Revolution or Evolution?

Originally Posted by Infernal Monkey

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Deguello

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

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

[@ 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?

FELIPE NO

Quote:

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.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

Your opinion aside, the lineup of a current console is not sufficient evidence to judge the lineup of a future console.

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.

Originally Posted by WraithTwo

Well, the Mario sports titles offer a more arcade-like gameplay that is rare in sports titles today.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Freelance Wolf

just ignore them and just buy the real games.

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?

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

The only decent (and original) Pac-man game made since the original is the Gamecube connectivity game, made by Miyamoto.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by HostileCreation

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.

Quote:

Did you just call music games the music scene?
Wow.

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

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

I like how you blatantly ignored all the best examples, which you couldn't argue with. Nice technique you've got there.

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

I see more innovation coming from Nintendo than from any other developer.

Quote:

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 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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

The only decent (and original) Pac-man game made since the original is the Gamecube connectivity game, made by Miyamoto.

You know this isn't true.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

1080
Wave Race

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Lukage

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

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.

Quote:

-Mario needs to be in ORIGINAL Mario games only

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.

Quote:

-Mario sucks in any non-original game (despite profits, reviews, or gameplay)

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.

Quote:

-Said games with Mario (Tennis, Kart, etc.) suck since they are not "real"

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.

Quote:

-Franchises are okay, unless its Nintendo

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by HostileCreation

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.

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.

Quote:

One game to account for every game they make.

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.

Quote:

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, 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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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 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."

Quote:

I mean, I don't go brew trouble in the Sony forum for no reason.

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

Originally Posted by Lukage

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.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

then you try and defend OTHER companies doing the exact same thing.

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

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

You lose for resorting to calling it a gimmick. Most over-used fanboyism of the year.

Quote:

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

Hypocrite.

Quote:

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

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

there's lots of games in a genre, but only a few that stand out.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

It came from this.

Originally Posted by Lukage

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

Which was from this.

Quote:

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)

Quote:

1080

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..

Quote:

And Nintendo lacking originality is.. just basically laughable. Really. They get shit for being TOO Original nowadays.

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

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Reznor

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.

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

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.