Revolution or Evolution?

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.

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

Originally Posted by Elixir

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

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:

Originally Posted by Elixir

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?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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?

Originally Posted by Elixir

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.

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

Originally Posted by Elixir

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

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?

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

Originally Posted by Elixir

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..

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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?

Originally Posted by Elixir

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.

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by chaofan

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.

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

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Infernal Monkey

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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...

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

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

Originally Posted by Elixir

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.

...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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Elixir

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by AcerBandit

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...



FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by AcerBandit

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.

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

kthankx.

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

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

Most amazing jew boots

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?

Originally Posted by Game Over

Yamauchi then opened a "love hotel," with rooms rented by the hour. The business was, for Yamauchi, a personal passion; it was said that he was one of his own best customers (his infidelities were well known—even by his wife, who ignored them).

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

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.

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