Next-Gen Analogy (Warning! Bias Alert!)

2006-01-23 10:45:44 am

Rock on, Earthbound. Rock on.

This might not be the place for this (mods, if that is the case, please delete/lock quickly and without warning, I'm not trying to spam), but I came up with an interesting analogy a while back for the next-gen consoles, and I felt like sharing it with the community.

Sony and Microsoft are like top engineers working to make the fastest, most powerful drag racers in the history of mankind. They're pulling out all the stops and using only the finest materials to try and make their machine into the ultimate racing vehicle and complete the racetrack in astounding new world records and wow the crowd out of their seats through the sheer performance of their hardware.

Meanwhile, Nintendo is tooling around in their garage trying to make an environmental and cost-efficient hovercraft, capable of making roads and earthbound travel obsolete, but mostly just for the sake of zipping around the countryside and seeing things from a new perspective and taking mankind back off the beaten track. It won't break any world records, but that's because there's no records to break in that field yet.

While Sony and Microsoft are busy racing around the racing track trying to beat each other out, I'll be cruising around in Nintendo's hovercraft, having a blast and seeing what it can do that's never been done before. Cheesy

Anyone have any other analogies to share? Thoughts, comments? Let's keep this thread nice and mellow, after all, there's still a lot left to see.

Thread title:

This might not be the place for this (mods, if that is the case, please delete/lock quickly and without warning, I'm not trying to spam), but I came up with an interesting analogy a while back for the next-gen consoles, and I felt like sharing it with the community.

Sony and Microsoft are like top engineers working to make the fastest, most powerful drag racers in the history of mankind.  They're pulling out all the stops and using only the finest materials to try and make their machine into the ultimate racing vehicle and complete the racetrack in astounding new world records and wow the crowd out of their seats through the sheer performance of their hardware.

Meanwhile, Nintendo is tooling around in their garage trying to make an environmental and cost-efficient hovercraft, capable of making roads and earthbound travel obsolete, but mostly just for the sake of zipping around the countryside and seeing things from a new perspective and taking mankind back off the beaten track.  It won't break any world records, but that's because there's no records to break in that field yet.

While Sony and Microsoft are busy racing around the racing track trying to beat each other out, I'll be cruising around in Nintendo's hovercraft, having a blast and seeing what it can do that's never been done before.   :D

Anyone have any other analogies to share?  Thoughts, comments?  Let's keep this thread nice and mellow, after all, there's still a lot left to see.

dratsab

2006-01-23 10:48:01 am

Omgooses

The gameboy is like a 12 speed then.

beanshaker

2006-01-23 11:00:55 am

go the mighty swans

I like the analogy.

I was a nintendo-only child growing up, but then converted to sony so i could play the tony hawk and final fantasy games.

I tell you what though; if the Revolution is what it claims to be, i can forsee myself being a nintendo boy all over again

darkwasabi

2006-01-23 01:38:56 pm

King of hearts

This is "gaming relate.d" so no worries on a lock. Wink

I used to be a Fintendo freak, 'till I discovered FFVIII, and... well... You see how it turned out. But really, it isn't the company I care about, just the games.

I really don't like it when people choose favorites or compare companies. That just limits their experience.

Lam6ch0p

Edit history:

Lam6ch0p: 2006-01-23 02:12:31 pm

2006-01-23 02:11:35 pm

$inner

yep, also, the Golden Era of games is over with IMO. More titles are being produced nowadays which means more quality titles, but, more and more crappy titles are being produced which means, the ratio of good to bad games just plain sucks to what it used to be, the Next-gen consoles may be taking us further into gaming future, but, it doesn't mean gaming is getting better

-Suzaku-

Edit history:

-Suzaku-: 2006-01-23 02:24:49 pm

2006-01-23 02:24:27 pm

Eternal Understudy

Did you really consider these past few year the golden age of gaming? That ended in 95

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-23 02:40:29 pm

$inner

The past few years? Who would consider that the golden era of gaming? Maybe of fanboy-ism. I was talking about the N64, PS1, and DC era

darkwasabi

2006-01-23 03:05:04 pm

King of hearts

This "golden age" is your age, not what games are out at the time. You reach a certain... er... enlightened period where games are teh roXx0Rs. This is different with each person because of age personallity differences. I had that twice, when I first got an N64, then again when I got the PS2. It's been downhill ever since...

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-23 03:11:09 pm

$inner

it's true that golden age is a personal preference, but, look at the quality, the revolutionary (and awesome) content, online (DC), some might disagree, but, others would agree wholeheartedly (sp?) that it was the golden age. Gaming is pretty much following the trend of anime (it's golden age was the 80s while more anime is being produced now), we could argue all day long and still not find out which was the golden age of gaming due to personal opinions, but, as you said, it's been going downhill

StrangenessDSS

Edit history:

StrangenessDSS: 2006-01-23 04:43:35 pm

2006-01-23 04:42:04 pm

Sleeping Terror

No, it hasn't been going downhill. And back during your supposed "golden age", people were saying the exact same thing about how the whatever era they first knew was the golden age.

It annoys me when people insist it was the world that was different "back then", when it's nearly always themselves...

(And why do people write "sp?" when a multitude of dictionaries are only a few clicks away?)

DK64_MASTER

2006-01-23 05:04:45 pm

I think it's all perspective. I don't think we have passed the golden age of gaming, just changed our pardigms of thinking, I agree with StrangenessDSS.

Quote:

(And why do people write "sp?" when a multitude of dictionaries are only a few clicks away?)

You know the answer as well as I do. People are too lazy to find the correct spelling, and they don't want to look like an idiot. So they note that they know that they might have spelled the word wrong.

illuminated

2006-01-23 05:19:45 pm

Except for a a few titles, gaming for me is dead. Every once and awhile a game comes along and reminds me how fun games can be. This happened for me with Resident Evil 4 and MGS 3. So dead as it is, every once and awhile its resurects itself.

Oh, and as far as my spelling goes, I don't care. As long as I get my point across.

Wahoo

2006-01-23 05:49:44 pm

i hope this helps

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/spore/index.html?q=spore

Really really looking forward to that one Shocked

soteos

Edit history:

soteos: 2006-01-23 06:21:07 pm

2006-01-23 06:20:28 pm

Strangeness is right. But maybe soon things will change, because I don't see where the next leap in gaming will be. Eh, vague speculation. But there is this http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3147131&did=1.

Here's my 'analogy'. I hate racing/skating/sports/other stuff. So I'm left with the fantasy world of video games. Then I see (in my mind) Sony and Microsoft saying their top games are racing/skating/sports/other stuff I hate. I know that's not true of a lot of their games, but that's what I feel about them. So I buy a hovercraft.
And upon looking over the comparisons in the article above, for 360's opening lineup, it seems much of my fears are confirmed. Am I crazy? Are they marketing to everyone but gamers?

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-23 06:45:57 pm

$inner

As for my spelling, I don't care.

Now, for the Golden Age stuff, how many original (as in non-sequels) have made the charts in 04/05. Off the top of my head, only one in the top 50, and that was Fable. If that isn't going downhill, I don't know what is, I'd rather want a brand new title than one that's a sequel which is basically the same game before.

Bp_

2006-01-23 06:50:28 pm

for me, for the next-gen, i dont care how the anything is builted or the performace, i will always stick with nintendo cause they own metroid Smiley

illuminated

2006-01-23 06:51:27 pm

Quote:

And upon looking over the comparisons in the article above, for 360's opening lineup, it seems much of my fears are confirmed. Am I crazy? Are they marketing to everyone but gamers?

THANK YOU! I've been saying that for awhile now.I mean seriously, its all the same thing. I happen to like a game with a good story and unrealistic stuff otherwise impossible in everyday life. And just jow many games can you make based on WWII anyway?(maybe a question for another topic)

Wahoo

2006-01-23 07:08:16 pm

Just watched this demo thing on spore and OMG I WANT IT!

StrangenessDSS

Edit history:

StrangenessDSS: 2006-01-23 07:24:30 pm

2006-01-23 07:23:00 pm

Sleeping Terror

Quote:

Now, for the Golden Age stuff, how many original (as in non-sequels) have made the charts in 04/05. Off the top of my head, only one in the top 50, and that was Fable. If that isn't going downhill, I don't know what is, I'd rather want a brand new title than one that's a sequel which is basically the same game before.

Yeah, things were so much better back when the top-selling games were original franchises like Final Fantasy VII and Zelda: Ocarina of Time!

Please. It's always been this way. You were just too young to notice before.

Soteos: Now that games are relatively mainstream here, there are a lot of people who play games but aren't precisely "gamers". Like people who watch big hit movies, but don't care about them otherwise. They're a larger group, and they're not as discerning, so that's who a lot of large companies market to. But there are still plenty of games for us around! Like Odama!

