Next-Gen Analogy (Warning! Bias Alert!)

2006-01-23 09:16:35 pm

$inner

Your analogy just plain sucks, revolutionary? If Nintendo wasn't here, gaming would be different/possibly not exist. So before you start bashing Nintendo about not doing anything revolutionary, look at the controllers we have now, what do you think they evolved from? Look at the industry, how was it revived? Nintendo you asshole

Lenny

2006-01-23 09:24:48 pm

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Quote:

Your analogy just plain sucks, revolutionary? If Nintendo wasn't here, gaming would be different/possibly not exist. So before you start bashing Nintendo about not doing anything revolutionary, look at the controllers we have now, what do you think they evolved from? Look at the industry, how was it revived? Nintendo you asshole

I said (in the past 2 decades). That might've been a *little* overdone, maybe by a year or two, but the games we praise so much now are basically Mario, Zelda, Metroid.

They made they're first appearence... in pre 1990 i think. i KNOW zelda was 1987 anyway. From that all those games just evolved. Don't give me *3d was revolutionary* because even doom was 3d.

Don't get me wrong i'm not bashing on Nintendo, i love nintendo to death and have never purshased any console other than a Nintendo one. I love love love nintendo games. But revolutionary, no.

Sorry for thread creator btw, i just re-read your post and i seem to have read over the part where you say next-gen. *feels really stupid, and sits in the corner of shame with a nice pointy hat that says "donkey" :-[*

[quote]Your analogy just plain sucks, revolutionary? If Nintendo wasn't here, gaming would be different/possibly not exist. So before you start bashing Nintendo about not doing anything revolutionary, look at the controllers we have now, what do you think they evolved from? Look at the industry, how was it revived? Nintendo you asshole[/quote]

I said (in the past 2 decades). That might've been a *little* overdone, maybe by a year or two, but the games we praise so much now are basically Mario, Zelda, Metroid.

They made they're first appearence... in pre 1990 i think. i KNOW zelda was 1987 anyway. From that all those games just evolved. Don't give me *3d was revolutionary* because even doom was 3d.

Don't get me wrong i'm not bashing on Nintendo, i love nintendo to death and have never purshased any console other than a Nintendo one. I love love love nintendo games. But revolutionary, no.

Sorry for thread creator btw, i just re-read your post and i seem to have read over the part where you say next-gen. *feels really stupid, and sits in the corner of shame with a nice pointy hat that says "donkey" :-[*

TSA

2006-01-23 09:31:05 pm

Retired

World of Warcraft-clone on Revolution with DS on-the-go playability support = for the win.

Unlike the cheesy GBA/GCN connectivity, DS has the ability to produce semi-decent graphics, optimal interface and net connection on-the-go to play with users on both DS and Revolution. Just utilizing a modified, less-graphic-intensive interface would allow players on DS to play people on Revolution using the WiFi network.

Pretty awesome if they do something like that.

grndino

2006-01-23 09:48:00 pm

As far as a 'golden age' is concerned, that definately hasn't happened. To tell a story in a game, we're still dependant on old methods, like cut scenes or text boxes. Take that out (as we often do here), and you just have a goal and a method.

Err, shit, I was supposed to use an analogy. Uh, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are having a ball racin' around, while Newgrounds and this guy are selling pretzels in the stands, wondering why their cars can't race on the same track.

pyurrhia

2006-01-23 09:58:19 pm

like cranky kong, but not as nice

i think TSA's original analogy is essentially correct - not the one i'd have used, but correct nonetheless. what it says is that sony and microsoft are vying to outdo each other in terms of (primarily) graphical processing power, while nintendo are looking in a completely different direction.

what lenny says is also true: nintendo are a massive company making huge profits and looking to make more. again, this fits with TSA's analogy: while sony and microsoft battle over the 'casual gamer' market, nintendo are looking to woo the 'non-gamer' market. in other words, while sony and microsoft clash over market share, nintendo seek to create an entirely new market.

