The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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
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.
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: