Next-Gen Analogy (Warning! Bias Alert!)

2006-01-24 08:56:27 pm

A Crab

You realize that real hovercraft aren't as cool as advertised? I mean, one part of it is called a skirt; how girly is that? I'll answer for you: Very girly.

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-24 09:07:06 pm

$inner

Quote:

You realize that real hovercraft aren't as cool as advertised? I mean, one part of it is called a skirt; how girly is that? I'll answer for you: Very girly.

Did you realize that your post was stupid? How immature is that?

As for my snes, I love it, and I'm having to borrow Naughty's (Wired's) wires to see if mine is broken

illuminated

2006-01-24 09:09:18 pm

Quote:

Did you realize that your post was stupid? How immature is that?

Um...that was abad idea to say that...trust me...

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-24 09:12:42 pm

$inner

I know, but, I don't care, I've been in my share of flame wars, and, it was an immature post he made.

illuminated

2006-01-24 09:22:28 pm

I din't think it was that bad.

Lenny

2006-01-24 09:28:19 pm

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Quote:

You realize that real hovercraft aren't as cool as advertised? I mean, one part of it is called a skirt; how girly is that? I'll answer for you: Very girly.

Well not at all to be honest. Cars are also often given a womans name, that's not very "girly" either, i think it's actually quite a cool masculine word for it. Go watch *Gone in 60 seconds* and tell me you don't love eleanor.

As a bonus we'll be able to look up a skirt, without having a nice punch in the face as a reward. That would be G-reat.

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-24 09:34:34 pm

$inner

Well now...

HeroPenguin

2006-01-24 10:55:24 pm

Rock on, Earthbound. Rock on.

Quote:

You realize that real hovercraft aren't as cool as advertised? I mean, one part of it is called a skirt; how girly is that? I'll answer for you: Very girly.

Psh, screw that, you just made my love for hovercrafts increase tenfold. Skirts are among the greatest creations of mankind and I'll tell you why:

They SWISH. Cheesy

Go on, wear a skirt for a day, I dare you. They're awesome.

Also, boats are named after women too. I bet planes are as well. Attach something feminine to a vehicle, and that amalglam of masculine and feminine combines to make them the ULTIMATE LIFE FORM.

... Or something.

Yoshi, I love your analogies. Dratsab's too, now that I have mind to it, I neglected to mention that in my last post.

I have to say one last thing about the very girly thing with hovercrafts... I'd rather ride something feminine than something masculine. Think about it. Wink

qqwref

2006-01-25 12:11:14 am

I like this site name cause it's easy to remember.

I don't actually have any next-gen consolve units :-/ but it's my opinion that the N64 and SNES were the best all-round systems ever (barring the PC, of course). After that, games have seemed (to me) to be getting less gameplay-oriented and more graphics-oriented. Feel free to disagree, of course, this is just what it seems like to me.

illuminated

2006-01-25 12:16:36 am

I concur.

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-25 02:58:01 am

$inner

I agree, plus, the newer consoles (Xbox) with certain games (Halo 2, not that I would mention names here) seem to create too many fanboys. I mean, when you're dissing the 16-bit consoles just because the Xbox has one overhyped FPS, then, I hate you.

Disclaimer: If you are a Halo fanboy and have been offended by my post, then go to hell because I hate you.

StrangenessDSS

2006-01-25 03:11:37 am

Sleeping Terror

So after a diversion into "lol hovercrafts have cooties", we're back at "gaming was so much better back then" (when you were too young to notice all the fanboys and graphics whores... yes, they've always been around too).

Ugh.

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-25 03:17:47 am

$inner

Well, at least Halo wasn't around back then. (I'm sorry if I look unintelligent here, but, Strangeness could kick my ass all around this thread.) Halo not being around would mean that I could borrow a TV from kids at school without them yelling that SNES sucks and go to hell. As for graphics whores back then, I can only say, that was then, and this is now. (Seeing as I was too young to notice them, I like it much more, which means, sometimes, ignorance is bliss.)

StrangenessDSS

Edit history:

StrangenessDSS: 2006-01-25 03:47:05 am

2006-01-25 03:45:54 am

Sleeping Terror

Halo being around makes no real difference. It's actually a very well-made game, and one of my personal favorites from this generation, even if it is mainstream. If it weren't around, some other game would take its place (like it took FFVII's place); the kids you mention would just have something else to yell about.

If graphics whores bother you, ignore them. They sure won't be going away anytime soon.

MissileWaster

2006-01-25 03:51:02 am

Quote:

It's sequels like the later Mega Man X ones that repeat the exact same friggin' thing again and again that are subpar.

After X4, they needed to adopt a new style. Allowing to play the story as Zero was good as a new game, then for X5 they added nothing except new bosses. Which is why I think it is stupid that people hate X7, which I found to be really fun. It was the first game since X4 to bring in something new, and it brought in 2 new things. Axl and 3D. People just don't want to accept change, which is why people seem to have started to dislike Nintendo. They try to bring something new to games every system. But that is also why some people love Nintendo to death (like me).

Analogy: 3 people are playing Texas Hold 'Em at a table. Umm, let's go with Master Cheif, Mario, and ...Spyro... yeah.

Anyway, Master Cheif takes a peek at his hand. 2 8's! Yay! A good start. Spyro looks at his hand. 2 8's? Oh well, pretty good. Mario looks. A Jack and an Ace. Ouch. But Nintendo (the company) likes to take chances when it seems like it is a bad situation (like bringing in this new touch screen when they don't know what Sony/Microsoft are doing, or the new Rev. controller when they don't know about the other companies). Now is the flop. A 7, Queen, and 4. Spyro and MC are trying to get Mario to just give up since the odds of winning are crap. They bet a lot. Mario takes the chance and calls. Next card, Ace. Mario is back in the game! Next card, King. Mario wins in the end because he took that chance.

Now think, if Microsoft or Sony was in that situation, what would they do? They would back down because the odds are way against them. Nintendo is willing to take the chance to win or lose, they don't care. It's about the fun, it's just chance that they got that money when it was way against them.

This was a crap metaphor, and I am legally required to put this in: WARNING, THE ABOVE ANALOGY SUCKS, DO NOT READ IT!!!

*The Ace in the flop is a metaphor for the Rev (Sorry, I'm learning about metaphors in English). The other companies are at each other's throat and will end up splitting the profit. Then people learn of the Rev. Microsoft releases the 360 too early, losing. Sony wants more stuff in the PS3 so they jack up the cost and end up losing. Nintendo makes a system with new stuff, and at an affordable price. It was their luck of the draw basically.

[quote]It's sequels like the later Mega Man X ones that repeat the exact same friggin' thing again and again that are subpar.[/quote]

After X4, they needed to adopt a new style. Allowing to play the story as Zero was good as a new game, then for X5 they added nothing except new bosses. Which is why I think it is stupid that people hate X7, which I found to be really fun. It was the first game since X4 to bring in something new, and it brought in 2 new things. Axl and 3D. People just don't want to accept change, which is why people seem to have started to dislike Nintendo. They try to bring something new to games every system. But that is also why some people love Nintendo to death (like me).

Analogy: 3 people are playing Texas Hold 'Em at a table. Umm, let's go with Master Cheif, Mario, and ...Spyro... yeah.

Anyway, Master Cheif takes a peek at his hand. 2 8's! Yay! A good start. Spyro looks at his hand. 2 8's? Oh well, pretty good. Mario looks. A Jack and an Ace. Ouch. But Nintendo (the company) likes to take chances when it seems like it is a bad situation (like bringing in this new touch screen when they don't know what Sony/Microsoft are doing, or the new Rev. controller when they don't know about the other companies). Now is the flop. A 7, Queen, and 4. Spyro and MC are trying to get Mario to just give up since the odds of winning are crap. They bet a lot. Mario takes the chance and calls. Next card, Ace. Mario is back in the game! Next card, King. Mario wins in the end because he took that chance.

Now think, if Microsoft or Sony was in that situation, what would they do? They would back down because the odds are way against them. Nintendo is willing to take the chance to win or lose, they don't care. It's about the fun, it's just chance that they got that money when it was way against them.

This was a crap metaphor, and I am legally required to put this in: WARNING, THE ABOVE ANALOGY SUCKS, DO NOT READ IT!!!

*The Ace in the flop is a metaphor for the Rev (Sorry, I'm learning about metaphors in English). The other companies are at each other's throat and will end up splitting the profit. Then people learn of the Rev. Microsoft releases the 360 too early, losing. Sony wants more stuff in the PS3 so they jack up the cost and end up losing. Nintendo makes a system with new stuff, and at an affordable price. It was their luck of the draw basically.

-Suzaku-

2006-01-25 03:53:28 am

Eternal Understudy

Quote:

After X4, they needed to adopt a new style. Allowing to play the story as Zero was good as a new game, then for X5 they added nothing except new bosses. Which is why I think it is stupid that people hate X7, which I found to be really fun. It was the first game since X4 to bring in something new, and it brought in 2 new things. Axl and 3D. People just don't want to accept change,

I don't know. I was looking forward to X7. The 3D was just absolutely uncontrollable, which is odd for a Mega Man game. That and the models don't have the life their sprited versions had.
Personally, I like Axl. He's a great addition and rounds the party out pretty well. Finally, not the ENTIRE MMX universe is depressing as hell

illuminated

2006-01-25 03:59:33 am

Axl should remind the others that they were young one too. (if what I believe to be true X is an upgraded Mega Man, which would make his age around 150 years or something)

Phauxe

2006-01-25 04:34:45 am

At the risk of sounding ignorant, simply put, you've got to learn from the past. Those who do have a better chance at suceeding than those who don't.

Microsoft's 360 looks at human nature:
1) People want instant satisfaction (so they release first)
2) People have always liked graphics updates
3) Xbox Live was a commercial success, so to do it again and make 360 backwards compatible for their online library was a good move.

What they failed to consider was Sega Dreamcast
1) Dreamcast was first to release in competition with Xbox, Sony, and Nintendo's latest incarnations.
2) Compared to other systems at the time, Sega Dreamcast had a massive graphic update
3) PC's online gaming was a success, so they built in a modem to have online gaming on their consoles.

Dreamcast failed in the end because it didn't suceed in Japan, a large factor being the lack of a DVD player with it.

The difference between Sega and Microsoft though, is Microsoft has the funding to let 360 be a commercial flop, learn from their mistakes, and try again with their next incarnation whereas Sega did not.

Nintendo looks on it's own past to find success:
1) It constantly revives old franchises (Mario, Zelda, Metroid)
2) It innovates it's gameplay with something new each time (NES controllers, SNES had more buttons, N64 had the analog control stick, Gamecube had triggers that had sensitivities, DS has the touch screen, and Revolution has it's remote... techno... thingy...)
3) By doing 1 and 2, Nintendo revitalizes it's old market, and brings in new customers to it's market simultaneously
4) Domination of the handheld market helps alot too...

What they fail to realize is even though people do want a classic experience with a new twist, they're missing out on a huge chunk of mainstream game enthusiasts (I will not use the word gamer to describe that market...) and therefor, will never sell as well as Sony or Microsoft's systems will.

And then there's Sony with it's Playstation. If this is a little biased, it's because I hate the Playstation (mostly from the death of the Dreamcast...) but I'll do my best to stay neutral.

If I think of Sony in these 3 consoles, I think of it as the halfway point inbetween Nintendo and Xbox. Sony has the funding from other things in order to flop, so it can afford to take more risks like Microsoft. At the same time, Sony is innovative to a degree with it's games, things like the Dual Analog controller, and Eyetoy come to mind.

Also, Sony currently controls most of the rpg market, and with that goes the japanese market, which means they get alot of the odd titles that would seem more appropriate on a Gamecube (like Katamari Damacy or Ape Escape).

However, this yields in a market that can service to innovative people and mainstream gaming. However, mainstream gaming will always be advertised to more, they're the biggest chunk of your clients, so therefor, games like Grand Theft Auto will always be brought to the foreground and advertised more promenently.

Sony is also entirely backwards compatible which is a big plus.

That's what I have to say, but I thought I'd end with something else.

If Nintendo is the most innovative system, how come it's the only system that currently lacks DVD support?

If Microsoft is the most budget backed system, how come you still have to pay for Xbox live?

If Sony... Nevermind, that's a sore subject...

Sorry for going off on a rant again...

At the risk of sounding ignorant, simply put, you've got to learn from the past.  Those who do have a better chance at suceeding than those who don't.

Microsoft's 360 looks at human nature:
1) People want instant satisfaction (so they release first)
2) People have always liked graphics updates
3) Xbox Live was a commercial success, so to do it again and make 360 backwards compatible for their online library was a good move.

What they failed to consider was Sega Dreamcast
1) Dreamcast was first to release in competition with Xbox, Sony, and Nintendo's latest incarnations.
2) Compared to other systems at the time, Sega Dreamcast had a massive graphic update
3) PC's online gaming was a success, so they built in a modem to have online gaming on their consoles.

Dreamcast failed in the end because it didn't suceed in Japan, a large factor being the lack of a DVD player with it.

The difference between Sega and Microsoft though, is Microsoft has the funding to let 360 be a commercial flop, learn from their mistakes, and try again with their next incarnation whereas Sega did not.

Nintendo looks on it's own past to find success:
1) It constantly revives old franchises (Mario, Zelda, Metroid)
2) It innovates it's gameplay with something new each time (NES controllers, SNES had more buttons, N64 had the analog control stick, Gamecube had triggers that had sensitivities, DS has the touch screen, and Revolution has it's remote... techno... thingy...)
3) By doing 1 and 2, Nintendo revitalizes it's old market, and brings in new customers to it's market simultaneously
4) Domination of the handheld market helps alot too...

What they fail to realize is even though people do want a classic experience with a new twist, they're missing out on a huge chunk of mainstream game enthusiasts (I will not use the word gamer to describe that market...) and therefor, will never sell as well as Sony or Microsoft's systems will.

And then there's Sony with it's Playstation.  If this is a little  biased, it's because I hate the Playstation (mostly from the death of the Dreamcast...) but I'll do my best to stay neutral.

If I think of Sony in these 3 consoles, I think of it as the halfway point inbetween Nintendo and Xbox.  Sony has the funding from other things in order to flop, so it can afford to take more risks like Microsoft.  At the same time, Sony is innovative to a degree with it's games, things like the Dual Analog controller, and Eyetoy come to mind.

Also, Sony currently controls most of the rpg market, and with that goes the japanese market, which means they get alot of the odd titles that would seem more appropriate on a Gamecube (like Katamari Damacy or Ape Escape).

However, this yields in a market that can service to innovative people and mainstream gaming.  However, mainstream gaming will always be advertised to more, they're the biggest chunk of your clients, so therefor, games like Grand Theft Auto will always be brought to the foreground and advertised more promenently.

Sony is also entirely backwards compatible which is a big plus.

That's what I have to say, but I thought I'd end with something else.

If Nintendo is the most innovative system, how come it's the only system that currently lacks DVD support?

If Microsoft is the most budget backed system, how come you still have to pay for Xbox live?

If Sony... Nevermind, that's a sore subject...

Sorry for going off on a rant again...

StrangenessDSS

2006-01-25 04:44:02 am

Sleeping Terror

Quote:

If Nintendo is the most innovative system, how come it's the only system that currently lacks DVD support?

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

(How would following in Sony's footsteps be in any way "innovative"? "Convenient", maybe - though I prefer the faster load times that the smaller discs help make possible. And actually, you can buy a Gamecube that plays DVDs, though it was only released in Japan.)

illuminated

Edit history:

illuminated: 2006-01-25 04:47:42 am

2006-01-25 04:46:47 am

I fail to see how such detail is ignorance. You made some good points. But Rev. will have DVD support. It's just an optional add on since they figure most people have DVD players as you can get them super cheap nowadays.

I agree with not calling those people gamers. Actual gamers are still rare thanks to the maunstream approach. So you'll find most gamers at Nintendo.

And...here as well I guess.

HeroPenguin

2006-01-25 05:56:37 am

Rock on, Earthbound. Rock on.

Quote:

Dreamcast failed in the end because it didn't suceed in Japan, a large factor being the lack of a DVD player with it.

I'm pretty sure this is completely wrong. The Dreamcast failed in America. It continued in Japan for a number of years after it died here, and it got *MANY* more games than were released in the US. Also, I'm almost certain that I've never ever heard the words "DVD" and "Dreamcast" spoken together in the same sentance until now. The Dreamcast failed because of a lack of marketting, funding, and third party support, as far as I can recall. Also, the PS2 released shortly after, which kicked the DC in the head as far as third party support and such.

As far as innovation, a DVD player doesn't add a whole heck of a lot to gameplay in general. Sure it's cool to watch movies, but it really doesn't do anything for the game, which has ALWAYS been Nintendo's number 1 priority and strategy.

I don't think Nintendo fails to realize they don't have the mainstream audience. I think more to the point they just don't care. They know their franchises are hot shit, and everyone else knows it too. Really, the mainstream games haven't done a whole lot for gaming as a whole besides make it more commercialized.

Of course, the last question is easy. You pay for XBox Live because Microsoft wants your money, and they know they can get away with it. You don't pay for Nintendo Network because Nintendo has taken the stance that it's an integral part of the future gaming experience, so they consider it to come with the console. Pretty much as simple as that.

[quote]Dreamcast failed in the end because it didn't suceed in Japan, a large factor being the lack of a DVD player with it.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure this is completely wrong.  The Dreamcast failed in America.  It continued in Japan for a number of years after it died here, and it got *MANY* more games than were released in the US.  Also, I'm almost certain that I've never ever heard the words "DVD" and "Dreamcast" spoken together in the same sentance until now.  The Dreamcast failed because of a lack of marketting, funding, and third party support, as far as I can recall.  Also, the PS2 released shortly after, which kicked the DC in the head as far as third party support and such.

As far as innovation, a DVD player doesn't add a whole heck of a lot to gameplay in general.  Sure it's cool to watch movies, but it really doesn't do anything for the game, which has ALWAYS been Nintendo's number 1 priority and strategy.

I don't think Nintendo fails to realize they don't have the mainstream audience.  I think more to the point they just don't care.  They know their franchises are hot shit, and everyone else knows it too.  Really, the mainstream games haven't done a whole lot for gaming as a whole besides make it more commercialized.

Of course, the last question is easy.  You pay for XBox Live because Microsoft wants your money, and they know they can get away with it.  You don't pay for Nintendo Network because Nintendo has taken the stance that it's an integral part of the future gaming experience, so they consider it to come with the console.  Pretty much as simple as that.

Pweisger

2006-01-25 05:57:42 am

PwNzRd!

Consoles come and consoles go, but one thing always remains: The PC.

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-25 02:12:11 pm

$inner

Quote:

I'm pretty sure this is completely wrong. The Dreamcast failed in America. It continued in Japan for a number of years after it died here, and it got *MANY* more games than were released in the US. Also, I'm almost certain that I've never ever heard the words "DVD" and "Dreamcast" spoken together in the same sentance until now. The Dreamcast failed because of a lack of marketting, funding, and third party support, as far as I can recall. Also, the PS2 released shortly after, which kicked the DC in the head as far as third party support and such.

Lack of DVD support did kill the Dreamcast. The PS2 was released and could play DVDs. When it was released DVD players were expensive but, the PS2 offer a less expensive DVD player that could also play games, which, killed the Dreamcast.

spineshark

2006-01-25 02:28:34 pm

新世紀進歩的羽扇子音楽

Uhh...the PS2 could also play...Square Enix games?

And I don't think the DVD player we got in 2000 cost more than $150.

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-25 02:32:35 pm

$inner

Quote:

That applies as of now in 2005. Back in 2000, DVD players were scarce, and were the "it" to get since it was such a huge leap from analog to digital. Plus, a major selling point for PS2 during it's japanese launch was the fact that though it featured a DVD drive, it was still cheaper than many DVD players at the time. So you were getting a DVD player for a (at the time) bargain price, and all the bonuses of Playstation. It was a win-win situation for the japanese consumer at the time.

We've had this discussion before.