on the subject of gaming's golden age, such things are entirely subjective and dependent on the games you play at any given time (and, of course, how they affect you). when i was a lad, back in the early 80s, i'd never seen anything like defender, and i sought it out wherever i could. later, and still before the second console boom, carrier command on the amiga. then a link to the past. then ocarina of time. all possible golden eras, all just excellent games at different times (which is an extremely long-winded and nostalgic way of agreeing with strangeness' point).

i think TSA's original analogy is essentially correct - not the one i'd have used, but correct nonetheless. what it says is that sony and microsoft are vying to outdo each other in terms of (primarily) graphical processing power, while nintendo are looking in a completely different direction.

what lenny says is also true: nintendo are a massive company making huge profits and looking to make more. again, this fits with TSA's analogy: while sony and microsoft battle over the 'casual gamer' market, nintendo are looking to woo the 'non-gamer' market. in other words, while sony and microsoft clash over market share, nintendo seek to create an entirely new market.

on the subject of gaming's golden age, such things are entirely subjective and dependent on the games you play at any given time (and, of course, how they affect you). when i was a lad, back in the early 80s, i'd never seen anything like defender, and i sought it out wherever i could. later, and still before the second console boom, carrier command on the amiga. then a link to the past. then ocarina of time. all possible golden eras, all just excellent games at different times (which is an extremely long-winded and nostalgic way of agreeing with strangeness' point).

Lag.Com

2006-01-23 10:10:44 pm

sda loyalist

I agree with the cynical view of Lenny. Nintendo is one of the most dependent-upon-franchises companies I've ever seen, but they're apparently at the pinnacle of new gaming ideas.
That said, they do sometimes take their characters in new and interesting directions, such as Metroid Prime.

Or, uh... Mario Football.

I thought the first 3 Mario games were good, then they tried to give it a plot. It's similar to the whole "Zelda universe", where they are attempting to string together every Zelda game into some kind of coherent story, except the games were only ever made to shovel some cash into coffers. I'd prefer they just said "Nah, they aren't related at all. Oh, and have you pre-ordered Twilight Princess?"

Lenny

2006-01-23 10:17:10 pm

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Quote:

while sony and microsoft battle over the 'casual gamer' market, nintendo are looking to woo the 'non-gamer' market. in other words, while sony and microsoft clash over market share, nintendo seek to create an entirely new market.

I would just like to add, that while searching for this new market it also wants to maintain the market it already has. Nintendo has a specific market of gamers who want a specific type of games(often even a specific franchise). By creating new means of gaming, and producing games of classic franchises for these new means, they manage to maintain their old market and attract a new one.

Quite the brainiacs there at nintendo.

Patricio

2006-01-23 10:19:55 pm

MarioKart64.com biotch!

Here is how it was for me:

NES: I was really young when I played this. I found that most games were pretty good and I didn't really play any games I hate. Part of this could be I rented less games cause I was younger and didn't have any money or a car. I usually just rented the Ninja Turtles games and I owned Mario 1 and 3 so I was set.

PS1: There were some good games such as Tony Hawk but in the PS1 era there were a lot of crappy games. There were especially a bunch of crap sports games. Back in the days where companies thought they could beat the Tony Hawk series.

N64: Basicly every game I played was decent. I even enjoyed blast corps, as sucky as it was. This system had a lot of stuff that had never been done before because It was this new era of 3-d platformers.

PS2: I found my fair share of decent and crappy games on this system. When GTA 3 came out that was a revolutionary game. And there were some good TH games but not much else I remember.

X-Box: I found that more games were to my dislike on this system. I liked Halo and Doom 3 but not much else. X-Box didn't do it for me like the other systems.

So what do I find myself doing these days? Booting up my n64 and sometimes (rarely) my NES just because it doesn't always work. And I sold most of my PS2/X-Box games.

Here is how it was for me:

NES: I was really young when I played this. I found that most games were pretty good and I didn't really play any games I hate. Part of this could be I rented less games cause I was younger and didn't have any money or a car. I usually just rented the Ninja Turtles games and I owned Mario 1 and 3 so I was set.

PS1: There were some good games such as Tony Hawk but in the PS1 era there were a lot of crappy games. There were especially a bunch of crap sports games. Back in the days where companies thought they could beat the Tony Hawk series.

N64: Basicly every game I played was decent. I even enjoyed blast corps, as sucky as it was. This system had a lot of stuff that had never been done before because It was this new era of 3-d platformers.

PS2: I found my fair share of decent and crappy games on this system. When GTA 3 came out that was a revolutionary game. And there were some good TH games but not much else I remember.

X-Box: I found that more games were to my dislike on this system. I liked Halo and Doom 3 but not much else. X-Box didn't do it for me like the other systems.

So  what do I find myself doing these days? Booting up my n64 and sometimes (rarely) my NES just because it doesn't always work. And I sold most of my PS2/X-Box games.

spineshark

2006-01-23 10:46:36 pm

新世紀進歩的羽扇子音楽

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!

Heh, not to mention Sonic 2 and SMW before that.

Personally, I am a huge SNES fanboy. I like N64 versions of SSB, Mario, Zelda...better than their GCN followups. Right now, Link's Awakening is what I would call my favorite game ever.

None of that should mean that I think games are getting crappy or less creative. True, my library (composed of a ridiculous number of sequels) isn't particularly innovative, but games are still fun. And as long as that's the case, it doesn't matter if I'm playing Super Metroid or Circle of the Moon.

soteos

Edit history:

soteos: 2006-01-23 11:52:14 pm

2006-01-23 11:51:57 pm

Ugh, I think I came in too late to the conversation, oh well. Lenny, you’re talking about profit. And HeroPenguin is talking about the consoles themselves. You’re both right (and Mr. Potatomoto does want our money). Although I doubt Captain Falcon is going to win for sure, I'm only rooting for him.
To everyone who thinks the Nintendo franchises are hindering themselves, let’s take a look at another franchise. Madden. Every year this game doesn’t come out very improved off the previous year. And it can’t, you can’t put much imagination into the series because it’s based off of real life activities. Same with the other stuff I listed that I hate, you can’t put imagination into those titles because they just try to emulate real life. You know what to expect.
Now just ponder this, because I’m not totally sure…
The Nintendo franchises will stay around because they are genres. There is the sword adventure genre with Zelda, the space alien shooter genre with Metroid, and the… something genre… with Mario. These are great, not because of the main characters- those are just selling points, but because they capture fantasy. And every game everyone listed as great was because they took that fantasy to a new and more personal level. They are great games because they are great genres. And all the sub par sequels, it seems, were the ones that copied a lot from the previous hit.
Or something.

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-23 11:56:01 pm

$inner

the sequels that add something that's actually worth buying to the game is good, but, games like Tony Hawk, after 7 games with only a single year between them is ridiculous, nobody is really branching out to new intellectual properties which are risks but could make more than just sequels

Wahoo

2006-01-24 12:06:56 am

not all sequels are sub par, take a look at ocarina of time Shocked

soteos

Edit history:

soteos: 2006-01-24 12:09:28 am

2006-01-24 12:08:04 am

Not those sequels, I mean the ones like Majora's Mask, which took a lot from OoT. OoT was one that took it up to a new level.
Although some of these sequels were really awesome, I loved the hell out of Banjo-Tooie.

-Suzaku-

2006-01-24 12:10:25 am

Eternal Understudy

Plus, OoT took a completely different turn from it's predecessor, Link's Awakening. Same with Metroid Prime and Metroid Fusion, Mario 64 and Mario World.
It's sequels like the later Mega Man X ones that repeat the exact same friggin' thing again and again that are subpar.

Yoshi348

2006-01-24 12:28:33 am

dinosaur from the past

Quote:

Same with Metroid Prime and Metroid Fusion.

Prime and Fusion were developed at the same time, and released almost concurrently. Prime's predeccesor would be Super Metroid.

Quote:

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

Amen to that... I quit after like Mega Man 3 in the Mega Man Anniversary Collection because they were just banging out the same game over and over again. I eventually came back to it for 7, but eh...

And poor Pokemon! I have more cute widdle stuffed Pikachu than should be legal, and love them to death, but I skipped out on Fire Red. Skipping out on a major Nintendo release is really not me, but Pokemon's being assembly lined. Gold and Silver get a pass, because I tend to give a pass to the first sequel even if it was only refining, especially in this case where it was refining a lot (splitting Special, making Psychic not utterly fucking broken etc.) When it came to Ruby and Sapphire, I pretty much only bought it because "OOH! SHINY NEW SYSTEM!" (In my defense, GBC -> GBA is a pretty big leap techwise.) Pokemon Colloseum didn't do too many tweaks, but it did enough, and with the creativity drought in the main line it was a freaking oasis and I ate it up. Now XD is Colloseum 1.5, spelling doom to my hopes.

[quote]Same with Metroid Prime and Metroid Fusion.[/quote]
Prime and Fusion were developed at the same time, and released almost concurrently. Prime's predeccesor would be Super Metroid.

[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]
Amen to that... I quit after like Mega Man 3 in the Mega Man Anniversary Collection because they were just banging out the same game over and over again. I eventually came back to it for 7, but eh...

And poor Pokemon! I have more cute widdle stuffed Pikachu than should be legal, and love them to death, but I skipped out on Fire Red. Skipping out on a major Nintendo release is really not me, but Pokemon's being assembly lined. Gold and Silver get a pass, because I tend to give a pass to the first sequel even if it was only refining, especially in this case where it was refining a lot (splitting Special, making Psychic not utterly fucking broken etc.) When it came to Ruby and Sapphire, I pretty much only bought it because "OOH! SHINY NEW SYSTEM!" (In my defense, GBC -> GBA is a pretty big leap techwise.) Pokemon Colloseum didn't do too many tweaks, but it did enough, and with the creativity drought in the main line it was a freaking oasis and I ate it up. Now XD is Colloseum 1.5, spelling doom to my hopes.

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-24 02:39:33 am

$inner

Ah, good ol days of Pokemon (I still play a bit of Crystal fore I go to bed), yet, it seems to have become yet another sequel after sequel after sequel series with each concurrent one adding less (Though, I do admit that the R/B/Y to G/S/C was pretty good)

HeroPenguin

2006-01-24 09:02:42 am

Rock on, Earthbound. Rock on.

Lenny, I just want to sayin my defense, I never said Nintendo wasn't playing for money. On a base level, they really do seem to think the Revolution is what people want and will love to play, whether or not the world at large realizes it yet. They're only trying so hard because they want our money though, I won't argue that. But you can't really argue that the Revolution compared to the 360 and the PS3 really is like comparing a hovercraft to the most badass drag racers you ever did see. And the drag racers are damn well impressive in their own right. Hell of a blast to watch. Wouldn't want to own one myself, though. I'd probably never get much milage out of it. That hovercraft though looks spiffy, and if for no other reason than to play around with it for fun, I'm interested in getting it. PS3 and 360 are selling tickets galore to see their drag racers in action, but Revolution is trying to make something new and unexplored to get people's money. There's only so many times you can watch the same race, even if it does get faster and bigger and badder every year. Who knows, eventually we might be watching hovercraft races.

As a side note, I find it a little ironic and perhaps even symbolic that in contesting my original analogy, you used the Blue Falcon to represent Nintendo. The Blue Falcon, of course, being a hovercraft. Grin

Btw, pyurrhia, TSA didn't make the original analogy... That was me. Just wanted that out there. Cry

I'm astounded that this thread exploded like it did. o_O Veered around a little, but good discussion here. As far as the golden age of gaming, I don't buy it, personally. I've liked games in every generation to date, and this next one is looking good too. I don't have an issue with sequels, particularly not ones that aren't just expansions to an old game in disguise. Mario in particular is pretty good about this, though Devil May Cry shows up as a blip for me in that respect. I've got no problem with games today, and while I won't be buying a 360 or a PS3, I'll probably play my fair share of games on them.

I'd be lying if I didn't say that the Revolution has me more excited than anything else game related I've ever seen, though. The possibilities excite me. I'm looking forward to owning my own hovercraft. ^___^

Lenny, I just want to sayin my defense, I never said Nintendo wasn't playing for money.  On a base level, they really do seem to think the Revolution is what people want and will love to play, whether or not the world at large realizes it yet.  They're only trying so hard because they want our money though, I won't argue that.  But you can't really argue that the Revolution compared to the 360 and the PS3 really is like comparing a hovercraft to the most badass drag racers you ever did see.  And the drag racers are damn well impressive in their own right.  Hell of a blast to watch.  Wouldn't want to own one myself, though.  I'd probably never get much milage out of it.  That hovercraft though looks spiffy, and if for no other reason than to play around with it for fun, I'm interested in getting it.  PS3 and 360 are selling tickets galore to see their drag racers in action, but Revolution is trying to make something new and unexplored to get people's money.  There's only so many times you can watch the same race, even if it does get faster and bigger and badder every year.  Who knows, eventually we might be watching hovercraft races.

As a side note, I find it a little ironic and perhaps even symbolic that in contesting my original analogy, you used the Blue Falcon to represent Nintendo.  The Blue Falcon, of course, being a hovercraft.   ;D

Btw, pyurrhia, TSA didn't make the original analogy...  That was me.  Just wanted that out there.   :'(

I'm astounded that this thread exploded like it did.  o_O  Veered around a little, but good discussion here.  As far as the golden age of gaming, I don't buy it, personally.   I've liked games in every generation to date, and this next one is looking good too.  I don't have an issue with sequels, particularly not ones that aren't just expansions to an old game in disguise.  Mario in particular is pretty good about this, though Devil May Cry shows up as a blip for me in that respect.  I've got no problem with games today, and while I won't be buying a 360 or a PS3, I'll probably play my fair share of games on them.

I'd be lying if I didn't say that the Revolution has me more excited than anything else game related I've ever seen, though.  The possibilities excite me.  I'm looking forward to owning my own hovercraft.  ^___^

Mkt2015

2006-01-24 01:06:53 pm

MGS for PS1 forever.

The golden age of gaming was SNES.

I grew up with Nintendo even though I didn't own one and in the past year or so have gotten into the castlevania games. Unlike Mario and Metroid, Castlevania in a 3d world just doesn't work...at least it hasn't yet.

There has to be a balance between taking leaps with something new and sticking to an old franchice. People will always, at least at first, stick with what they know. Mario, it seems, has been around forever and the gameplay is refined to perfection. Everyone knows that. But, it will be people that go off the deep end and make something new and spectacular that will lead the way in the next-gen war.

I'm looking forward to a God of War 2 myself.

When it comes to the golden age of gaming, you have these SNES titles:

Chrono Trigger
Civilization
Donkey Kong Country, 2 and 3
Earthbound
Earthworm Jim
F-Zero
Final Fantasy II and III (III considered to be, by some, the best FF game no matter what anyone says.)
Final Fight
Harvest Moon
Killer Instinct
Mega Man X, X2, X3
Might and Magic
Mortal Kombat, 2, 3
NBA Jam T.E.
Secret of Mana
Star Fox
Street Fighter II
Super Castlevania IV
Super Ghouls 'N Ghosts
Super Mario Kart
Super Mario RPG
Super Mario World, Yoshi's Island
Super Metroid
Super Punch-Out!
Zelda: A Link to the Past

The golden age of gaming was SNES.

I grew up with Nintendo even though I didn't own one and in the past year or so have gotten into the castlevania games. Unlike Mario and Metroid, Castlevania in a 3d world just doesn't work...at least it hasn't yet.

There has to be a balance between taking leaps with something new and sticking to an old franchice. People will always, at least at first, stick with what they know. Mario, it seems, has been around forever and the gameplay is refined to perfection. Everyone knows that. But, it will be people that go off the deep end and make something new and spectacular that will lead the way in the next-gen war.

I'm looking forward to a God of War 2 myself.

When it comes to the golden age of gaming, you have these SNES titles:

Chrono Trigger
Civilization
Donkey Kong Country, 2 and 3
Earthbound
Earthworm Jim
F-Zero
Final Fantasy II and III (III considered to be, by some, the best FF game no matter what anyone says.)
Final Fight
Harvest Moon
Killer Instinct
Mega Man X, X2, X3
Might and Magic
Mortal Kombat, 2, 3
NBA Jam T.E.
Secret of Mana
Star Fox
Street Fighter II
Super Castlevania IV
Super Ghouls 'N Ghosts
Super Mario Kart
Super Mario RPG
Super Mario World, Yoshi's Island
Super Metroid
Super Punch-Out!
Zelda: A Link to the Past

pyurrhia

2006-01-24 01:34:01 pm

like cranky kong, but not as nice

Quote:

Btw, pyurrhia, TSA didn't make the original analogy... That was me. Just wanted that out there. Cry

^___^

sorry, my mistake

spineshark

2006-01-24 02:48:47 pm

新世紀進歩的羽扇子音楽

Quote:

Final Fantasy II and III (III considered to be, by some, the best FF game no matter what anyone says.)

Pah! III is the best...for the Famicom...

You have made me absurdly sad that I haven't played half those games... Sad

Lag.Com

2006-01-24 04:03:12 pm

sda loyalist

I never owned a SNES, though I knew several people who did, and spent a lot of time on it. Was I the only person who thought Super Mario World was incredibly difficult? Smiley

I've never been a fan of Castlevania games, although I have picked up Aria of Sorrow recently and is proving quite fun. Mostly I think its music sucks, though there are a few good tracks on SotN which 'caught my ear', so to speak. Never understand the fuss, generic platformers, yay.

Most of the games in the list Mkt2015 posted I have never played, except the ones which are cross-console.

Lenny

2006-01-24 05:12:10 pm

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

That's actually the reason why i used the blue falcon, rather than a Mario Kart, HeroPenguin. I wanted to show, that although it is(or seems to be, it probable isn't a real one, more likely f-zero machines are floated by some magnetic field or something like that) a hovercraft, it still tries the same as the drag racers, instead of doing it's own thing, like you said in the beginning. Floating is just another way to get around that track real fast.

Rofl these metafors are getting confusing Grin

Lag.Com

2006-01-24 05:17:01 pm

sda loyalist

Succinctly, "same shit, different assholes". Tongue

Yoshi348

2006-01-24 05:28:17 pm

dinosaur from the past

Okay, so now... Nintendo is like a box of chocolates. There's like... caramel, and creme... and... no no, start over.

Okay, the Playstation 3 is like Kansas... and X-Box 360 is... Wyoming... and.... no no no...

Okay, so the Revolution, the PS3, and the X-Box 360 walk in to a bar, and the bartender... nah... dangit, I'll get it one of these days!

Phauxe

2006-01-24 07:00:45 pm

Quote:

Okay, so now... Nintendo is like a box of chocolates. There's like... caramel, and creme... and... no no, start over.

Okay, the Playstation 3 is like Kansas... and X-Box 360 is... Wyoming... and.... no no no...

Okay, so the Revolution, the PS3, and the X-Box 360 walk in to a bar, and the bartender... nah... dangit, I'll get it one of these days!

That's really funny Grin