genres I like, whereas Nintendo couldn't offer that. And the N64 will be superceeded by the GC in the next year or so anyway, whereas (ignoring press for a moment) the DC's catalogue of games is going to continue to be expanded.
If Nintendo pulled their finger out and started to get some more realistic games (i.e. lose Mario, if I see anything with Mario on it I avoid it like the plague), then I might consider the GC over the X-Box, but seeing as they have yet to do anything at all to dissuade me, the X-Box it will be in 2003.
Hear hear!!!!
I agree almost completely! Nintendo do make quality games, but are blasted for their cartoony image, while Sony make nice looking games that get boring quickly (with the exception of a few) and thrive on it.
You notice that the only title of interest on PS2 at the moment is a sequel to one of the most succesful game on the Playstation: Tekken 3.
Why? It was one of the few games you could play for more than a couple of days without it being relegated to a dusty old box.
Nintendo games are more playable, and more satisfying. I have said it before, but I'll say it again "Nintendo create games for the most important reason, and in fact the reason that games exist at all: Playability. Most other consoles use their games as a showcase for the consoles graphics drivers"
I vote Nintendo all the way. Reliable, consistent, quality.
-IB
I agree almost completely! Nintendo do make quality games, but are blasted for their cartoony image, while Sony make nice looking games that get boring quickly (with the exception of a few) and thrive on it.
You notice that the only title of interest on PS2 at the moment is a sequel to one of the most succesful game on the Playstation: Tekken 3.
Why? It was one of the few games you could play for more than a couple of days without it being relegated to a dusty old box.
Nintendo games are more playable, and more satisfying. I have said it before, but I'll say it again "Nintendo create games for the most important reason, and in fact the reason that games exist at all: Playability. Most other consoles use their games as a showcase for the consoles graphics drivers"
I vote Nintendo all the way. Reliable, consistent, quality.
-IB
> Nintendo haven't changed a winning formula, yet they're no
> longer regarded with the same respect as before. Is that
> fair?
Familiarity breeds contempt. The lack of change is probably their biggest problem - gamers wanted something new, which Sony were offering - or so it seems, anyway.
> This is where we look at the effect of the Playstation.
> With this console, Sony promoted the idea of a more casual gamer.
I don't think it's fair to label all Sony owners 'casual' gamers. I love games as much as anyone, and have been playing them for 22 years now. I owned a PlayStation, and now a PS2. I don't see that either machine makes me any less of a gamer than anyone else.
> Sony brought Nintendo down with marketing and public image,
> not great games. That's why I don't like Sony.
All Sony have done is give their machine an image. If that image is more successful than any competitor, it is up to the competitor to adapt and compete.
> Graphical
> capabilities are constantly improving. If games can be made more
> realistic, should they? Sony had a lot of realistic games produced
> for their console, and Nintendo had primarily slighly blurred
> cartoony games as the best of the bunch.
As games become more realistic, they are more likely to appeal primarily to an adult audience. The gaming world is becoming a more adult place, and it is up to Nintendo - and anyone else - to follow that trend, or suffer the consequences.
The secret of any successful leisure product is to appeal to as many people as possible. As the average age of the videogame consumer increases, so will the need for more adult-themed software. No matter how good the gameplay may be, many of those adults will simply have no interest in guiding large cartoon-style characters around colourful levels, collecting coins. At least, not on a regular basis.
There will always be a place for "kiddie" games on all platforms, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. But the market is changing, and the largest revenues no longer lie with the younger section of the audience.
Nintendo could stay as they are, keeping the kiddie-image that they have (rightly or wrongly) been labelled with, and quite easily clean up in that area of the market. However, in doing so, I believe that they would find themselves permanently behind their competitors.
My personal opinion (and that's all it is) is that Nintendo need to 'grow up' themselves, otherwise they may suffer a similar fate to Sega. And I, like many others, have no desire to see that happen.
Even if they have no desire to produce 'adult' games on their own machines, they could do worse than produce software for the other platforms, as Sega have chosen to do. I'm sure they would have plenty of sales.
Many people will only buy one console, and if Nintendo can't get those people to buy *their* console, they may as well get revenue by producing their software for those other machines.
Hope that all makes some kind of sense!
> longer regarded with the same respect as before. Is that
> fair?
Familiarity breeds contempt. The lack of change is probably their biggest problem - gamers wanted something new, which Sony were offering - or so it seems, anyway.
> This is where we look at the effect of the Playstation.
> With this console, Sony promoted the idea of a more casual gamer.
I don't think it's fair to label all Sony owners 'casual' gamers. I love games as much as anyone, and have been playing them for 22 years now. I owned a PlayStation, and now a PS2. I don't see that either machine makes me any less of a gamer than anyone else.
> Sony brought Nintendo down with marketing and public image,
> not great games. That's why I don't like Sony.
All Sony have done is give their machine an image. If that image is more successful than any competitor, it is up to the competitor to adapt and compete.
> Graphical
> capabilities are constantly improving. If games can be made more
> realistic, should they? Sony had a lot of realistic games produced
> for their console, and Nintendo had primarily slighly blurred
> cartoony games as the best of the bunch.
As games become more realistic, they are more likely to appeal primarily to an adult audience. The gaming world is becoming a more adult place, and it is up to Nintendo - and anyone else - to follow that trend, or suffer the consequences.
The secret of any successful leisure product is to appeal to as many people as possible. As the average age of the videogame consumer increases, so will the need for more adult-themed software. No matter how good the gameplay may be, many of those adults will simply have no interest in guiding large cartoon-style characters around colourful levels, collecting coins. At least, not on a regular basis.
There will always be a place for "kiddie" games on all platforms, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. But the market is changing, and the largest revenues no longer lie with the younger section of the audience.
Nintendo could stay as they are, keeping the kiddie-image that they have (rightly or wrongly) been labelled with, and quite easily clean up in that area of the market. However, in doing so, I believe that they would find themselves permanently behind their competitors.
My personal opinion (and that's all it is) is that Nintendo need to 'grow up' themselves, otherwise they may suffer a similar fate to Sega. And I, like many others, have no desire to see that happen.
Even if they have no desire to produce 'adult' games on their own machines, they could do worse than produce software for the other platforms, as Sega have chosen to do. I'm sure they would have plenty of sales.
Many people will only buy one console, and if Nintendo can't get those people to buy *their* console, they may as well get revenue by producing their software for those other machines.
Hope that all makes some kind of sense!
Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
>Familiarity breeds contempt. The lack of change
> is probably their biggest problem - gamers wanted something new,
> which Sony were offering - or so it seems, anyway.
Perhaps. But they're not any more. Same old controllers. Same games (revamped a little). Though I guess there's no reason to change a winning formula is there? :)
>I don't
> think it's fair to label all Sony owners 'casual' gamers. I love
> games as much as anyone, and have been playing them for 22 years
> now. I owned a PlayStation, and now a PS2. I don't see that either
> machine makes me any less of a gamer than anyone else.
Granted, not all Playstation owners can be categorised like this, but a sizeable portion can.
>All Sony have done
> is give their machine an image. If that image is more successful
> than any competitor, it is up to the competitor to adapt and
> compete.
I disagree. This marketing of product image, advertising and PR is not a good thing. Let's draw a parallel with the UK music industry to prove a point. Have you ever been annoyed by the countless boy or girl bands topping the charts? Well, they work on the same principle. Public awareness is raised through airplay time and whatever else, and before you know it, they've gone straight to number one again.
>Nintendo could stay as they are, keeping the
> kiddie-image that they have (rightly or wrongly) been labelled with,
> and quite easily clean up in that area of the market. However, in
> doing so, I believe that they would find themselves permanently
> behind their competitors.
True. The problem with aiming at the younger audience is the 'knock on' effect of these kiddies knowing what the older gamers play, which obviously will hamper their sales.
It happened to the N64. You'll find the vast majority of younger gamers bought Playstations. Whether or not they'd prefer N64 if they'd played it is open to debate.
My personal opinion (and that's all it
> is) is that Nintendo need to 'grow up' themselves, otherwise they
> may suffer a similar fate to Sega. And I, like many others, have no
> desire to see that happen.
Yes, Nintendo to need to grow up. Sega died with the Saturn though, which wasn't kiddie targetted. It'll be the same fate for a different reason I guess.
Even if they have no desire to produce
> 'adult' games on their own machines, they could do worse than
> produce software for the other platforms, as Sega have chosen to do.
> I'm sure they would have plenty of sales.
They probably would if they had to. Nintendo stopping harware would be bad for the games industry though, in the same way as Sega's demise deprives us of a certain something.
>Familiarity breeds contempt. The lack of change
> is probably their biggest problem - gamers wanted something new,
> which Sony were offering - or so it seems, anyway.
Perhaps. But they're not any more. Same old controllers. Same games (revamped a little). Though I guess there's no reason to change a winning formula is there? :)
>I don't
> think it's fair to label all Sony owners 'casual' gamers. I love
> games as much as anyone, and have been playing them for 22 years
> now. I owned a PlayStation, and now a PS2. I don't see that either
> machine makes me any less of a gamer than anyone else.
Granted, not all Playstation owners can be categorised like this, but a sizeable portion can.
>All Sony have done
> is give their machine an image. If that image is more successful
> than any competitor, it is up to the competitor to adapt and
> compete.
I disagree. This marketing of product image, advertising and PR is not a good thing. Let's draw a parallel with the UK music industry to prove a point. Have you ever been annoyed by the countless boy or girl bands topping the charts? Well, they work on the same principle. Public awareness is raised through airplay time and whatever else, and before you know it, they've gone straight to number one again.
>Nintendo could stay as they are, keeping the
> kiddie-image that they have (rightly or wrongly) been labelled with,
> and quite easily clean up in that area of the market. However, in
> doing so, I believe that they would find themselves permanently
> behind their competitors.
True. The problem with aiming at the younger audience is the 'knock on' effect of these kiddies knowing what the older gamers play, which obviously will hamper their sales.
It happened to the N64. You'll find the vast majority of younger gamers bought Playstations. Whether or not they'd prefer N64 if they'd played it is open to debate.
My personal opinion (and that's all it
> is) is that Nintendo need to 'grow up' themselves, otherwise they
> may suffer a similar fate to Sega. And I, like many others, have no
> desire to see that happen.
Yes, Nintendo to need to grow up. Sega died with the Saturn though, which wasn't kiddie targetted. It'll be the same fate for a different reason I guess.
Even if they have no desire to produce
> 'adult' games on their own machines, they could do worse than
> produce software for the other platforms, as Sega have chosen to do.
> I'm sure they would have plenty of sales.
They probably would if they had to. Nintendo stopping harware would be bad for the games industry though, in the same way as Sega's demise deprives us of a certain something.
Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
>This is where we look at the effect of the Playstation.
> With this console, Sony promoted the idea of a more >casual gamer.
You know that's a good point!
We Nintendo Zealots always complain at the stereotype that "Nintendo consoles are for little kids"
and then we go on to say that "Playstations are for casual gamers"
Both are purely stereotypes.
Nintendo have lots of games other than the cute platformers (which aren't really kiddy games anyway)
And although Sony have attracted a large amount of Fifa/Who wants to be a millionaire digesting casual gamers, there's still a large amount of hardcore gamers who own Sony's blessed machine!
>This is where we look at the effect of the Playstation.
> With this console, Sony promoted the idea of a more >casual gamer.
You know that's a good point!
We Nintendo Zealots always complain at the stereotype that "Nintendo consoles are for little kids"
and then we go on to say that "Playstations are for casual gamers"
Both are purely stereotypes.
Nintendo have lots of games other than the cute platformers (which aren't really kiddy games anyway)
And although Sony have attracted a large amount of Fifa/Who wants to be a millionaire digesting casual gamers, there's still a large amount of hardcore gamers who own Sony's blessed machine!
> Let's draw a parallel with the UK music industry to prove a point.
It may be annoying, but at the end of the day, there's got to be *something* there that people want to buy, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. I go on about the boy/girl bands and how crap they are etc., but I can't deny that I do actually like some of the songs! (Argh! Shame on me! Mmm... we're back to Claire from Steps... yummy!)
Er, anyway... moving on...
> They probably would if they had to. Nintendo stopping
> harware would be bad for the games industry though, in the same way
> as Sega's demise deprives us of a certain something.
I agree. I'm not saying that Nintendo should stop making consoles, though - just that they should consider making games - more 'adult' ones if necessary - on other platforms as well as their own. I also think Sega should have done the same.
It may be annoying, but at the end of the day, there's got to be *something* there that people want to buy, otherwise they wouldn't buy it. I go on about the boy/girl bands and how crap they are etc., but I can't deny that I do actually like some of the songs! (Argh! Shame on me! Mmm... we're back to Claire from Steps... yummy!)
Er, anyway... moving on...
> They probably would if they had to. Nintendo stopping
> harware would be bad for the games industry though, in the same way
> as Sega's demise deprives us of a certain something.
I agree. I'm not saying that Nintendo should stop making consoles, though - just that they should consider making games - more 'adult' ones if necessary - on other platforms as well as their own. I also think Sega should have done the same.
Dan_uk wrote:
> Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
>This is
> where we look at the effect of the Playstation.
> With this
> console, Sony promoted the idea of a more >casual gamer.
Hmm... no I didn't, that was VenomByte...
But hey, thanks for thinking of me! :-)
> Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
>This is
> where we look at the effect of the Playstation.
> With this
> console, Sony promoted the idea of a more >casual gamer.
Hmm... no I didn't, that was VenomByte...
But hey, thanks for thinking of me! :-)
Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
> Dan_uk wrote:
> Wòókiee Møn§†€R
> FantasyMeister
> Grix Thraves
> Dan_uk
> wrote:
>This is
> where we look at the effect of the
> Playstation.
> With this
> console, Sony promoted the idea
> of a more >casual gamer.
Hmm... no I didn't, that was
> x-Box...
But hey, thanks for thinking of me! :-)
No they didn't. :-)
> Dan_uk wrote:
> Wòókiee Møn§†€R
> FantasyMeister
> Grix Thraves
> Dan_uk
> wrote:
>This is
> where we look at the effect of the
> Playstation.
> With this
> console, Sony promoted the idea
> of a more >casual gamer.
Hmm... no I didn't, that was
> x-Box...
But hey, thanks for thinking of me! :-)
No they didn't. :-)
FantasyMeister wrote:
> Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
> Dan_uk
> wrote:
> Wòókiee Møn§†€R
>
> FantasyMeister
> Grix Thraves
> Dan_uk
>
> wrote:
>This is
> where we look at the effect of the
>
> Playstation.
> With this
> console, Sony promoted the
> idea
> of a more >casual gamer.
Hmm... no I didn't, that
> was
> x-Box...
But hey, thanks for thinking of me! :-)
No
> they didn't. :-)
This is my entry for ConfuseanAliaDay
> Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
> Dan_uk
> wrote:
> Wòókiee Møn§†€R
>
> FantasyMeister
> Grix Thraves
> Dan_uk
>
> wrote:
>This is
> where we look at the effect of the
>
> Playstation.
> With this
> console, Sony promoted the
> idea
> of a more >casual gamer.
Hmm... no I didn't, that
> was
> x-Box...
But hey, thanks for thinking of me! :-)
No
> they didn't. :-)
This is my entry for ConfuseanAliaDay
Page: