Revolution or Evolution?
 

For everyone's sake, and for the sake of keeping the console forums a nicer place (as well as post stuff RELEVENT TO WHAT THE THREAD IS ABOUT), everyone can vent their anger out here. Well, not anger, but their point of view. Does this coming gaming generation need a revolution? Or is an evolution just enough?

Don't get what I mean?

Nintendo states that these days graphics aren't enough. They came up with the Revolution control and the DS to reinstate their point. Sony and Microsoft want gamers to experience a gaming world so real, so advanced that the amount of power within their consoles could emulate a game about Life. Is this a revolution in this sort of sense? Is the Revolution just an evolution of the DS/GBA-GCN connectivity?

Do we need better graphics, physics and AI? Or do we need new approaches in our gaming life?

Discuss discuss.

We don't need better graphics. What we need is better game design. Gameplay wise, there aren't many next generation games that feature many things that can't be done in this generation. I hope the Revolution opens up need gameplay ideas as the DS did, though I bet the lack of hardware power will bite them in the ass.

There will always be use for better graphics, but what designers need to start doing is make good use of them and design their games so that the graphics support the game and not the other way around.

More credit also need to be given to sound design in games by media and players. Hardly anyone notices the soundscape, but done badly it'll ruin the game anyway. Good soundtrack, great sound effects, simply good sound can make the difference between a decent and an excellent gaming experience.

But (I'm only speaking from what I know) with PS3 and Xbox360 having more power they can probably have the ability to extend already existing genres.

But I agree with what you are saying. Do we really need all that extra power to essentially play an Xbox/PS2 game with supped up graphics? Do we really need AI to blur the lines of computer AI to humans?

And with Revo having roughly two times the power of the GCN there's no reason why Revo games will look bad. Sure against the other two it'll look shoddy... But it's good enough (or is it?).

I think Revolution will open up new gaming ideas, as Nintendo already showcased that in the trailer for their next-gen console. The idea behind the controller is a bold one, but I think ultimately Revolution will not fair as well compared to PS3 or X360. The lack of a solid gaming library will be a big problem (look at the DS) as well traditional gamers will not likely be able to adapt to the new form of gameplay proposed by Nintendo. Look at the sales figure for PSP, the mini behemoth apparently generated US1.6 billion in 2005, and that was more than X360 and DS combined.

Anyway, back to the topic, it's true that graphics are not enough to determind the success or failure of a game/console. Clever marketing is key, as well as combining as many functions as possible into the console.

PSP = music, movie, gaming = huge success
iPod = music, movie, pictures = mega success

It's the same idea of a cellphone packed with music function and 3.0mega pixel camera; do we really need all of them in the phone? Not particularly, but it just gives bragging rights. Maybe if the Revolution incoprates all of these functions into itself, and bombard the media with commercials and publicity stunts, Nintendo *might* be able to come back on top as king of all consoles.

My two cents.

Well this thread ain't only about Nintendo. I'd like to hear whether people want a revolution or just an evolution.

DS lacks a solid library of games? I don't know about that one. Have you seen the games on the DS? As for the PSP sales figures, really? I've been told the DS was selling better due to them attracting new gamers. Anyone know the actual scenario?

If the DS was any example, I think the world is ready for a Revolution. But will they want it more than an Evolution?

Some want change, alot of us are expecting a revolution...

I'm actually happy that Nintendo is doing this kind of this. Having good graphics really don't mean a damn thing if your gameplay doesn't support the game. Otherwise, it's just a failed game.

But of course, you'll have those people who <3 good graphics and could careless about gameplay. They'll reccomend it to their friends, they'll buy it. Be moved by the graphics. And then that shit game becomes a popular failed game.

Like Halo 2. Good graphics. Not as a good as the first on gameplay wise.

DS is absolutely dominating PSP in Japan, it's the fastest selling system of all time, and people are camping out for DS's every week as a new shipment comes in. It's also a decent amount ahead in Europe but only slightly ahead in the US, with PSP slowly catching up there. horlique was either just talking out of his arse, or has been misinformed.

Damn, now I must comment on the topic!

Revolution or evolution? Why not both?

Nintendo Revolution will be a revolution, but it will still have new graphics. "Better graphics is just the entry fee to next generation" sez Iwata. Heck, we'll even have the option to use the classic control scheme too! Best of both worlds! Like the DS.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P...2.LZZZZZZZ.jpg http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P...2.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Both are pretty bad!

Dude, Space Invaders Colossi style would kick ass.

And please stop saying "The Revolution will be a Revolution." That's the corniest shit I've ever heard.

What the Revolution will be, is a gaming console which is taking an alternative route to gaming because they can't keep up with Sony or Microsoft. Nintendo's big decision to take an alternative route is ultimately because they're wanting to try something unique which will appeal to Nintendo fans and people curious of what they're capable of.

Meanwhile, the rest of the population sides with either Microsoft or Sony because it's pretty straightfoward. PS3 will be releasing DMC4, MGS4, a Tekken, FPS the game, and a bunch of other awesome stuff. By then the 360 will actually have 1 game worth playing, and will be established. Nintendo makes Mario Rehash#12 which will appeal to the kids, fanboys, and older people who stay true to their company, with a controller which won't be usable at kiosk's because they're either chained to the kiosk like a puzzle or not there at all.

When it's released, people will buy it, and it will be a console. It won't be a revolution or anything amazing like that, and neither was the 360 nor will the PS3 be. They're video gaming consoles, but new. That's nothing revolutionary, that's just gaming.

Everyone has their expectations set WAY too high, and I look foward to RABicle and Grubdog uploading their "australianshurtebworker.mpeg" videos once it's released.

Nintendo fans, please don't get me wrong, but I think Nintendo is moving fowards neither to an Evolution nor a Revolution but instead a "UN"evolution.

Up to this point I can't figure out what they are trying to do with this.

It appears sequels are only bad when Nintendo makes them, eh?

By "UN"evolution are you saying that Nintendo are going backwards, or staying in the same place, or choice C?

Up to this point I can't figure out what you're trying to say with this.

They haven't managed to ruin MGS or DMC. Do you see Snake in other games? Snake Golf? Raiden Tennis? Metal Gear Kart? No, I don't think so. They haven't done this with MGS, Capcom haven't done it with DMC, and Namco are very smart. They haven't fucked up Tekken they've just lost hype for it.

Mario sold out, face it. When you consider the amount of Mario games and the amount of real Mario games, it's depressing. There's more $$$ Mario games than actual Mario games available. Sunshine was disappointing, and for there to be another Mario game which isn't a cash whore it's going to be on the Revolution. With that controller.

I'm going to laugh when somebody tries to jump in Mario and accidentally smashes their tv.

Actually, Solid Snake was a playable character in Hudson's DreamMix TV World Fighters for PS2 and GC. Also had Bomberman, Goemon, Simon Belmont, a Gradius ship and Optimus Prime. AKA: Best game ever.

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/9071/dream260jw.jpg

I think he was also in Evolution Skateboarding. And Dante was thrown in the PS2 Viewtiful Joe for no reason.

Edit: holy crap-o!
Mario Lawn Bowls comin' soon.

Metal Gear Acid, Dream Mix TV Fighters

Dante was in the shoddy port of Viewtiful Joe 1 on the PS2

Tekken's Nina Williams in Death by Degrees.


All are punishéd.

Yeah, but that's different. They're in a couple of other titles which aren't the main series, where as Mario is everywhere.

I mean, Dance Dance Revolution Mario Mix. Come on. Mario Kart, Tennis, Soccer, Pinball, Mario Paint, Mario Tetris, the list is never ending. They've slapped him on every single game just in hope of it to sell better. It does work, but it isn't a nice way of representing your console mascot.

Who really cares? Most of those games are awesome.

In your flailing about you have managed to bring up a game that does not exist.

Hypocrisy acheived! The gist of what I'm getting from your defensively impossible position is that it is okay to fuck a goat (make a spinoff) as long as you only do it once.

Mario is a "goatfucker."

Despite having fucked goats, those three you mention somehow avoid the goatfucker label.

Wait, what?

acheived? What the hell. Dr. Mario is indeed a game, and is indeed a Tetris clone with Mario in it. I couldn't think of the title but there it is.

You don't seem to understand the simple fact that Mario has his own game in almost every genre, and that's bad. And you're trying to go ahead and tell me that Snake in another game, or Dante in another game, makes them equally as bad? That doesn't make much sense now, does it?

Why? That's what we don't understand.

The fact that they even attempted to do so in the first place makes them as "bad," because the idea is the same. To make a franchise character popular. I don't mind spinoffs really. But it is unfair to treat Mario any differently just because he's been doing it longer. Hence the goatfucker argument.

And the claim of "selling out" is horseshit. Nintendo still owns Mario. If appearing in another genre is "selling out," then the list of the guilty would be long indeed.

All are punishéd.

Because Nintendo are no longer putting quality into their titles.

As much "fun" as they want in their "childish - but not only for kids!" titles, it still boils down to the fact that they could have been putting their time and effort into a better Mario game. I mean, Mario Sunshine, lol. I thought Sunshine was terrible and not even up to Mario 64's level. It managed to get decent scores, people loved it, why? Because it's a Mario title.

I'm sure half of these Gamecube owners wouldn't buy a soccer title if it were released(which probably won't happen; Gamecube is dead.) but they easily manage to do so when it has Mario and crew in it. Why? No, not because it's a soccer game, not because it has an objective or anything logical like that, but because it has Mario in it! Instantly Nintendo owners flush themselves to Electronics Boutique to pick up a game that they know basically nothing about except for it being "a sports game" and "a sports game with Nintendo characters" in it.

I considered Mario 64 a good title. With the amount of levels, level design, and what they managed, it was a HUGE leap from the SNES Mario games. But then Sunshine comes out, and it's what, a polished 64 title where you go around cleaning sewage off of walls? Oh please.

And that's the thing. Another Mario title will come out, and so will another, and another, and another. Except they won't be Mario titles they'll just be games with Mario shoved in them. When the Revolution get's it's first true Mario title, it'll use that thing you call a controller, and it'll somehow manage to integrate it with the game. Not because they want to or anything, but because it's already there. Instead of working around it, they're now forced to work with it.

What I'm confused over is how this is meant to be so revolutionary. It's a gaming system made by Nintendo. It's expected to be released the same time as the PS3, and people by then will have their revisioned 360's and games, or be waiting on hype for the PS3 and what it has to offer. There's the Nintendo fanboys, but as it's the last console to be released in the next generation console market it probably won't do as well as the others.

Take the xbox, it was released in what, 2002? It came last, and it also came last in sales, game ratings, basically everything. There's a few xbox titles worth owning, yes, but a "few" doesn't logically warrant you buying a console for them. The xbox failed and was pretty much marketed to hell via Microsoft, and that's how they got off their feet. Now the Revolution's going to be released last, and people's patience is going to wear thin. Why would you want to wait for something you're unsure of, when you already know what others have to offer? It doesn't make much sense. You can enjoy Nintendo and teir titles a smuch as you want, but they'll probably end up releasing 1 awesome game every 7 months, much like the Gamecube did.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Wow. Never before has so many words delivered so little content. Your chittering has put forth no point other than you think Mario has "sold out," which is a meaningless statement, and you appear to believe that the only games being developed for the Revolution are ones with Mario in them.

Both are wrong, despite your belief that Mario has "gone down in quality."

Congratulations on making this thread a trainwreck, using only the power of your mind, or lack thereof.

That's more than likely an indication that you didn't read what I said.

Mario has sold out, and you know damn well that he has. Your argument of "Snake is in another game" and "Dante is in a mangled(lol, wrong) version of Viewtiful Joe on the PS2" doesn't live up. A couple of gaming mascots appearing in different games is insignificant to the amount of genres Mario has and what Nintendo have made him into - a cash project.

It isn't meaningless at all. I apologize if I hurt your Nintendo pride, but Mario is in every genre possible, or close to. Congratulations on failing to deliver, and dishing out rubbish that only a typical fanboy would produce.

gb2/warproom

For every Mario Smash Football (which I passed on, because I already have Sega Soccer Slam and it looks too similar), there's a Mario Power Tennis and Mario Kart, which are fucking AWESOME.

For every Super Mario Sunshine (all 1 of them), there's a New Super Mario Bros. (all 1 of them)

It seems like you're using whatever titles are conveniant to get your twisted point across...

Let's get this train back on the track! How far could Mario evolve without the Revolution? Each game would be basically Super Mario 64 with new levels and twists. You said yourself Elixir, how big a leap Super Mario 64 was. It went from 2D to 3D, that's pretty big. What now? Mario burst out of the limits of 2D graphics in the huge leap of Super Mario 64, now it's time to burst out of the limits of 2D gameplay, which should be an even bigger leap. How else do you propose the next Super Mario game evolves? I'm interested to hear peoples thoughts on that.

EDIT: Wow, Elixir thinks he's tough. Deg must feel pretty owned right now, after you pointed out for the 6th time Mario is in lots of games.

From wikipedia.

"Selling out is a common slang phrase. Broadly speaking, it refers to the compromising of one's integrity in exchange for money or other personal gain. It is commonly associated with attempts to increase mass appeal or acceptability to mainstream society. A person who does this is labelled a sellout."

Super Mario Brothers has sold 40 million copies. And that's just the NES version. Now I would say that's pretty fucking mainstream.

Since your definition of "Selling Out" is simply having a character in another genre, Mario has been "selling out" since 1991 with NES Open Tournament Golf, and possibly sooner. The idea that Mario was created to make money is laughable in its obviousness. Of course he was made to make money. EVERY VIDEO GAME IS, IDIOT.

And then you jump around with the fanboy insults, when I made no specific mention of any kind of fault with any competitive company. I believe it is basically that I disagree with you, and you have weak points supported by weak arguments.

Desperation brings out the true colors.

Like focusing on only one definition? :]

[@ grubdog]

That's not entirely what I was trying to get at. I didn't mention Mario 64 because it was a transition from 2D to 3D.

I mentioned it because the game was huge and everlasting. The DS remake was nothing special, but the 64 game was incredible. Of course we were impressed by the graphics and Mario being in 3D and everything, but the level design and ingenuity was what I found most attractive about the game.

Sure, the ending was pretty basic, and your reward was unlimited lives on top of the castle which you didn't even need anymore, but the game's levels were worth it alone. Alot of games these days lack content, but Mario 64 had some great times.

Sega did sell out Sonic in certain ways. Not as much as Nintendo, but they did manage to have Spinball, Sonic featured in Soleil, along with other games. But Sega are gone from wht they were now, so that doesn't matter. The fact which I'm trying to get at is, Nintendo are still around, and they probably won't stop with making Mario games which are only really childish versions of games.

I'm not saying Mario Kart was bad. I know, Kart was good, but I can't say the same over Dr. Mario, Tennis, or Soccer. Where's the originality in that? Sony went as far as Crash Team Racing, but they didn't sell out Bandicoot. Microsoft haven't done squat with Master Chief on the xbox, aside from the Halo games, and Nintendo is the only one I see still putting Mario into games. Why?

Crash Bash.

Microsoft only recently farmed out Master Chief to Tecmo for Dead or Alive 4.

They are not the only ones putting their franchise characters into other genres.

AGAIN, everybody is guilty of this.

Ofcourse they are, but not to the extent of Nintendo. Wait why am I even posting in the gaming sections. It's made of illogic and masturbation.

You're bringing out quite alot of colors, bud. I remember your old avatar here. It was Mario and you had a "Nintendo fanboy, be proud" signature. Why? Because you're a Nintendo fanboy, so obviously it's only natural for you to defend Nintendo.

What you don't seem to realize is that Nintendo have, indeed, been selling Mario out since 1991. There were worthwhile games such as Mario Kart, Kart 64, and MKDS, but the remake of Mario 64 on the DS, Tennis, and all that - just isn't anything more than cashing in.

I think you're missing my point here. I know video game characters are in there for the money, but that doesn't avoid the fact that Nintendo is lacking originality. Mario Tennis and Mario _____ games aren't true Mario games, they're just pointless games to tie the fans over before something really decent comes out.

If you consider my argument "weak", then you are missing the point entirely. I'll say it again. Mario in a game doesn't represent originality nor creativity in a game, but t's a sell-out cash-in project for Nintendo. It's easy, it works, and people are gullible enough to buy it for it's name. Why? BECAUSE IT FUCKING HAS MARIO IN IT, HELLO.

I'm sure a bunch of Nintendo fanboys didn't even know Dance Dance Revolution existed before Mario Mix arrived. I'm sure a bunch of people sit on their ass and play soccer games instead of participating in a real soccer game -- or playing a real soccer video game.

It's pretty obvious when you look at it. Most companies have a leading character, and once they find that it's become popular, they sell it. But Kojima hasn't sold out Snake, Sony hasn't sold out Crash, and Microsoft haven't sold out Master Chief like Nintendo. Nintendo have repeatedly and continually exploited Mario for all that he's worth and they're continuing to do so.

Now, I'm not a Nintendo hater. I'm not a Sony, or a Microsoft fanboy. Actually I'm a Sega fanboy if anything, specifically a Megadrive fanboy. Feel free to trash me and have the nerve to insult a pretty much dead company, but that's irrelevant. I've supported Nintendo in the past, I even own a japanese Mario Kart. But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to want to rush out and buy things like this, please note the price because I feel like it.

If Nintendo put half their effort into their games as they did their franchising, they'd actually have games worth playing on the Gamecube. That is why I'm uncertain about the future of Nintendo and this "Revolution is revolutionary" rubbish.

Alright so you liked Super Mario 64 mainly because of the level design and everything, fair enough, it WAS awesome in that respect, the game did almost everything right. I'm hoping Super Mario Sunshine was a one off, a "vacation" for the Mario team (I wonder if Miyamoto is sick of Mario...), the levels lacked variety, and while there was some solid gameplay and I did enjoy the game, I thought overall it lacked that special something thats required in a game like that.

Personally I think the Jungle Beat developers should work on the next Mario game, now there's some inspired folk.
Well... I don't see Luigi and Daisy driving around on a motorcycle with double machine guns.
Actually they LITERALLY sold out Crash Bandicoot, now he's on about 20 different systems. :D

Solid Snake also featured in Konami Crazy Racers. Because he's fucking crazy.

LOL Isn't Labeling Theory fun?

Didn't I just fucking say that?

LIKEWISE, Metal Gear Acid is cashing in, as are the numerous games Solid Snake has been in where he is not sneaking around, and as is the Tekken beat em up and as is Dante being in Viewtiful Joe for no reason. You are unfairly labeling Mario as a Sellout while acting as if the three series you anticipate for the PS3 are somehow not glass houses from which you are throwing stones.

I don't remember ever takng issue with you saying they aren't "true" Mario games... whatever that means nowadays. I think I basically took isse with you listing three sequels, some of which are the SIXTH in their series and then jump onto Mario for "rehashing." And Nintendo lacking originality is.. just basically laughable. Really. They get shit for being TOO Original nowadays.

Once again, the same can be applied to Metal Gear Acid. The fact that simply bearing the same name is meant to entice buyers. Metal Gear has been sold out for a damn card game of all things. I bet everything who bought it for the PSP is feeling pretty gullible,

I'm sure this has a point, but I can't seem to find it.

I'm not sure what the point of this is either.

Solid Snake has been sold out, unless you weren't paying attention, to a card game on the PSP. Sony actually literally sold out Crash, both by having him genre about and then they really just sold the rights to Vivendi Universal. That's why he's multiplatform now. Hell, Sony sucked what they could out of him before just throwing him away.

and AGAIN MS had farmed out Master Chief to Tecmo to be in a fighting game. From an FPS.

Ahh but you end with the "like Nintendo" modifier. Bascially, this is an admission that some of the companies mentioned besides Nintendo sell out, but since they haven't been doing it for as long, they are exonerated of the same crime. This is a double standard.

Alleged fanboyism is irrelevant. Check.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I don't own Mario DDR. I don't really like DDR that much. I think the point is missing from here.

Ahhh, and here we come to the crux. You don't think the Gamecube has any worthwhile games. And that is bascially a subject for opinion, as I find many games on the Gamecube worthwhile, particularly Pikmin, a devilishly clever original game from Nintendo.

Your opinion aside, the lineup of a current console is not sufficient evidence to judge the lineup of a future console. The Xbox had some worthwhile games on it, and it does appear that the 360 seems to have failed in this regard, as it's highest rated and best selling game is Call of Duty 2, which is multiplatform.

It's funny that you deride the game quality of the Mario games but basically the critics and most people disagree. The lowest rated game with Mario in it this last generation was probably Mario Pinball Land, which got mixed reviews as opposed to generally positive like most of the other Mario games get.

It is a double standard to regard Mario as a "Sell out" and yet somehow vindicate Metal Gear and others (ESPECIALLY Final Fantasy) just because they do it with less frequency. And Furthermore, they seem to suck at it, Death by Degrees sucked, So does Metal Gear Acid. And Crash Bash. And whatever spinoffs are excused just because Mario ISN'T in them.

And basically my point is this, you deride Nintendo and their creation, Super Mario, although some of the companies and game series you love the most have been guilty of it as well, and they totally suck at it.

The same could be said for the other franchises. Why else do designers not just make an entirely new game instead of a sequel? The name WILL sell games. This isn't selling out, its just good buisness. The games you mention have "sold out" already, and the only reason it hasn't been done as much as it has with Mario is because A) They aren't nearly as old as the plumber and B) They aren't as recognisable.

Another hole in your argument is that you're acting like Mario Tennis or Soccer or whatever is just a generic game with nothing different other than name. Well, the Mario sports titles offer a more arcade-like gameplay that is rare in sports titles today.

- WraithTwo -

I had better not be reading what is essentially an argument about whether it's okay for Mario to star in non-platforming games. Mario can be the star of every Goddamned game in existence as far as I care as long as the game is good. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who you're controlling in Grand Theft Mario, as long as the game itself is good.

Me, I don't plan to buy any of the next-gen consoles because it looks like all three companies have gone seriously awry. Sony and Microsoft are having this graphics pissing match, and Nintendo is banking on ridiculous gimmicks, and nobody comprehends that gameplay quality is what sells titles. Tetris sure didn't sell by dint of its awesome graphics. GTA3 wasn't a best seller because you kill hookers in it. And Halo wouldn't have sold for shit without Xbox Live.

Everyone is looking at entirely the wrong aspects of top selling games, anything to avoid having to put work into a game.

That's because the Revolution has no lineup.

I think peeack said exactly what I've been trying to say, but in a less complicated way. Nintendo have picked Mario up and rung him out like a wet towel, and that's what they're going to continue to do.

And it's people like you, who buy the games.

Have you not played Winning Eleven? Captain Tsubasa J? You know, soccer games which are actually fun, and aren't Fifa 2000-2006.

Anyway, I'm not going to quote every fucking thing Deguello just said, because endless quotations of eachother in a thread really kills it. Deguello's post is a good indication of that! Let's refrain from doing so in the future. Smiley face.

Sorry, I'm really not trying to sound like a jerk here, but you must realize that Nintendo has and will continue to sell Mario in anything and everything. It applies to other companies, and them selling out their own characters as well, but they haven't done it to the extent of Nintendo.

Um, what? I've never played Tennis and Soccer, but Dr. Mario ROCKED, and it's not a Tetris clone either. It's BETTER than Tetris.

Anyway, aren't those Mario spin-off games made by different developers anyway? How are they ruining the quality of the real Mario games?

Isn't this the moment when we're supposed to say, "If you don't like it, don't buy it?" I mean, WHO CARES if Mario is in lots of different genres. If you don't like them, just ignore them and just buy the real games. I don't buy any of these games either due to lack of friends, but I don't condone Nintendo for wanting to give Mario more star power.

Just curious, which game has Deg wrongfully bought?

Yeah, that's the problem. Nintendo are so busy shoving Mario into everything that they lose focus on their primary subject - a real Mario title. It's all Nintendo's doing. I can understand titles like SSBM, but the rest is just uncalled for.

I don't like them, and I don't buy them, but people must realize that if Nintendo stopped all this we would of had a real Mario title by now. I haven't played past 3 hours of Wind Waker, and I haven't even bothered with Sunshine since playing it originally, but I think I can clearly say that neither of them were as large as what Mario 64 was.

Perhaps they just managed to get lucky with Mario 64, but I don't see why adding an extreme amount of levels to another Mario title would harm them. I mean, they've cashed out on Mario, so why not have Super Mario Revolution with the amount of levels as what Mario 64 did?

What, Grubdog is american now?

Why does every single game that Nintendo creates have to be vastly original? Can't some of them be just, y'know, fun?

I see more innovation coming from Nintendo than from any other developer. Even with the spin-off Mario games. They're not brimming with innovative new gameplay mechanics, but they're not normal sports games. You can play normal tennis, or Mario Tennis. There's a distinction between the two, because you have the option of more diverse gameplay in the latter.

As for other developers, let's think of their franchises. And not just the one convenient one they have where there are only a few off-shoots.

Konami makes Metal Gear. How many iterations of Dance Dance Revolution are there? How many more do you think there'll be before they stop? Hell, they made a Mario DDR. Sell outs, right?
I've also been informed that they make the Yu-Gi-Oh games. It doesn't get much worse than that.

Namco. Pac-man. What should have been one game now includes Mrs. Pac-man, which is essentially the same, and I believe Pac-man Jr. as well. Then there's the 3D versions, which are absolute crap, and it's beyond me why Namco doesn't get a different mascot. Pac-man is also in the Mario Kart arcade game.
The only decent (and original) Pac-man game made since the original is the Gamecube connectivity game, made by Miyamoto.

Square-Enix. Final Fantasy. We've got all twelve games, plus Final Fantasy X-2. They've also released a movie (wait, make that two, though one wasn't even based on the series), they're making so many FF7 (the most popular one) spin-offs it's ridiculous. And not even good ones. Shit like a Vincent Valentine game and cell phone games and God knows what else.
They also made Kingdom Hearts, which aside from being a shitty game is obviously a sell out by including Disney.

Capcom. How many damn Megaman games are there? How many dozens of Resident Evil remakes? Christ, they're hardly even making new games anymore.

I won't do Sega or EA or Ubisoft or Atari or any of those, too easy.

I could go on, but I think this is sufficiently long already.
I'll just finish up by citing a few Nintendo franchises that don't have spin-offs (aside from inclusion in SSBM, which is a Nintendo character game):

Animal Crossing
Pikmin
Fire Emblem
Earthbound
Zelda (Four Swords is the only one I can think of)
Advance Wars
Metroid (only one, Metroid Pinball)
Starfox (the shitty games made by Rare and Namco aren't spin-offs, they're just shitty)
1080
Wave Race
Punch Out
Golden Sun
F-Zero
Excitebike
Pilotwings
Star Tropics

Those are all franchise games. I could name single games that they didn't feel the need to expand upon, but the list would probably double.

How does Mario tennis have "more diverse gameplay"? You have a bunch of characters whacking a ball around. It's the same thing.

Bemani titles are a whole other story, though. There's something like 12 beatmania titles and 14 Pop'n Music titles out, right now. I'm big on the music scene and while they do have a large amount of titles, I don't consider porting an arcade game to the PS2 just to sell it to be cashing in. I've been playing Pop'n Music for a few weeks and I should be getting Pop'n 11 soon. Each one has a new array of songs, and once you've mastered whatever device it is you need to play it, whether it's a Pop'n controller or a Beatmania controller, it can be really fun after you've mastered it.

Why did you type this, then continue to type as if people are going to read what you're writing? I don't understand man, that's not cool. Ms. Pacman was a great game, and the levels were different. 31(or is it 32?) levels which are all different, depending on which mode you select. You can't tell me that Nintendo actually enhanced Pacman.

...oh yeah, I stopped reading there.

The problem with that theory is that Camelot (Mario Tennis, Golf), Namco (Mario Baseball), Konami (Mario DDR), Next Level Games (Mario Smash Football), Hudson (Mario Party) etc. have nothing to do with the real Mario games. They make those games, while Nintendo can focus on things other than Mario. So in a way, those games help Nintendo bring more originality to the table, because they don't take up their time. Miyamoto is a creative guy, and I personally think maybe he wants to move on from Mario, restrictions aren't healthy.

This thread might as well be moved to the Warp Room now.
Have you played it? You can't stop time, fill the court with water and then swim to the ball in any other tennis game. :D

If all these companies are working on games involving Mario(of course, with the permission and hassle of getting Nintendo's okay), how do you explain Sunshine and Wind Waker?

I'm not saying that they're bad games, Wind Waker was actually quite enjoyable. I didn't play it for very long, mind you, but Sunshine was just horrid in my view. The only reason I bought a Gamecube was to play an obscure shooting game called Shikigami no Shiro II, and now that I have it my Gamecube sits there, collecting dusts.

I mean, my Gamecube isn't even black, like my PS2 and my xbox. What the hell, Miyamoto?

This sort of puts DDR Mario in a precarious position. So.. Konami... making it... is not milking or selling out... but Nintendo being a part of it... is?

You've got the power-up dynamic, and in soccer there seem to be a variety of items or attacks not in normal soccer games. I believe these are optional. I don't know, because I don't buy most Mario spin-offs (only Mario Kart).
My point is, the Mario sports titles are strong, fun games that add a little, tiny extra to the mix. If you want it.

Ms. Pacman was essentially the same game. It didn't add enough to warrant a new game. They should have called it Pacman 2.
Also, I didn't say that Nintendo enhanced Pacman. I'm saying they made the only good version in about twenty years.

Oh yeah, that's a valid point you're making. Brilliant argument.
I like how you blatantly ignored all the best examples, which you couldn't argue with. Nice technique you've got there.

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/9...65867612an.gif

Yes, because the closest thing to music you're getting in a game is the music genre, not the fancy OST tracks you hear.

Putting Mario in a game clearly is intended for it to gain more sales. It's like sticking your favorite baseball team's mascot on a mug. People will buy it over regualr mugs, except it'll cost an extra $3 just for some logo.

You haven't played Ms. Pacman, have you? It had 31 levels which were DIFFERENT FROM EACHOTHER, and it had modes such as Strange, Big, Crazy, Weird which had another 31 mazes each.

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/753...80590259by.jpg

Ok, let's do it your way, then:

Mario Tennis, Mario Soccer, Mario DDR etc etc are not "fun."

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/6...tendogs6pe.jpg

As said before, you can play generic Mario rehash soccer, OLYMPIC edition, or you can play a proper soccer game like Winning Eleevn.

As for other developers, let's think of their franchises. And not just the one convenient one they have where there are only a few off-shoots.

Hang on, Konami don't make Metal Gear. Hideo and his own crew do that, which is only party of Konami. The Yu-Gi-Oh games aren't selling out, they're doing their purpose. Not everybody wants to buy the cards, and that's why people like Nintendo made a card game for Pokemon, so it cuts both ways.

You know this isn't true.

Square is known for quality. Alot of their games are worthwhile, bar a few. Sure, you can complain about VIII as much as you like, but you can't complain about any of the others for any length of time. VII mostly gets complained about because of it's rabid fanboy database and stereotypes which seem to revolve around the internet like aids on a platter, but that isn't Square's fault.

Kingdom Hearts happens to be a good game. I completed it and managed to get everything - trinity marks, puppies, everything. If you don't like it, that's fine. This is Square's only real notable selling out point.

Why do you think Resident Evil games are on the Gamecube? It needed games, after all. What better than to release an entire series on a single platform? Win for capcom, profit for Nintendo.

Sega and Atari hardly make games, and when they do, it's either absolute shit or incredible. I can give you examples.


Snowboarding and water racing which came out of Nintendo must be original somehow I guess?

What you're saying really doesn't make sense. You've seen original games come out of Nintendo, and there are a couple, but you've managed to disregard your own care for words. Wave Race is just another sports game, it's nothing revolutionary. If that's the case, Jet Moto for PS1 is revolutionary. Where's the common sense in that?

The games are generic sports games. What you're forgetting is that when something original comes out of Nintendo, it usually is 1-2 years apart per game. I definitely can't be satisfied with playing a single game for half a year or more, and that's what Nintendo think you're going to do.

I remember when Viewtiful Joe was released for the Gamecube. It was, at the time, the only actual game worth playing aside from SSBM. So you have 2 games, and nothing came along for a LONG time. Why? I don't know, ask Nintendo, they were probably trying to come up with something more original.

But you said for yourself that it sells. You said its popular and that it works. We LIKE Mario. Surely using his face isn't what sells it all that much but the fact that "Hey cool, there's a gameplay style I like that happens to use the most popular video game character!"

And the ports of games to the PSP are okay, though, because its not Nintendo?

Oh Lord you win...ooooooooooh man I love you.

Elixer....don't post so much. You're letting plenty of good fanboy/hate fodder get by. We can only quote and disprove so much! :(

So at this point we have from him:

-Mario needs to be in ORIGINAL Mario games only
-Mario sucks in any non-original game (despite profits, reviews, or gameplay)
-Said games with Mario (Tennis, Kart, etc.) suck since they are not "real"
-Franchises are okay, unless its Nintendo

Please let me know if I missed anything REALLY important

Err, let me just throw my two cents into this little machine here. Honestly, the graphical gains we're getting from next-gen aren't all that great... if you don't have an HDTV that is. They often look like nothing more than souped up Xbox games in screens and on regular televisions.

The Revolution is essentially banking on a gimmick to keep it's fanbase interested as well as any new gamers. The leaked specs from way back make it an overclocked Gamecube at best, with a new controller interface. Needless to say, even with the minimal improvements in graphics in Microsoft and Sony's machines, it'll still look pretty bad in comparison.

Honestly, this generation is more of a lateral movement, a stop-gap until there's enough new technology available to make a considerable jump in all areas.

BTW, I've heard there are something like 90 Megaman games. Is that true?

Counting multiplatform, I doubt it. I could believe 40 or 50, but not that many. It would be nice to know the top5 or whatever for any franchise.

Yes it would, but there was a chart on GAF recently that had Mario and his various games taking up the first 5 spots on the top ten best selling games. Either way, at least Mario's changed what he does in the games, while ole Mega's been stuck in a rut for a while now.

I heard in the new MegaMan game, he steals powers from baddies. True story.

I've enjoyed MegaMan though. Despite its the same thing all the time, the powers and levels have always been (or at least on the NES :D) fun to navigate and find energy tanks and such.

It's been a very long time since I've played Ms. Pacman, I could be wrong about it.
Doesn't explain the shit 3D games.

Oh yeah, opinions are fact. Forgot, sorry.

One game to account for every game they make.
Not to mention the most advanced, comprehensive, and interactive pet simulator ever made, according to popular opinion. And I mean very popular, several million people opinion.

Yeah. Same goes for Nintendo.
Also, I've played Kingdom Hearts. People say it's good but the gameplay sucks. Square is terrible at actual gameplay.

If you'd paid attention, I wasn't naming games that were original, I was naming games that don't have spin-offs.

I don't even know what you're arguing about anymore. I think you're just trying to argue against whatever I say, regardless of what it is, meaning that your argument is so flawed and inconsistent that it doesn't make sense.

Now an honest question:
Do you have the capacity for fun? I mean, can you literally have fun?
Because I'm sort of doubting it. And I'd pity you for that, but I'm having trouble there, too.
I mean, I don't go brew trouble in the Sony forum for no reason.

You know, that's fine and all, but at least keep refining it rather than leaving it as it was over a decade ago. They could keep tweaking it to perfection, work on the art, story, etc... but they've let the series, as a whole, stagnate.

And finding energy tanks/upgrades is pretty damn fun, especially when they're tricky spots.

I count at least 41, which doesn't even include remakes or the alternate editions of Pokemon Megaman Battle Network. 42 if you think the spin-off Misadventures of Tron Bonne counts. And few of those are wierdass titles like 'Mario Tennis', so Capcom could easily teach Nintendo a thing or two about cracking the marrow from the bones of the dead horse.

When have I EVER mentioned the PSP? And when have I ever defended it? The PSP has a few remakes, such as Breath of Fire III and Lemmings, but I don't even own one so it doesn't matter.

I didn't say this either. You took those words out of my mouth, and I did not say them. I clearly said that Nintendo is milking Mario, and they are. I don't think that half of the spinoff Mario games are better than the Mario titles themself, but that's because you only see an actual Mario title once in a blue moon.

Enjoy your DDR Mario Mix and then come back to me. It doesn't necessarily need to be good or bad, Mario is still in it, probably along with other commercialized characters.

Again, I didn't say that. I happen to like Kart, but that's only because at the time there wasn't anything else to play.

Yet again, stop taking words out of my mouth. I remember, and I quote, "If Nintendo spent more time with their franchising as they did with their Mario titles, we'd have a proper Mario game by now." And I stand by this, because aside from Mario 64 I have not seen a proper sequel.

I thought you were badmouthing the many Mario games. Regardless, check out the "New Mario Game" thread in the Warp Room. Its got screenies and everything. Original Mario right there.

That's exactly what I though when I first saw the different versions of Battle Network available, and Capcom could very well give Nintendo a run for their money if the latter ever slows down.

You are wrong about it. How can you honestly say that Nintendo are doing a better job of handling Pacman over Namco? THEY INVENTED IT.

One game says alot. I'm sure I could think of more examples, such as the Pikachu 64DD shit they concucted up like, years ago. That was reeeeal necessary.

Yeah, Tamigotchi was real popular. Except it isn't an original Nintendo product, it's a stolen idea and it's basically the same as the Tamigotchis. Sure, you have puppies, they never die, and you can virtually touch them, but it's nothing more than a gimmick that appeals to both sexes. It also isn't a game.

I thought you said it wasn't about gameplay, but about originality and then you raffled off a bunch of original games without spinoffs? Right.

I have fun, and when I do it usually doesn't include Nintendo material. Why? Because Nintendo is history and they're trying to outlive themselves. Sure, me saying that may sound harsh, and you may not like it, but it's basically true. They've resorted to coming up with retarded conclusions(see: Nintendo Revolution controller) and "innovation" with their games as a last resort. They've managed to push back Twilight Princess to the launch of the Revolution -- which indicates that they're uncertain about how successful their Revolution launch will be, and you're eventually going to see some sort of cashing project involving a bunch of characters.

I can see it now. "Super Smash Bros Revolution."

No, but you seem to do a good job of it anyway.

But it isn't for the Revolution, and that's what we're talking about. It isn't a console Mario title which will follow from Mario 2, 3, World, Mario 64, Sunshine and Wind Waker. I don't think it counts in that department.

So I can base a console or a company on just one game? Can I base the PS2 on a game like Extermination?



But this is very different. Or can we claim that Atari "invented" racing games and everyone else is copying them with their Gran Turismo?

So can we. Thanks for the anticipation.

Aww shit, I thought it was a handheld console. What is it? A handheld thinger-majig?

There is no such thing as a handheld console. It's a handheld, that's it. Consoles and handhelds are too different, otherwise you would be calling the N-Gage a console as well. And that makes no sense.

Half of the stuff you replied to wasn't for you anyway. Nintendogs is basically an advanced tamigotchi simulator, and I'm pretty sure others can see and think that for themselves. It just feels like a borrowed idea.

You don't see many of those these days. Gran Turismo is a racing simulator, and you see hundreds of them. Why? I don't know, perhaps because they're popular - but that would bring me to my next question - Nintendogs is popular, but because it's treated as a Nintendo game, and "unique", it sells well. Not only is that a great reason to point the finger at Nintendo, but it also shows that you can rehash any popular product which has died and make it popular again without even taking into consideration people's views.

Ultimately, Nintendogs is a rehashed idea of the Tamagotchi. It's true.

Outside of japan, how many "Train a ____, level a _____, grow a _____" games do you see? Of course there's Pokemon which is by Nintendo, and of course RPGs don't count. So, how many pet levelling/training simulators are on the PS2 and xbox? Not many, if any. If there ARE any, they're probably still inside japan.

Getting back to the point I was trying to make - Nintendogs wasn't an original idea like he said it was. It was basically yet again, another project to earn money. Take a simple idea, add some content, don't overdo it, and make it replayability, and you have katamaria great game which appeals to basically everybody in the entire universe. That doesn't mean to say it hasn't been done before, though.

I'm not trying to derail, troll, or offend anybody here. Nobody can seem to grasp the fact that Nintendo have milked Mario and concepts in the past and have gotten away with it. What does this say for the Revolution? Not much, considering it'll be the 3rd parties that make the quality this time, not Mr. "2 quality games per year" Miyamoto.

But you're doing such a good job of it. =\

Your argument has literally made NO SENSE. I've read this entire travesty in one go from OP to this post, and I couldn't see what point you were trying to make. You say that Nintendo has milked Mario, and imply that these games are inferior because of this milking, then you try and defend OTHER companies doing the exact same thing. The ONLY difference is that these other companies have not done it for AS LONG, which makes it COMPLETELY acceptable in your eyes. To which, I call bullshit. You CANNOT bash Nintendo for milking, then turn around and defend other companies doing the same thing by using the excuse that the other companies haven't done it as long.

We're not saying that Nintendo hasn't milked it, there's no doubt that they have, and it annoys me a bit when I walk into a Target and I see "Super Mario Strikers DEMO" and "DDR Mario Mix" in the kiosk (Granted, Super Mario Strikers is rather fun, but the last soccer game I played was... FIFA '95, I think, so I can't really tell how original it is). But we're not arguing that Nintendo hasn't milked them, we're arguing that you're bashing Nintendo unfairly for milking, when companies that do the same thing earn your praise.

Your problem is that you keep trying to make exceptions where other consoles are just as "guilty." You say that Nintendogs is recycling an old idea. Hey, guess what, PEOPLE LIKE IT! I don't understand why you're trash-talking a successful product.

In that case, Halo 2 just uses the characters and weapons and stuff from the first one...and umm, makes things a little different!

^Yes, yes it does. And you know what, some people like it. Thus, making more of it. Franchises like Mario are profitable. The more of it, the more money. I don't see the problem.

Off to work I go.

You manage to miscontrue EVERYTHING I say. I'm fairly impressed.
Thomas Edison invented the motion picture. I'd say Kubrick and Godard and Tarantino have used it more effectively.
Anyway, I'm not saying that the connectivity game is better than Pacman, or even Ms. Pacman (which you must be a HUGE fan of, defending it so staunchly). But it is better than the game it came with, the 3D Pacman game, made by Namco, which was shit. It's the best one in recent years.

You lose for resorting to calling it a gimmick. Most over-used fanboyism of the year.
Anyway, it's a really brilliantly designed game (or nongame, if your PURE GAMER SOUL won't permit me to call it a game), and lots of people like it. A lot more than they like the PSP, apparently. Gimmick for the win.

I don't even know what the fuck you're saying here. I never said anything "wasn't about gameplay", and I never mentioned originality. I think you're making shit up, unless you can come up with a quote from me that says just that.
Again, I didn't call those original games. I called them Nintendo franchises that had no (or just one) spin-offs.
To point out the sheer number of franchises that don't face the multi-genre treatment (which I'm not opposed to, but which I don't buy into).

All of this is just Nintendo whining. I don't even think you made a valid point.
And yes, SSBRevolution. It'll be awesome.

What.
If you haven't noticed, you're the one that EVERYONE ELSE is arguing against. And don't pull some underdog is right bullshit either, because you're not the underdog and you're not right.

BWAgjaeifnaekflm.
I never said that. Ever. Please, for Christ's sake, stop making shit up.

Um, right. So are we just forgetting MGS2 and DMC2 because they sucked in most people's books, then? I think both series are pretty overrated, anyways. I own every Metal Gear game, and personally I prefer the original NES version over all the others. Hell, I like MGS for GBA better than 1 and 2.

Haha, wow. No, I could complain about just about any of them for any length of time. Of course, let's just disregard the fact that it's entirely subjective, because you seem to prefer to do that a lot.

I did play it for very long, mind you, and Sunshine was just awesome in my view. About as good as Mario 64; they each had their ups and downs. Mario Sunshine's level design isn't as good, but that's actually because it has better gameplay - but gameplay that relies on water. Mario Sunshine is actually more difficult than Mario 64. It also has the Warp Zones, which are far more awesome than anything in Mario 64.

Mario 128, which for a long time had been rumored to come out towards the end of the Gamecube's lifespan, is now purportedly a Revolution launch title. Of course, it instantly sucks because it uses a controller you have never used and hate.

I can't argue that the Mario Party series aren't milking Mario out, but that's about it. So I don't buy them or play them, apparently some people do and enjoy them. Who cares. I don't particularly like sports games in general, but I find the Mario sports titles to be a helluva lot less boring than others. Not that I've ever even personally bought one of them.

And of course, let's not even mention the Mario and Luigi games, because they're kickass awesome.

Lastly, in case you forgot, your beloved Square-Enix is making Mario Basketball for the DS. SUP. NOW.

Oh, okay, so since I own 40+ Gamecube and 6 PS2 games I consider worth playing, I guess I must be living in an alternate dimension or something. One where people can have opinions.

You're a fucking tard. This is the Warp Room.

I believe the point of of any company to make money. A cash project is always a good thing.

Double Post:
Not true. The N-Gage is a handheld console. Handheld is a pretty vague term. A dildo can be handheld. Does that mean a dildo is a handheld console?

What ISN'T a borrowed idea? Answer me that.

Who cares about people's views, ultimately YOUR VIEWS. The game sells, people love it, Nintendo stays in business. It's what a company does. Do you not fucking understand this? No company wants to go bankrupt, especially to satisfy a bitchy, whiny New Zealander.

Next time they'll try harder, just for you.

How many handheld console games have you seen where you RAISE A DOG?

So what if it's been done before? There's tons of skyscrapers but only one Empire State Building. Get my drift?

EVERYBODY in the game industry milks it. Get over it. Quit bitching.

Your points hold no actual ground.

What is this about Dr. Mario being a Tetris clone.

I think this is about Dr. Mario not being a real Doctor and prescribing prescriptions of MILK which ultimately satisfied his patients.

But that doesn't seem to matter.

-_-'' MY THREAD!!!!!!!

(gee a 6hr sleep and this thread goes from 1 to 3 pages... two pages worth of off-topic stuff)

I suppose if I were to make something decent out of all this hoopla, it would seem people here would want a revolution. Elixir seems to be tired off all these "Mario Evolutions" (the evolution of the soccer genre because of Mario etc.), wanting some kind of Mario revolution. Isn't that good, Nintendo faboys?

Who here wouldn't mind just a visual upgrade (and advanced gameplay/physics engines)?

Something original, which apparently Nintendo are full of. Yet things like Nintendogs aren't original whatsoever.

NO other company has milked their characters as much as Nintendo.

Are you seriously trying to say that RPGs are a borrowed idea from the tamagotchi? Because that's what you're implying. RPGs don't count simply because there are only a very small portion of RPGs which let you raise animals. Nintendogs is a borrowed idea and is nothing original. It doesn't matter how popular it is, it's an advanced tamagotchi simulator.

There's always Animal Crossing, but nobody but myself probably would of thought of that considering it's a Nintendo release. See how biased this is?

Yeah, Microsoft didn't fuck it up(as much) as what they did with the travesties made after Mario 64.

Hypocrite.

Why are you evading the truth? You clearly said that you like Nintendo because their stuff is original. I presented Nintendogs to you, and now you're denying you ever said that. What, do I need to spell it out for you?

Except I am, and you're missing the point. I'll spell it out. Nintendo are milking their characters over other companies. Understand? Other companies have done this, but not to the extent of what Nintendo has.

Who cares. It's the same with Brain Training - take a small idea, add something to it, but don't overdo it. It sells because it appeals to the thousands of asians who flock to the study hall for learning, and not only do you have kids buying it you also have adults buying it for their kids. That applies to Nintendogs as well.

I don't know what's so fucking difficult to understand. Nintendo are stringing their characters along, not making any real games, yet you have victims like StarmanDX who sit there, proud, with their 40+ Gamecube collection to brag. Sure, it looks impressive, but with the lack of games you'll end up buying Tony Hawk's Underground or Burnout 2, or something like that, just to entertain yourself. Gamecube never did have the variety that the PS2 and xbox did, but people seem to think that every Gamecube title released is made out of gold. This concept is more overrated then Chrono Trigger.

What they're doing is quite simple. Nintendo are selling out. They have been, and post-1997 they've done so more. Every company does this, BUT NOT AS MUCH AS NINTENDO. That's why I expect to see Mario Soccer and stuff on the Revolution.

When the Revolution is released, a SSBM upgrade will come out. A Zelda game won't be released, because Twilight Princess has been stalled to the launch. This pretty much shows that they're concerned about the sucess of their launch. Perfect plot. Then you'll have the typical games from Ubisoft and EA, and eventually, a few months down the track, a good game will appear. Then a few months later, it will happen again. It seems to happen in bursts wuith Nintendo going by what anything the Gamecube was.

It's pretty predictable overall. You have this weird, basic remote which developers now have to work with(much like how developers work with the touchscreen of the DS, even though they can perfectly release a game without even using it once), you'll have your variety of games which are pretty average, and then you'll have the bunch of games you'll actually play.

$10 bucks says people use the Revolution for backwards compatibility in the 2-4 month "worthwhile release" period.

Hahaha, oh yes, I'm such a victim of having games that I enjoy. Those numbers are after trading in the ones I didn't like, mind you. I would actually feel like a victim, however, if I had to pay for as many PS2's as my sister has just to have a working one, or had I bought most of the PS2 games I've played.

Oh, and good job avoiding everything else I said.

Because, as everyone knows, unlike other companies, Nintendo totally tries to appeal to casual gamers with sex/gore/violence, and will allow any crappy game made by any developer onto their systems. That certainly isn't selling out by any means.

Meh, I'm pretty satisfied with graphics the way they are now, no need to pay hundreds of dollards (and thousand(s) for an HDTV) just so I can have slightly shinier graphics. Maybe in a few years when there's better technology.

As far as advanced gameplay goes, that's what we'll be getting with Revolution.

More enemies on screen/better AI would certainly be nice to have, but as far as physics go the Source Engine is more than capable, and that ran on Xbox.

But that would've stretched Xbox, wouldn't it? Resi 4 on GCN stretched the machine's power (some sections I've played had minor frame rate issues) so would the Revolution benefited from more from more power?

I personally would like a revolution because ever since the current generation of gaming consoles I've become more of a casual gamer than anything. I feel like I've been playing more of the same thing over and over again. And if the only big thing last generation was online gaming, what for now? The DS brought back the gamer side of me, though, with the new interface and the concept of playing games from another perspective.

Alternatively, I could argue that we don't need it, since there's still a potential market for conventional gaming. There is still a large amount of non-gamers out there who may have missed out on gaming and with the introduction of more sophisticated graphics, physics and AI, gaming wouldn't be seen as nerdy (therefore allowing new consumers to enter the gaming world). Ya, I know, the Playstation broke that sterotype but PS3 and Xbox360 may open that realm further.

I might have said something hypocritical in the course of my argument.
Those two quotes, however, are not remotely hypocritical, even when you took them out of context. So I don't follow.

Yes, exactly, please. In my own words, quote it word for word what I said, and show me where I said it. Cuz I swear, I've looked through the thread and you must be seeing something I'm not.
I said Nintendo was innovative, you posted a picture of Nintendogs. I respond like so:
Not once in that response do I mention Nintendogs being original. Good, but not original. Tamigotchi wasn't original, because PETS EXIST.
You said this in response:
You also mentioned Tamigotchi again, for some reason.

And then, this is the coup de grace, you say this:
Which I never said. Fuckin' check it if you like. I said Nintendo is innovative, and you posted a picture of Nintendogs and somehow assumed I meant that game. I never did.
Metroid, Zelda, Pikmin, Earthbound, all extremely original games.
I think Shadow of the Colossus is original. Fighting big enemies isn't original at all, but it's an innovative game in many ways. The same goes for a multitude of Nintendo games.

Anyway, I like how Nintendogs is the only consistent example you have for Nintendo's lack of originality.
Nintendogs is not original. But it expanded the borders of virtual pet games far beyond what they'd ever been before.

Also, in regards to this quote:
Don't misconstrue what I'm saying. Kingdom Hearts is original, I was interested in it. But when I saw it, the gameplay was shit. Utter shit.
I like Nintendo because they have original games and original GAMEPLAY. Gameplay is the most important thing to me in games. I don't know what is to you. Probably arguing about them.

So you'd prefer a revolution than just evolution? (In desperation of avoiding this thread's closure -_-')

I don't like to see it as a revolution. Just a different method of playing commercial games. (Of course it is easy to see it as a revolution even with that mindset)

So I'd prefer a revolution.

What other gaming companies have been around just as long as Nintendo and have a mascot?

Twas what I thought.

So what? Do you think they're going to make a new soccer game and put random characters in it? No, they're going to put Nintendo characters in it. Big deal. Everybody knows who the Nintendo characters are. That's why they do it.

It's not milking, it's familiarity.

Double Post:
When did I imply that? Did you not read my post?

I didn't say RPGs or animals. I said a DOG.

I never denied that it was an advanced tamagotchi simulator. I said "There's lots of skyscrapers but only one Empire State Building." Meaning, there's lots of games in a genre, but only a few that stand out.

RPGs are just an advanced ripoff of Akalabeth or Adventure.

WHAT NOW?

Thank you for taking everything out of context and being a fucktard. It's appreciated.
Thank you for letting all of us know that you can read.
Thank you for drawing your own conclusions as to what people say.
Thank you for ignoring everybody's points.
Thank you for continuing this arguement based on what you think I say.
Thank you so much.

Uhh, Namco and their Pacman immediately comes to mind. Pacman's been Namco's mascot before Nintendo even existed. Sega was also around before Nintendo, and they still have Sonic, so.

There's not many pet/animal simulators out there, and Nintendogs struck it lucky. That doesn't mean that there's hundreds of pet simulators out there - and from the hundreds of pet simulators, Nintendogs shines. No, it's not like that at all. There's hundreds if not thousands of racing games, and Fortz and Gran Turismo stand out. You can't honestly compare racing games to pet simulators.

You said "characters" not "character". Bing. Bang. Boom.

Have you PLAYED Nintendogs? Who CARES if it's a ripoff as you say. It sells. People love it. It's good.

EDIT: Where the hell did racing games come from? What the fuck are you on about man? Speak fucking English and stay to the point. If you fucking want to talk in circles, go for it. But not many of us here, especially me, will care to talk in fucking circles around somebody who refuses to get the point.

It came from this.

Which was from this.

Whether they have spinoffs or not is irrelevant. The game was not original. Now he claims that he didn't mention anything about originality, but..

So Nintendo is spewing with originality, but they make things like Nintendogs. What the fuck? That isn't cashing in?

Quick question, dipshit.

Did I say that to you? No. So why respond to him when responding to me? If you're talking to me, address me. If you're talking to him, address him.

Common sense.

Well, I'm just going to respond to the OP.

When I think of an evolution, I consider taking something good and refining and improving on it even more. Where with an Revolution, the results is not as certain. Not all revolutions are better than what they are looking to replace.

I think most people on this board know how I feel about the Nintendo Revolution. Personally I believe the system is sacrificing far too much in the name of simply redefining the controller. I strongly believe that the end result of the new controller is going to actually push gameplay back rather than forward. The reason behind this is the controller is something new and has not had the benefit of 30+ years of evolution and refinement. I think gameplay is actually going to have to be dumbed down in order to accommodate the control scheme since forcing the use of full ranged human motion is far more restrictive than pushing buttons on a control pad.

To explain it better, consider VR. For the most part the only thing really offered by "VR Games" is the ability to look around while offering basic virtual object interaction. This is because direct full motion human input is clumsy and attempting to offer anything too super-human to do simply would not be possible due to the control method. I think the Revolution controller is going to end up the same way, though not quite as drastic.


New console generations just don't bring better graphics, they also offer huge leaps in computational power. Computational power is the key that truly gives developers the tools to create new types of gameplay. Consider things like the massive scale of Shadow of the Colossus, the physics of Half Life 2 and the Radiant AI of Oblivion. These types of new gameplay elements can only be offered via the ever increasing computational abilities of CPUs. I believe this type of stuff is only the beginning and I also believe the evolution of increasing computational ability this generation offers a lot more potential to change gaming than the revolution of the Revolution controller.

You asked where the racing concept came from, and I told you. Common sense.

Common sense is not talking to somebody about a completely different subject you were discussing with somebody else and using that completely off-topic and out of context in an arguement.

THANK YOU CETRA!!! Now would everyone stop with this "Mario milking thing" and get on with the topic. If you REALLY want then go to the Milking Thread I'm about to make. PLZZZ.

Thanks, Cetra. I should've never got caught up in it.
I'll respond to it later, like I should have from the start. I'm about to head out now.

I seriously disagree with Cetra. First off, we don't know everything Revolutionary about the Revolution yet (we'll get the full scoop at E3'06). So saying "simply for the controller" is inaccurate. I think Nintendo has a few tricks up their sleeve left.

There's a lot of KICKASS stuff going on with videogaming lately. Speaking of revolutions: SPORE will totally revolutionize stuff. Procedural animations and textures are going to be all over the place, just wait.

Oh rather, your posts will vanish. Seriously guys, get back to the original topic.

So Mario ISNT evolving? :(

DAMN YOU NINTENDO. YOU LIED TO ME.

The DS and the Revolution can provide more intuitive control for games than the traditional control methods. I'm still not totally sold on it, but I think Nintendo deserves at least a chance because of the way they've handled the DS.

A lot of games that come out have interesting ideas that can't be properly executed because of control issues. For example, Black and White had you casting spells with certain mouse movements, and Die By The Sword (an old and rather mediocre game, but with a cool concept) actually gave the player complete control of the character's sword, letting the player get more immersed and be more accurate. Previously, games like this have been held back by not really having a great interface for their ideas. The DS has games on it that can't be done on any other console: Trauma Center, Kirby Canvas Curse, Meteos, Pac Pix, Yoshi Touch and Go, Zoo Keeper, and especially Ouendan.

A lot of games are extremely clunky on consoles. A quality game like Exit on the PSP just suffers from bad controls, or Super Monkey Ball on a crappy thumbstick, or Starcraft 64, or any non-PC version of Worms can all be improved and simplified. Who would prefer playing Maniac Mansion on the NES over the PC version with mouse control? The controls for many games do work, but probably not as well as they could.

That said, it depends entirely on the games for Revolution. If the system comes out and nothing takes advantage of it, of course it'll suck.

For certain genres that already exist, I'm hoping that the gameplay for them on the Revolution will be much more streamlined. I can see a lot of potential already for first person shooters, flight sims, stealth games, horror games, and even real time strategies. A console that can do all that and potentially have a SCUMM system game work well on it sounds pretty cool to me.

Man, talk about a derailed topic with Elixir holding Nintendo to just about every double standard he/she can throw at them...

Anyway, I'm kind of on the fence about this one, although swinging more toward a "Revolution". In many ways, I'm getting tired of the old "genres," and stuff has to be really amazing in those to even catch my attention now adays. So I'm excited about the potentional for new genres that weren't possible before the Rev controller, and the number of early ports announced by Ubisoft and what not show that the shell can emulate the old controller style if needed (wish I could see it). However, I would also like some power under the hood as well, and also some good sized medium (DVDs seem kind of limited here, but we will see) for some really epic games. Although I also don't want to slap down half a grand just for a console either...

Christ. They're not "double standards" at all. Sony have commercialized Crash and Microsoft have done the same with their mascot, Master Chief.

However, what they've done is minor in comparison to the amount of genres Nintendo have put their characters into. It's a change from the regular, generic Fifa/Madden titles, but essentially it's just an easier, more basic version of a real sports game.

I don't understand why people don't play sports games in the real world. Generic sports games are bad enough without them getting worse.

...right. Personally, that's why I hate the "sports genre", and it's why I love the arcade style sports games. Who would want to play a Dodgeball sim when they could play Super Dodgeball? Wh... forget it, looking at your past posts there is no point in even trying at this stage and this topic continues to derail further and further.

Nintendo has existed since 1889. So to stop you from spreading anymore lies I'm afraid I'm going to have to ban you from the gaming forums and the sewers for a week. Enjoy the other forums and try not to fuck things up over there too. ^__^

Guys, resume the original discussion. Thanks.

Not be off-topic... But...

:edgarrock: :megaman: :megaman: :edgarrock:

In case anyone doesn't believe Acer (???), it's right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo

kthankx.

Nintendo founded a love hotel? Haha, oh man my childhood has been ruined.

You didn't know that? Hey Yamauchi has never played a videogame in his life but that doesn't mean he isn't a traditional Japanese business man at heart. With all the money he had why the hell not?

They own a major portion of the Seattle Mariners? Wow...I didn't know that.

Anywho, it doesn't really matter to me whether to have an evolution or revolution. It's good to have some of both. A fairly old concept with a few tweaks can still be awesome, as can something revolutionary. And similarly, either of those could crash and burn, too. I guess it all depends on how well it's done.

Too get a little more back on subject now that this isn't a flamewar....

Revolution.

I think there's only a certain point you can go with graphics. This generation is only a real slight step up. How much better will it get and still be noticable in the next generation? If Nintendo breaks some new ground with the game industry by doing something different; everybody wins. If not, the game industry might face another crash and everybody loses. :(

Simple question. Do you think graphics in the only thing that a more powerful console can bring? It seems a lot of people who want 'Revolution' ignore things like AI, physics and complex tracking of systems (mini ecologies, human biology like blood loss in areas effecting player performance, real-time macro-shifts in gaming environments etc.) These are just some of the new ideas developers are playing with by using the increased power some of the new consoles are bringing to the table this generation.

I sure hope it has more to offer. So far the only selling point this new generation has is HDTV and graphics.

But I'm still for a revolution. Advanced AI and complexity brings on more concerns of a gaming crash in my mind. The more complex the game with more visuals, the more expensive it'll be to make. The more expensive it is to make games, fewer developers will be able to handle it. All these recent mergers seem to confirm this, because it's more like gaming company cannibalism.

Nintendo's way seems to be the most prudent. Development will be cheaper, allowing more room for innovation without a company risking complete financial ruin in the process.

A little thread revival here ^_^.

I know it's IGN but this discussion was creepily how I felt this thread should have gone. Hopefully this will keep the thread on track.

http://revolution.ign.com/articles/704/704644p1.html
http://revolution.ign.com/articles/704/704644p2.html
http://revolution.ign.com/articles/704/704644p3.html

Does this gaming industry need an evolution or do Wii need a revolution (hooray for Wii and the potential for puns!!!)?

I enjoy video games. If they weren't video games, I'm not sure I would enjoy them. That being said, I don't like the "ultra-realistic" bent many games have nowadays. I want fantasy, sci-fi, etc. in my games, great stories, and great graphics. I think the current generation of graphics is more than enough to convey an artistic style in a game.

So, do I need a $600 PS3 for that? Nope.