The Heik said:
Ugh.....
Never in my life have I had someone actually miss the point of my post so hard. You should have read through my post a bit more thoroughly because at no point did I say that "Nintendo was not innovative". They've pushed a lot of changes and developments in gaming throughout the years, though they have pretty much BEEN gaming for it's first few years, so whatever they did early could have been seen as an innovation whether it was or not. All I stated was that the Wii specifically was not innovative, as all of it's supposed features had already existed in the same format for years, if not decades.
Which makes me wonder how in the name of my giddy green aunt you got onto the Wii U from my post when I was talking about the Wii in that context. However for debate's sake let me mention that the concept of a touchscreen combined with button controls has already existed for years, ironically from the very company who's selling the Wii U as innovative aka the Nintendo DS. So really the Wii U is just a rehash of one of the company's older products. As such there is not a bit of innovation to been seen within miles of it. It's the same damn gimmick with a different paint job. That's it
Now lets go on to the issue of semantics. Now when you say "new" for all these things, you should really say "latest installment" within the context of innovation as when the dictionary uses the word new, it means it in the sense of "never before seen" such as 3D when it was first introduced to film in the 1910s. However in this context of the games industry most (if not all) of the things you've mentioned as new from Nintendo have been further installments of older products. While they do (hopefully) improve a product, the term "new" in it's original meaning (rather than the more recent slang of it) doesn't effectively describe them because while they may be chronologically "new", they are refinements of previously existing things, so the term "latest installment" is a more accurate description of the whole dynamic of the situation. If we used "new" your way then every last single thing that has ever been made has been an innovation, and to misquote Syndrome from the Incredibles here "when everything's innovative, nothing is". The word loses all meaning.
So please good sir, for my sake, your sake, and for the sake of energy conservation, don't go off half-cocked before you've properly analyzed the data. It'll save every involved a lot of needless hassle.
You're correct sir. I did in fact miss the point. I saw long post and a dictionary definition. With that, I saw a rant and a pretentious asshole and felt the need to respond solely on the definition itself. I apologize as you did/were neither of that.
So now I shall be thorough, respectful, and give every paragraph of yours attention. I feel I owe it to you. If anything, I am a man who can admit his mistakes. Hitting an innocent with my douchebaggery was never my intention
>Nintendo innovative.
Thank you. Glad we can agree. They've always been diverse, and actually back in the day used to be the best with third-parties. It's only because publishers got tired of getting their games approved that they kind of shifted. Shame. We'd get less crap if Nintendo brought the seal back and devs tried to prove themselves to meet the standards. Nintendo's been innovative since they started. They made the first console with the first peripherals and a seal of approval with the NES. With the SNES, they made the first 3D console games using the SuperFX chip, allowing for the future of gaming to be in sight. The N64 was the first controller to be used in multiple ways (three-four), which would lead to the Saturn's controller and the Dreamcast's controller, as well as the Xbox 360 controller and well, you'll see where I'm going. The GameCube was the first to join up with a handheld, yes, but it was also more of a system where Nintendo innovated using their franchises (Art-style - Wind Waker, Gameplay - Sunshine, Genres- Pikmin, Presentation- Metroid Prime; even Reggie said it was all about the games that time around) as well as expand Nintendo the M-rating and give them time to create a few new IP's. Now we get to the Wii, which you claim isn't innovative. Can we agree up to this point?
I would hope so. However, I find the Wii is incredibly innovative, through the ways of play. Ninendo Shop? Yep, done before. Motion? Sort of tried before, but never perfected. Here, Nintendo wanted to address what gamers had been ranting about since day one: console controls. How did Nintendo try to compete with keyboard + mouse combo? Well, motion sensing. The IR camera, to be specific. It worked. I can get accurate headshots in GoldenEye while precisely throwing Pikmin. The controller carried over everything that had been learned up to that point as well, and it was the first console to allow controllers from the past to work. And, oh yeah, it also was the first system to try motion control on such a scale (whether you think it succeeded or not is not up for debate as far your definition of innovation goes). And it worked. It's FUNCTIONAL motion control. And they didn't even shove it down gamer's throats like people think! Nintendo was all 'hey... here's a few games that have nothing to do with motion control.' Awesome? I thought so. The Wii was full of ideas, a lot of them played out rather well. Motion control evolved with games like Skyward Sword and Red Steel 2 more than I think even Nintendo had imagined.
>Wii-U = DS!
I don't buy it. Why? Because the DS is a handheld. This is the first home-console with a touchscreen. In fact, it can support two (fans cried about this last year, Nintendo worked their asses off to supply two, yet they get no love). It's also including Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc so you can watch your show on your tablet if Dad wants to watch football. And through the touchscreen, you can play a game (Pikmin 3 looks completely different pending on where your playing and I love it), take a screenshot, upload it to your friends, buy a game, download it, and watch NetFlix all at the same time. Plus, the DS couldn't wireless share pictures onto a TV screen. Wii-U can. It's not just a gimmick if it's working. In fact, from what I see here, I believe we're finally seeing a system that could be a dream if people give it a chance. No need for new controllers, backwards compatible, full connectivity, multiplayer and different variations of it, social networking, and portable around your house (I can imagine getting into an argument with my girlfriend and sneaking my tablet into the man-cave to stick it to the man... girl). I bet it'll connect with Amazon soon too for reading. I can guarantee a web-browser's coming, and more tablet features. Is it also a marketing attempt to grab the tablet market again? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean we can't look at the beautiful things this could bring us core-players, especially one's who've missed Nintendo this gen.
>Syndrome
His name is Dash
>Your point with the Dash paragraph.
I don't want to assume, but I'm guessing you meant with their titles being refinements, yes? Well... Here's the thing... I honestly have NO IDEA why people keep saying this about Nintendo like it's true. Since when has a Nintendo installment been CoD or even Halo (which I dig)? Every Nintendo game I've seen since 3D-gaming came about has been incredibly different than the previous title, unless it had a number in the title which of course indicates that they're similar. Would you REALLY say Galaxy is a refinement of Sunshine? We both know one of those games played nothing like the other, using entirely different mechanics. The only similarities is that they both star a man who can jump, a kidnapped princess, and a dinosaur. That's like saying because Sigourney Weaver is in a James Cameron movie, it's going to be Aliens (which is the one movie Avatar WASN'T compared to). Honestly, I'd NEVER compare Metroid Prime and Other: M. Nor would I think Majora's Mask and Ocarina are the least bit similar, and they're actually directly related.
But on the contrary, yes, everything can't be innovation. I'm not claiming they are. However, I do claim most Nintendo games play radically different than the previous entry. Even though there were two different 2D Mario games shown at E3, both focused around completely different mechanics. The 3DS one was very score based and meant to challenge players and compete with friends. Unlike the Wii-U game which looked more traditional, giving people who haven't played a game since they went 2D (they exist, I promise) something to play at launch and turn them into players yet again.
The thing is, I'm actually not the world's biggest Nintendo fan. I just hate watching them get beaten up constantly when it is not at all deserved. Nintendo spent this entire gen not having a single brown and bloom complaint, and certainly, as far as first-party titles go, didn't have any samey titles (even the side-scroller revivals played entirely different, with different mechanics, paces, and play-styles) unlike other systems this gen. They just didn't look as pretty, but they had quite a bit of fun games. Denying that is only possible to people who ONLY like Skyrim type games or didn't explore the library enough.
I hope this post redeemed my lack of reading the first time.
Snowblindblitz said:
Actually he was talking about the Wii there. He did a great rundown on the wii-u prior to that, which you didn't touch in your post.
You kinda failed, I'm sorry.
Refute his point on the Wii-U, I'm interested in the argument for my biggest problem/concern with the console.
Better? I actually read this time. Link me to his post if I didn't cover your concern
