Your Thoughts: Nintendo

[Zera]

Tsk Tsk your ignorence baffles yet doesnt surprise me.

Lemme tell you something that Nintendo can do, what other developers can hardly ever do. Whenever a sequel comes out for a game, they are supposed to be better than the previous installment, improving in what ever the previous game was lacking or something. For example look at the so called great Call of Duty series. Now everyone is just praising the game for its realistic-ness and awesome shooting. But have any of you CoD4 players ever consider playing the first 3 CoDs now. Of course not, because you are now playing its "superior" version of it. Oh sure you can say im wrong and play the games to try and prove me wrong, but when you start playing your gonna want to quite because since you played the "better" version of it, you cant have fun with them. You know its true.

Nintendo doesnt do this. Take the Zelda series for example. Sure they are condsidered sequels, but hardly any of them are unplayable and better than one another. Nintendo somehow manages to when they make another game for there series to add enough charm and differences in each zelda title. This process makes each game different yet playable and fun, even by todays standard. This same goes for practically every major game in Nintendo's arsenal of series. They are simply not rehashes as Yahtzee likes to put it, but its okay we all make mistakes.

So yeah you all "Hardcore" gamers can play your Assassins Creed, Halo 3, Crysis, Call of Duty 4, God of War 2, Bioshock and your Mass Effect, but in a couple of years those games will be collecting dust while you are busy with its more flashier, louder versions while Nintendo classics stay classics.

I GUARANTEE IT!

 

[alexhayter86]

Zera, sounds to me like you know little about the games you are criticizing. I GUARANTEE that. As the owner of a multitude of PC, Xbox 360, Wii and DS games, I consider myself to have a fairly well-rounded view of things... and in that respect, I totally disagree with what you're saying.

Its fair enough talking about how great Nintendo games are, but I don't think its fair to say that those 'hardcore' games from PC/XBOX 360 cannot become perpetual classics. The games you've mentioned above may not be 'classics' to you, but I know they will be to me (at least the ones I personally loved).

 

[laikenf]

to PsychoJosh:
Wow that's a lot of hate and bitterness my friend (I never thought that a gaming company can do that to humans). But anyway I don't think Nintendo's the reason for the problems the gaming industry faces nowadays (I'm refering to the repetitive games commentary you made). As a matter of fact I find that a lot of games that are coming out for PC and the more powerful consoles (the PS3 and 360) feel more repetitive and shallow than any game for the previous gen. of gaming. These games sometimes feel unfinished (hence their shorth lenght, glitches and, yes, repetitive and often shallow gamplay). To tell you the truth, I hardly play my consoles (wii, PC and 360) I find that my DS and PSP get more playing time than any of them because console games seem to want to WOW you rather than entertain you. And as for the Wii being a worthless, gimmicky and ridiculous console with all of two games actually worth getting, then don't get one (and if you have on then sell it, I'm sure you'll make somebody happy).

 

[Zera]

AlexHayter my boi, do YOU honestly believe the games of today will be remembered as classics? Oh well in order a game to be considered a classic it must age well. By that I mean It must be playable and fun years later. And when the sequels of the "instant classics" of today come, they will be completely over shadowed by the new flashier, more explody versions like i said. I still gaurentee it! And dont challenge my view of video games ok?

 

[hobartuk]

before my pleasant days of PC gaming where i will continue with for a long time i hope, i was a nintendo fanatic and in love with all of it, i had n64, game boy color, game boy advance, nintendo ds (before a broke it) and gamecube and adored it all, and i would have continued with the wii, if it wasn't a gimmick

 

[intplee]

I like Nintendo insofar as they produce good value for money, and I feel exactly the same about Microsoft and Sony, or any developer from Rockstar North to Valve. On that matter, I like Microsfot more than Nintendo, and Nintendo more than Sony. It has not always been like that, and I do not suspect it will stay like that. Incidently, I would not mind if Nintendo were a one trick pony. I can never have enough Zelda or Metroid. I do not care if they just release the same games with a graphical update every few years, I would still buy it.

 

[briantw]

They make good games but Nintendo seems to be a company based around doing the exact same things over and over.

As opposed to Halo 3, which was basically the same thing as Halo 2 but with a few added features and worse multiplayer maps? Even the story in Halo 3 is pretty much the same as the story in Halo 2, only this time Bungie actually took the time to write an ending (it kind of sucked, but it was better than Halo 2's godawful climax).

Or BioShock, which is basically System Shock 2, but dumbed down for the masses.

Or Mass Effect, which is basically Knights of the Old Republic, but with worse side quests.

Or Call of Duty 4, which is basically Call of Duty 2, but in modern times.

Let's face it, almost every sequel in the history of gaming does pretty much the same things as the game(s) that came before it, but with a few added bells and whistles.

The variation in Nintendo's games comes in the new level design (which is almost always excellent), new abilities and weapons, and updated graphics. Sure, the stories may stay pretty much the same, but then again, Nintendo makes the kind of games that often don't need a good story to be amazing.

Does anyone honestly care what motivates Mario to run around the Mushroom Kingdom completing ridiculous tasks? The fun is in completing those tasks, not in watching cut-scenes that tell a deep, mature story.

 

[TheHound]

Comparing Mass Effect to Knights of The Old Republic and Bioshock to System Shock 2 is nothing like comparing the Zelda games. Let me see Bioshock, different feel, settings and story with adapted gameplay mechanics. Zelda - same story, same gameplay mechanics, and back in the day same graphics.

 

[alexhayter86]

I still gaurentee it! And dont challenge my view of video games ok?

Don't challenge your view of video games?! This is a freaking discussion forum. You're totally entitled to your views of video games, and I'm totally entitled to challenge those views. You're also welcome to disagree with mine, ad infinitum.

And yeah, Bioshock is a classic for me, I know I will play it for years to come. Halo 3 was perhaps just a 'more explosions/better' version of the other 2 games, but I'm not really a big fan of that game. There are still games today, outside of Nintendo, that have the potential to be classics.

I think its also important not to think of games in terms of their pure gameplay value: some games, such as the Call of Duty series, and Mass Effect, will be remembered because they offer unique and exciting narrative experiences. Call of Duty 4 is a slick, action thriller set in a contemporary era: Call of Duty 2 was a Band of Brothers-esque jaunt through WWII Europe. Branding them just as the exact same experience with "new flashier, more explody" stuff in them is a little short-sighted, from my point-of-view.

Don't argue against me though, you're not allowed.

 

[briantw]

Comparing Mass Effect to Knights of The Old Republic and Bioshock to System Shock 2 is nothing like comparing the Zelda games. Let me see Bioshock, different feel, settings and story with adapted gameplay mechanics. Zelda - same story, same gameplay mechanics, and back in the day same graphics.

So wait...you're saying that A Link to the Past was the same as the original Zelda? So the whole Light/Dark world things didn't change a thing, huh? Hell, we can even compare the first game to the second game. Did the first game have 2D platforming, because the second one sure did, and it changed a hell of a lot. The second game also had a different story. Additionally, Ocarina of Time completely changed the series. Sure, the basic story was the same, but the game felt completely different and much more epic. And even Twilight Princess, which was every bit the definition of a derivative Zelda game, added in some pretty major new features like turning into a wolf and horseback combat.

And actually, BioShock and System Shock 2 feel pretty much the same. Really, the only difference is the setting, as the story is quite similar as well.

Mass Effect also had pretty much the same story as Knights of the Old Republic, just without the Star Wars.

 

[hickwarrior]

I guess zera got a bit angry, kind of. The thing is, it just wasn't it's taste, but he did it in such a bashing manner that everyone could get angry. But did he even played that stuff, so to speak? It's an age-old way of saying, your wrong, but correct me if i'm wrong.

It just seems he never tried anything of nintendo for about 45 seconds, and drifted away. He may say it's total rubbish, but alot of people don't think it is. Josh also stated that their games will stand on the shelves collecting dust, but name me games that won't, eventually.

Even if multiplayer will excuse it with some kind of 'make your own map' feature, they will also go back to the shelves to collect dust, it seems. Cause, on one point or another, you just saw everything what the game got and will play another game.

And even if it got a 'horrible' cycle for you, it should be noted that this is actually a good thing. You want to have people playing games, paying for them and making the game-industry bloom, right? I'm sure you are wanting that, and for that, nintendo would give the ideal games for the casual ones. Not saying that they will become gamers, eventually, but there are people who want to dig further. So be happy, i'd say.

 

[laikenf]

To TheHound:
I don't know about comparing Mass effect to KOTOR (have'nt played ME yet) but having played System Shock 2 and Bioshock I can tell you that Bioshock feels TOO similar to System Shock 2, so similar it's freaky (which is'nt a bad thing you know). But the Zelda games are SEQUELS as opposed to Bioshock which is supposedly an entirely new game by its self (which makes the similarities between it and SS2 kind of inexcusable). Good thing Bioshock is a good game (it's simulating a very good one after all) because if it wasn't I would've just called it a sad ripp-off.

 

[portuga-man]

We must thank Nintendo for saving our hobby back in the videogame crash of '84.


(or was it in 1983? ^^)

 

[woodchunkz]

They would be great but most developers just do minigame collections (They even ruined a Sonic and Mario game by making it a minigame collection. SONIC AND MARIO!) However, they did make it region free, so that I can import No More Heroes (Which hopefully isn't a minigame collection... Unless assasssinations are minigames) instead of having to wait 8 months after the American release before it's released here in Australia with the blood and violence edited out... Because Australia sucks.

EDIT: And I'm quite sure it's 1983.

 

[TheHound]

To TheHound:
I don't know about comparing Mass effect to KOTOR (have'nt played ME yet) but having played System Shock 2 and Bioshock I can tell you that Bioshock feels TOO similar to System Shock 2, so similar it's freaky (which is'nt a bad thing you know). But the Zelda games are SEQUELS as opposed to Bioshock which is supposedly an entirely new game by its self (which makes the similarities between it and SS2 kind of inexcusable). Good thing Bioshock is a good game (it's simulating a very good one after all) because if it wasn't I would've just called it a sad ripp-off.

For a start System Shock 2 was a long time ago so its somewhat more forgibale. And yes ive played them both though cant play SS2 right now cos its not working for more direct comparisons. Though I still maintain that the time gap, addition of different powers (plasmid or psy), the little sisters, the physics, the new setting, the change in the hacking interface etc made it different enough to be acceptable. I mean if your gonna complain about those what about every RPG in the world that seems to go the Strength Constitution Intelligence, etc route (even the ones that arent D&D). Zelda has had the same weapons and button mashing sword combat for years. Im not saying its outright bad because of it alot of it comes down to taste, however I do find it hypocritical that fans over look this in Zelda but seem to critise other games for it.

To the other poster:briantw

Major new features for me change the way the game is played in a more substantial way then being able to ride a horse. If in Oblivion you got horse riding and polymorphing but had to defeat a certain character called Dagoth Ur and had to assemble ancient dwemner artifacts to do so people would be pissed. Cos it would be a better looking Morrowind. As it was Oblivion (Btw I hated it in comparison to Morrowind) brought in different features & PLOT & weapons system & physics & overhauled the interface and potion and spell making and an all new landscape and character generator) Now if u thinki it was better for it is personal opinion but the game certainly changed. That change is rarely apparent in Zelda and Mario games. (main series not offshoot- dont want to hear about a spin-off not tied into main cannon)

 

[TheTakenOne]

I'm pretty sure no one on this forum needs me to point out all the utterly ignorant crap this post was splattered with, but for my own personal amusement I'm going to do it anyway.

I truly hold nothing but utter hate and contempt for Nintendo now, and quite frankly I don't see why everyone feels the pathological desire to fellate them all the time.

Um, what? It's quite clear from this first line alone you haven't even played a Nintendo game in years, so you've already got roughly 80% of the people no longer taking you seriously.

Okay, so they made a few memorable games, big deal.

Yeah, Nintendo's entire rabid fan base is for nothing but Super Mario Bros. 3 and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. [/sarcasm]

That doesn't mean they're incapable of producing utter shit. Quite the contrary, the Wii is a worthless, gimmicky and ridiculous console with all of two games actually worth getting, one of which isn't even out yet.

Just because you believe the few games that you've never played and have been marketed for the Nintendo Wii are shit doesn't mean the entire library is such. In fact there are quite a few worthwhile games for the system that don't really get the attention they deserve--probably because fools like you who don't even bother playing one will shit all over a system they've decided to hate before even playing it.

As for being gimmicky, no self-respecting gamer buys a system because of a gimmick. To believe so is just moronic, and... oh, right.

More or less, the only good games ever made on a Nintendo console are made by Nintendo themselves.

To say nothing about the Final Fantasy series, which DID originally start on a Nintendo console. But hey, what does an unpopular series like Final Fantasy count for? [/more sarcasm]

I would probably be fine with them if they'd actually go somewhere with their franchises instead of stagnating on the same shit forever and ever.

Just because a company doesn't abandon a franchise that is still widely successful doesn't mean they're stagnating. It means they're staying loyal to the fan base that grew up with them. Fact is, every game in the series is an evolution of the previous one, and it's not as though the storyline doesn't change at all. I wonder if you even know what the word means, but it seems you have no problem criticizing games you've never played, so why not use words you don't know, too?

Maybe linear, repetitive games were acceptable in the mid-90s but they sure as hell aren't today.

Uh-huh, that explains the growing number of fans.

This is the day and age of games with depth and longevity to them, hell, even Street Fighter II still has more lasting power than a stupid modern-day Mario game where you collect 400 different kinds of shit to save a cocktease princess and witness an awful, contrived ending.

Yes, because we all loved the length and depth of Halo 3.

Once people beat the game they'll just let it collect dust on their shelves for five years until Nintendo releases another one with another stupid gimmick like Mario is made of water or caterpillars or something, at which point stupid brand-loyal gamers will immediately hock it for a $2 rebate towards the purchase of Super Mario Rainbow Caterpillar Fagrape Island or whatever. That was the case with Sunshine, it'll be the case with Galaxy.

I didn't know you were an expert on what people did with their games after they finished playing them, but allow me the one to completely tear down your theory. Last month I went and bought an old Nintendo from a pawn shop so I could go ahead and play the original Legend of Zelda again. That's right, I went back to a system and a game that's over a decade old, played through it again and I still loved it--crappy 2D graphics, weak storyline and all. Even in this day and age of super-advanced graphics and enriching in-depth plots and story lines, I can still go back and enjoy a game like that. That's what we call a classic. Meanwhile my PS2 has been sitting under my TV for about a year now, and THAT is now collecting dust.

Since they had a grand monopoly of video games in the 90s, they were essentially the only feasible choice for most gamers' parents back then, since not many people really felt devoted to following Sega.

That's just a lie. Many people enjoyed Sega before they took the Sonic series and tried to give it that Darker And Edgier feel that most gamers seemed to eat up back then(and still do). I myself loved my Sega Genesis while I had it, and who didn't love the original Sonic games?

Most of those nostalgia freaks who are fueled by brand loyalty and follow Nintendo's instructions to get their grandparents into playing crappy waggle minigame-fests are the reason they're doing well today.

Minigame-fests? I suppose by that extension the XBox is for those chumps who need to blow shit up before they have fun.

I'm not showing brand-loyalty. I enjoy a lot of PS2 games and even now I have every intention of getting a PS3. I'm just not oblivious to the fact that Nintendo is the king of video games for good reason.

These are the people who Nintendo feels they can resell Zelda to as many times as they fucking want, and they're right because most of these people are in their 20s or 30s now and likely have children they want to share the "magic of Nintendo" with so they can become corporate cocksuckers just like their parents.

Even the few people who took you seriously up to this point are just rolling their eyes at you now. I don't suppose it's too late to discourage you from procreation, though.

I fear this is the beginning of a horrible cycle that will go on for a long time.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[TheHound]

Neh its funny but I had nothing against the Gamecube, then again I have nothing against the Wii. Ive played alot of both (never owned either but my m8's are loyal nintendoer's, i.e. the hypocritical ignore nintendo flaws but highlight others types) and found they kept me entertained enough for a m8's house but I never wanted one. Smash Bros on Gamecube was particularly fun i remember. Guess Im just saying Gamecube wasnt that bad, im not really one for bashing consoles only the games that sometimes seem to come out for them.

BTW general question why does Halo 3 always come up? I say 'Bioshock sucked!' (which i dont think it did btw just an example) and some one else says 'Yeah a great new interested game unlinke your stupid Halo 3'.

Ive played Halo 3 at a m8's just the first level. Why does it come up in every conversation? Why does everyone assume everyone else has played it, liked it, then ranted about how great it is?

 

[TheHound]

I'm not showing brand-loyalty. I enjoy a lot of PS2 games and even now I have every intention of getting a PS3. I'm just not oblivious to the fact that Nintendo is the king of video games for good reason.

I was really enjoying that post till you shot yourself in the foot with blatant fanboyism. I love lots lots of games made by lots of different companies, if pushed I might be able to narrow down what I consider to be the best. Not easily and not by much. To call 1 company 'King of video games' reeks of blind faithfull fanboyism.

 

[laikenf]

To TheHound:
Don't worry, I'm not the type who puts a game down because it borrows from others, if the game is good i'll play it. I don't mind more Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, Street Fighter, Mega Man, Resident Evil, Castlevania, etc. because those games have given me nothing but good times throughout the years (and yes, I'll keep coming back for more). Now I enjoy new franchises (again, as long as the games are good) but I'll take Metal Gear Solid 5 over Bioshock 2 anytime because I feel very good playing games I'm familiar with and it is very exiting to see what new things will come with an old concept (you should look at my game library, most of the stuff I own are old franchises). So that clears me of being a hypocrite right?

 

[TheTakenOne]

I was really enjoying that post till you shot yourself in the foot with blatant fanboyism. I love lots lots of games made by lots of different companies, if pushed I might be able to narrow down what I consider to be the best. Not easily and not by much. To call 1 company 'King of video games' reeks of blind faithfull fanboyism.

I was actually referring to the fact that as a corporation, they are on top and they've been around the longest. The race they had with Sega was interesting and I had actually been pulling for them to come ahead of Nintendo but I eventually admitted(begrudgingly) that it was a good race and that the better company indeed won.

Edit: As for Halo 3, I'm not saying it was a bad game at all--quite the opposite. It's just not a good example of what the standard of video games are today.