How can people think new and original games are in decline when we have games like that coming up?

[quote]Now, for the Golden Age stuff, how many original (as in non-sequels) have made the charts in 04/05. Off the top of my head, only one in the top 50, and that was Fable. If that isn't going downhill, I don't know what is, I'd rather want a brand new title than one that's a sequel which is basically the same game before.[/quote]
Yeah, things were so much better back when the top-selling games were original franchises like Final Fantasy VII and Zelda: Ocarina of Time!

Please. It's [i]always[/i] been this way. You were just too young to notice before.

Soteos: Now that games are relatively mainstream here, there are a lot of people who play games but aren't precisely "gamers". Like people who watch big hit movies, but don't care about them otherwise. They're a larger group, and they're not as discerning, so that's who a lot of large companies market to. But there are still plenty of games for us around! Like Odama!

[url=http://img421.imageshack.us/my.php?image=odama0yi.jpg][img]http://img421.imageshack.us/img421/3366/odama0yi.th.jpg[/img][/url]

How can people think new and original games are in decline when we have games like that coming up?

Bp_

Edit history:

Bp_: 2006-01-23 07:31:07 pm

2006-01-23 07:30:50 pm

rofl yeah:D

sequel are great since all my favorit game are sequel

final fantasy 5-6
OoT
gradius:galaxis (between the 3 and 4)
super mario3
half-life 2
...

the only game that have no sequel and own other is starcraft , TFC and counter-strike (source isnt a sequel Wink

)

illuminated

Edit history:

illuminated: 2006-01-23 07:33:39 pm

2006-01-23 07:32:25 pm

Maybe with age comes cynicism.

Or maybe its like this: Sometimes there are small followings for Underground bands, but when the ban becomes successful amd famous, their original followeres deem them as sellouts, simply because they made it big. So the fans feel like they lose something that's there's. There was a time when gaming was seen as uncool or what have you. But know it may seem too mainstream for some people.

edit: Aggh... Bp_ got in before me.

okiyama

2006-01-23 08:42:04 pm

The original leever.

I dunno if all consoles are going downhill but lets look at mario:(skipping donkey kong just mario centered games)

we had super mario bros. on NES people adored it and some still play and some say it was the best game ever made.

then SM64 another great hit huge people again loving it

SM:SS this was when we start to get more luke warm I mean lots of people bought it but it never really got the "omg this is amazing" feedback the others did.

and trend for zelda are:

NES/SNES/Gamboy games were never really thought of as "omg this is great everyone must buy it" it was more every gamer bought one or two and they had fun maybe beat it then sorta forgot then...

dun dun!(happy not sad) N64 with OoT still played by many still loved by many ANd people still find little odditys and tricks to it! then MM came this was another luke warm game and IMO it was rushed just a tad as FLM said once "it's really a you love it or you hate it game"

Gamecube WW oh yes much contriversy over this one many people say "the cell shaded was a bad move" others "i like the mroe cartoony graphics it makes it a more light hearted and happy game" and some people just flat out hated it in all aspects (I will not talk about twilight princess because its not out yet)

THIS IS ALL MY OPINION AND THIS POST MAY RAISE CONTRIVERSY BUT PLEASE IT'S JUST MY OPINION ON HOW NINTENDO IS GOING

I dunno if all consoles are going downhill but lets look at mario:(skipping donkey kong just mario centered games)

we had super mario bros. on NES people adored it and some still play and some say it was the best game ever made.

then SM64 another great hit huge people again loving it

SM:SS this was when we start to get more luke warm I mean lots of people bought it but it never really got the "omg this is amazing" feedback the others did.

and trend for zelda are:

NES/SNES/Gamboy games were never really thought of as "omg this is great everyone must buy it" it was more every gamer bought one or two and they had fun maybe beat it then sorta forgot then...

dun dun!(happy not sad) N64 with OoT still played by many still loved by many ANd people still find little odditys and tricks to it! then MM came this was another luke warm game and IMO it was rushed just a tad as FLM said once "it's really a you love it or you hate it game"

Gamecube WW oh yes much contriversy over this one many people say "the cell shaded was a bad move" others "i like the mroe cartoony graphics it makes it a more light hearted and happy game" and some people just flat out hated it in all aspects (I will not talk about twilight princess because its not out yet)

[size=13]THIS IS ALL MY OPINION AND THIS POST MAY RAISE CONTRIVERSY BUT PLEASE IT'S JUST MY OPINION ON HOW NINTENDO IS GOING[/size]

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-23 09:07:35 pm

$inner

Quote:

Please. It's always been this way. You were just too young to notice before.

Point taken, I was too young to notice, and I've always been late to get consoles (I was first playing the SNES when the 64 was out)

Lenny

Edit history:

Lenny: 2006-01-23 09:13:11 pm

2006-01-23 09:11:04 pm

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Well, i think your analogy(thread creator) just plain sucks. I think it's more like this:

You've got three major consoles. One by microsoft, one by sony, one by Nintendo. They all want to make money. Lots of it. As much of it as humanly possible, and then some.

So now the fan boys hate me because they'll say Nintendo makes great games and doesn't care about money, well boohoo, i don't give a shit. They DO. If memory serves me right, Nintendo is actually the MOST profitable console manufacturer on the market today. They don't make zelda/mario/metroid and such games because they LIKE to, they make them because they bring LOADS of money in.

Now your lovely hovercraft analogy doesn't make any sense to me, because Nintendo has never been a hovercraft. They have never done anything that hasn't been done before, well until last year. The Nintendo DS. W00T... a GB with a touchscreen, my nephew's ten year old pda has that, big deal. That is NOT new, creative, or whatever. And now they come with their revolution. I'm not going to say anything about that, because... well quite frankly, i don't know much about it. All i can say is, your hovercraft is just another racecar. If you want to make a nice analogy about how much you love nintendo games; try this one on for size:

There's a race. Three contestants enter the area. They're there to win. As they enter the crowd goes wild, bets are placed and engines roar. There's the F-zero machine, captain falcon is behind the wheel, off course, everybody with a brain knows it will win. Then there's the other one, the one that's been on the news, in the latest movie trailers and even on your toilet papers. That's the master chief's Warthog. The last contestant however, is the crowd's favorite. Crash bandicoot enters in his little cart. An immense explosion of sound when he does the little 360. The mainstream, who doesn't know anything about racing, bets on Crash, because word on the street is, he's the man. Even though insiders know captain falcon will take the cake, the crowd bets on Crash. Because word on the street is cpt. Falcon is out, and Crash is all the rage.

We don't love nintendo because they've done anything revolutionary(in the past 2 decades) we love them, because they make good games. They're just another racer trying to make a living.

Well, i think your analogy(thread creator) just plain sucks. I think it's more like this:

You've got three major consoles. One by microsoft, one by sony, one by Nintendo. They all want to make money. Lots of it. As much of it as humanly possible, and then some.

So now the fan boys hate me because they'll say Nintendo makes great games and doesn't care about money, well boohoo, i don't give a shit. They DO. If memory serves me right, Nintendo is actually the MOST profitable console manufacturer on the market today. They don't make zelda/mario/metroid and such games because they LIKE to, they make them because they bring LOADS of money in.

Now your lovely hovercraft analogy doesn't make any sense to me, because Nintendo has never been a hovercraft. They have never done anything that hasn't been done before, well until last year. The Nintendo DS. W00T... a GB with a touchscreen, my nephew's ten year old pda has that, big deal. That is NOT new, creative, or whatever. And now they come with their revolution. I'm not going to say anything about that, because... well quite frankly, i don't know much about it. All i can say is, your hovercraft is just another racecar. If you want to make a nice analogy about how much you love nintendo games; try this one on for size:

There's a race. Three contestants enter the area. They're there to win. As they enter the crowd goes wild, bets are placed and engines roar. There's the F-zero machine, captain falcon is behind the wheel, off course, everybody with a brain knows it will win. Then there's the other one, the one that's been on the news, in the latest movie trailers and even on your toilet papers. That's the master chief's Warthog. The last contestant however, is the crowd's favorite. Crash bandicoot enters in his little cart. An immense explosion of sound when he does the little 360. The mainstream, who doesn't know anything about racing, bets on Crash, because word on the street is, he's the man. Even though insiders know captain falcon will take the cake, the crowd bets on Crash. Because word on the street is cpt. Falcon is out, and Crash is all the rage.

We don't love nintendo because they've done anything revolutionary(in the past 2 decades) we love them, because they make good games. They're just another racer trying to make a living.

YautjaElder

2006-01-23 09:13:02 pm

Speed is the key.

My first console was a N64, I have never even played games on a snes and I'm so f*cking sad for that...

I think I'm gonna buy one, it's just 700 SEK (~80 US dollars). :idea: