Your Thoughts: Nintendo

[TheHound]

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.

Ah simple misunderstanding.

 

[TheHound]

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.

Ah simple misunderstanding.

EDIT: Balls double post. And as for the Halo 3 thing, you reminded me but its not just you everyong brings the bloody thing up. They might say its good or might imply its bad but why is it the benchmark for modern games?

 

[TheTakenOne]

It's from back when the game was hyped to hell and those of us who weren't creaming our shorts for it were being annoyed by those who were.

Or not, I'm not sure, this is just me. It was to the point I remember having to threaten certain people in my "inner circle" under the punishment of death not to say the words "Halo" or "3" because I was sick of hearing about it.

As for the misunderstanding, it was probably my fault and I should have been more clear about what I meant, but I guess I didn't expect anyone to actually read much of what I said. My apologies.

 

[johnrambo]

I think that Nentendo has been making unreasonable amounts of greenbacks off of the new young gamers who never had a zelda or mario game before, I personally am getting pissed at this development strategy becasue I want some of their endless rescources going to gamers like me: the gamers who already played 6 of their mario games and want a new type of story. I am tired of mario, metroid, zelda, and whatever the hell they keep making, try somthing new for the love of god and all that is holy.

 

[briantw]

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.

System Shock 2 was only like eight years ago. That's not really that long, especially when you compare it to each Nintendo sequel, most of which take about five years to release (an example is the transition from Mario Sunshine to Mario Galaxy, which was just over five).

Also, we generally look down on a game like BioShock because it basically took the same ideas and gameplay as its predecessor, but in the process stripped a lot away and dumbed the whole experience down. Mario and Zelda don't do that. They become more complex with each iteration, not less. I don't care that BioShock is similar to System Shock 2 (because all sequels tend to be similar, after all), but I do care that they watered down the whole experience.

Overall, I find Nintendo sequels acceptable because, unlike most other sequels, they release similar games every five years, rather than every one or two like most franchises do.

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)

I don't recall ever bringing up or even mentioning Oblivion or Morrowind, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

And also, comparing The Elder Scrolls series to Mario and Zelda is a bit on the idiotic side. I don't play Mario games for sweeping, epic stories. I play them because they are fun and incredibly varied (in level design and in gameplay). As I said above, does anyone truly care why Mario is doing the things he is doing so long as it's fun? There are plenty of other games I can play if I want a great story. However, if I want great gameplay, I can turn to Mario.

And even Zelda, which is more story-centric than Mario, is still more about the gameplay and puzzle-solving than the actual story. Sure, the story is generally decent (or even good, on occasion), but it is really just a means to get you into cool dungeons to solve fun puzzles and collect new weapons.

 

[TheTakenOne]

I think that Nentendo has been making unreasonable amounts of greenbacks off of the new young gamers who never had a zelda or mario game before, I personally am getting pissed at this development strategy becasue I want some of their endless rescources going to gamers like me: the gamers who already played 6 of their mario games and want a new type of story. I am tired of mario, metroid, zelda, and whatever the hell they keep making, try somthing new for the love of god and all that is holy.

The big problem with that is if they were to just stop with these franchises, they'd end up losing a lot of consumers. People who buy a new Mario game and find that the only thing they have in common with the other Mario games they've played is the characters are going to be extremely disappointed. They're not ever going to change what makes their franchises successful until they cease to be successful. If you don't like it, don't play it. There are plenty of other great games for all 3 systems for you to sink your teeth into if you so choose.

I also don't understand why people claim that they only repeat the same franchises ad nauseam. Do any of you remember a Metroid game for the N64? If you do, you should've probably asked Santa to bring it to you for Christmas because, like Santa, it didn't exist. And for the record, the three Metroid Prime games are completely unlike any of the others in the series so including that is pretty much silly.

As for the Zelda games, it is most certainly _not_ the same game every time. Sure, you've got Link trying to save Zelda and they're trying to defeat Ganon and at the heart this is almost every Zelda game ever but so what? The Dynasty Warriors series(PS2, just an example) has the same basic story every time: unite the three kingdoms of China back into one through a series of battles in which they're all just the basic hack/slash stuff over and over again but it's still fun and they manage to change enough about it to make me interested to spend a few hours on it and it's no different with the Legend of Zelda seres.

I can't say much about the Mario series because I haven't really been genuinely interested in it since the 64 and therefore I can't comment, but I have no complaints if they decided to rehash the same story again. I didn't care in Super Mario Bros. 3 and I don't care now.

I find it's interesting to note that no one brings up Pokémon. This one seems to be the king of repetitive storylines and gameplay(though admittedly I do still play it. Oh, the shame!)

Also no one brings up the one Nintendo series that has a genuine plot change every game despite having much of the same gameplay: Fire Emblem. But I don't suppose anyone on this thread has ever even touched that one.

 

[TheHound]

I don't recall ever bringing up or even mentioning Oblivion or Morrowind, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

And also, comparing The Elder Scrolls series to Mario and Zelda is a bit on the idiotic side. I don't play Mario games for sweeping, epic stories. I play them because they are fun and incredibly varied (in level design and in gameplay). As I said above, does anyone truly care why Mario is doing the things he is doing so long as it's fun? There are plenty of other games I can play if I want a great story. However, if I want great gameplay, I can turn to Mario.

And even Zelda, which is more story-centric than Mario, is still more about the gameplay and puzzle-solving than the actual story. Sure, the story is generally decent (or even good, on occasion), but it is really just a means to get you into cool dungeons to solve fun puzzles and collect new weapons.

My point in bringing up Oblvion and Morrowind was to say they took a complex game and redid in sequel form and left very little the same. In Zelda they took a simple game and made it a little bit different every time, each incantation has the same mechanics. Yeah I get what your saying about not wanting them to be epic. I dont want a story with Serious Sam, or painkiller its about skill and gameplay. That said I find they all get old real quick and the sequels have to change or your getting nothing new. Now I accept its a matter of opinion and thats all im saying really, just explaining why I dont like them. Im not saying by some absolute standard Zelda is crap. Im saying i dont like it cos I doesnt have the depth i want/am used to. (that and theres very few surprises.)

To TheTakenOne: I never talk about Fire Emblem cos ive never seen or played it. It might make me a big ignorant but I do think its only a small part of their software library. When alls said and done though Nintendo are going to keep making these games and people are going to keep playing and enjoying them. For me theres plenty to keep me interested on the PC that have great replayability and the things I look for in a game.

P.S. enjoyed the first pokemon then got really angry when the next few came out that were the same, though to be fair some of them did add new features that kept me interested for a while i.e. gold & silver.

 

[TheTakenOne]

To TheTakenOne: I never talk about Fire Emblem cos ive never seen or played it. It might make me a big ignorant but I do think its only a small part of their software library. When alls said and done though Nintendo are going to keep making these games and people are going to keep playing and enjoying them. For me theres plenty to keep me interested on the PC that have great replayability and the things I look for in a game.

P.S. enjoyed the first pokemon then got really angry when the next few came out that were the same, though to be fair some of them did add new features that kept me interested for a while i.e. gold & silver.

The Fire Emblem series is not relatively well-known even among fans of Nintendo or fans of strategy/RPG's, but it's been around for about 15 years now (though only internationally about 5).

The story in Pokémon Diamond & Pearl absolutely bored the crap out of me and almost made me stop playing altogether, but fortunately the option of trading/battling via Wi-Fi significantly, but not completely, makes up for this.

 

[briantw]

My point in bringing up Oblvion and Morrowind was to say they took a complex game and redid in sequel form and left very little the same. In Zelda they took a simple game and made it a little bit different every time, each incantation has the same mechanics. Yeah I get what your saying about not wanting them to be epic. I dont want a story with Serious Sam, or painkiller its about skill and gameplay. That said I find they all get old real quick and the sequels have to change or your getting nothing new. Now I accept its a matter of opinion and thats all im saying really, just explaining why I dont like them. Im not saying by some absolute standard Zelda is crap. Im saying i dont like it cos I doesnt have the depth i want/am used to. (that and theres very few surprises.)

Well, I agree with the Oblivion stuff to some extent, but I still don't see what it has to do with the argument at hand. I acknowledged above that some sequels do actually raise the bar and change quite a bit, but for every game like that there are at least three Halo 3's that barely change a thing other than the marketing budget.

I think it's kind of unfair to compare a game like Zelda to one of the few franchises that actually does change from game to game when there are so many more that don't, and most are not made by Nintendo.

 

[TheHound]

Yeah im not saying that most games are like that and Zelda should be. Just this is a thread about nintento and Zelda always got a lot of praise that i never understood. Same with FFVII, I never understood all the praise and hype for that. I dont like either game but can see why some people do. I was just explaining my opinion it wasnt a this game is bad because....

 

[The Negotiator]

The point is that Nintendo's newest console the Wii is ment to get you up on your feet and do some exersize while playing games that everyone loves because the Japaneze developers are trying to help our american culture to be fit, yet they fail to add great graphics and most pricks out there "YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE" want that and also want the whole family to enjoy the console, yet most people can be selfish and want to be left alone.

"AND FOR THE LAST ******* TIME NINTENDO STOP GETTING BAD REMAKES LIKE SPYRO AND CRASH AND DON'T SELL CHEAP GAMES LIKE FAR CRY FOR THE WII BECAUSE I WANTED TO RIP MY EYES OUT AT THAT ****"!!!

 

[briantw]

Yeah im not saying that most games are like that and Zelda should be. Just this is a thread about nintento and Zelda always got a lot of praise that i never understood.

I think they generally receive great reviews because they are pinnacles of excellent game design and, more importantly, are incredibly fun to play.

Does anyone remember back in the day when games could just be fun? When they didn't have to rely on marketing budgets to convince us that playing them will make our lives better? When they were just fun?

Anyone?

 

[Ranzel]

Yeah im not saying that most games are like that and Zelda should be. Just this is a thread about nintento and Zelda always got a lot of praise that i never understood.

I think they generally receive great reviews because they are pinnacles of excellent game design and, more importantly, are incredibly fun to play.

Does anyone remember back in the day when games could just be fun? When they didn't have to rely on marketing budgets to convince us that playing them will make our lives better? When they were just fun?

Anyone?

I know what you're trying to say, the problem I have with it is this: If you're not having fun playing games, you need to stop buying into marketing budgets, reviews and the like. The fact that a game gets a 10/10 at a bigwig website means nothing if you, the player, don't have fun playing it.

If you COULD have fun playing a game, though, and don't because the same bigwig site gives a game a 1/10, then you have a problem. Entirely disregarding reviews and numeral scales leaves you with the same feelings you described having long ago. If you don't like a game, don't play it. If you do like a game, here's to you getting 100% completion and playing it for years to come.

 

[TheTakenOne]

The point is that Nintendo's newest console the Wii is ment to get you up on your feet and do some exersize while playing games that everyone loves because the Japaneze developers are trying to help our american culture to be fit, yet they fail to add great graphics and most pricks out there "YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE" want that and also want the whole family to enjoy the console, yet most people can be selfish and want to be left alone.

"AND FOR THE LAST ******* TIME NINTENDO STOP GETTING BAD REMAKES LIKE SPYRO AND CRASH AND DON'T SELL CHEAP GAMES LIKE FAR CRY FOR THE WII BECAUSE I WANTED TO RIP MY EYES OUT AT THAT ****"!!!

Yes, the Japanese were specifically thinking of us Americans when they made the Wii. You've never even played a Wii, have you?

It's easy to infer from this all-caps rant that the most experience you've had with one is watching the ads of people playing them on TV(whose movements are REALLY over-the-top.) All you have to do is sit there and waggle a stick around every once in a while. Is that so hard?

Another thing that someone should really sit down and explain to you is that Nintendo really has no control over what other game publishers decide to release on their system. Neither Spyro nor Crash are Nintendo-owned franchises, so what in the world was this rant for?

It seems like you've decided to hate the Wii before even playing it. Of course, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and you happened to play Wii Sports over a friend's house or some such excuse.

 

[The Negotiator]

LOL, you are wrong!

I love the Wii and I know spyro and crash were big hits on the Playstation 2.

I own my very own Wii, also I was just making a simple point about how...
1) The Wii is a console that should be admired for getting creative.
2) The PS3 has no great titles and fails to be better than the Wii in 08.
3) The X-box 360 is the greater console, yet people are to caught up online to play a story mode with a straight face.

"SORRY, BUT JESUS CHRIST MAKE FUN GAMES AGAIN BEFORE VIDEOGAMING BECOMES DEAD"!!!!!!!!

"AND NO REMAKES, JUST KEEP TO MOST GREAT OLD GAMES WITH NEW FUN MODES AND A MIX OF NEW GAMES"

 

[Ghandi 2]

Whoever said that KOTOR had the same story as Mass Effect, just shut up, seriously. The gameplay is only similar in that you go around talking to people (which is true for every RPG), and that you start in a large city. And you save the galaxy, but every game is like that.

However, that's not the point. Other developers are guilty are reusing the same ideas multiple times, but that doesn't make it right. And, none of them, not even Final bloody Fantasy, are guilty of the systematic whoring that Nintendo has done to its characters. I don't care if they're fun, or even if they deviate significantly from their predecessors (although they probably don't very much, from what I've seen they're all basically the same with a few differences to get people to buy them), Mario should not appear in over 100 games over the past 20 years. At some point, you have to move on and come up with new characters. No other company can get away with this crap, except maybe for Square Enix. But even Square Enix bothers to come with different storylines and characters for their games, instead of just making the player accept that, for some reason, a mutated dinosaur really wants to capture this princess, and the only person that can save her is an Italian plumber who will jump on many very strange looking creatures to kill them. Yeah, Halo 3 is somewhat similar to Halo 1. The Master Chief has still only appeared in 3 games. That's a big difference. If Bungie is still making Halo games 20 years from now, then they are comparable.

The Wii is a good console. Despite their gaming development habits, it's the only really innovative console available, and it's a shame that devs don't take more advantage of its possibilities.

 

[PsychoJosh]

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.

Too true, too true. I'm sorry, most of that post was indeed embellished; NO ONE AT ALL is capable of finding anything wrong with Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3. They're pure gaming perfection, and making a post like this implies that I haven't played these glorious titles bestowed upon us by the gods of gaming. [/humorousandoriginalsarcasmtagwhichdoesntreallyexist]

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

You missed one, it's also for Zelda: LTTP.

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.

Is that your whole argument here? Seriously? You're honestly saying that the only reason I wrote a negative tirade on the Wii and Nintendo is because I haven't played it? I can't help picture a spectacled, neckbearded blob with a cheeto-stained Super Mushroom T-shirt looking to a giant, framed picture of Shigeru Miyamoto above his desk with fatherly admiration as he types this out.

Yes you idiot, I haven't played the Wii, as it is utterly impossible to hate such an incredible system and I am a heathen to the various golden deities of electronic entertainment. Thank you for striking me down with your mighty keyboard and showing the errors of my ways, o pastor. I will now seek out a Wii to be enlightened with the most wonderful experience in electronic entertainment so that I may join you in the sacred church of deluded fanboy shitheads. [/anotherhilariousfakesarcasmtagthesearentgettingoldatall]

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

You are so, so wrong it physically hurts. How are you even worthy to breathe the same air as Shiggy-sama if you've already forgotten Nintendo's new mantra?! They don't give a rat's ass about gamers anymore. They know the REAL money is their new expanded audience of little kids, soccer moms and 50-year old golfers. Yet you honestly believe that the Wii is selling for a reason OTHER than its waggle gimmick. Yeah, it's selling for its absolutely stellar titles where you grate cheese/swat flies/roll a ball into a hole/fold laundry. Oh no? Then perhaps it's selling for its incredible online service where you can pay money to download roms. Or maybe, just maybe, it's getting by on impulse sales made by ass-kissing fanboys like yourself and parents who that don't want to spend much on video games for their kids.

No, wait, that last reason is utterly and completely preposterous!

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]

A series which is now almost entirely exclusive to the Playstation... indeed, what does it count for? "HURF DURF WELL IT GOT STARTED ON A NINTENDO CONSOLE AND THAT'S THE ONLY PART I NEED FOR MY ARGUMENT SO WHO CARES WHERE IT IS NOW AMIRITE?!"

Final Fantasy started in an era where Nintendo was the only logical choice for any video game developer to make anything, but regardless I bet you're still going to use them for your argument because they started on a Nintendo console even though they didn't really have any other choice. Oh wait, there was the master system, yes, every successful game developer wanted to jump RIGHT ONTO that, didn't they?

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.

A.K.A., pandering to fans with fanservicey games. Oh wait, that's still not "brand loyalty", right?

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?

Anyone who plays a Mario game for the story is an idiotic tool. Even Nintendo knows this, which is why they keep recycling the same "Mario saves the princess from Bowser" storyline over and over again... oh shit, sorry, I just spoiled Mario Galaxy for you!

Tell me what's different about the past 3 Zelda games? You go through elemental-themed dungeons for the nth time (totally not fanservice in any way), pushing blocks and lighting torches to fight an elemental boss and kill him easily by hitting him in his glowing weakspot with the item you just found in that same dungeon. Mario's the same, he saves the princess all the time by collecting gold stars and other colored crap he needs to collect to get to the gold stars, which are, of course, always scattered across the ubiquitous beaches and tundras and haunted houses.

You're the one who should stop touting words that you obviously don't know the meaning of, like "evolution".

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

Halo 3 is purely a multiplayer game. All the people who bought it did so for the multiplayer, and that's millions of people who'll be playing it online for several years to come, just as they're still doing with Gears of War and Halo 2. So yes, it does have more depth and length than any Mario game, and that is a fact. They're not like Wii owners; hardly anyone bought the game solely for the single player. I personally can't justify blowing 60 bucks on a game I'll only play through once.

And even so, the Halo series is officially finished, not counting the few spinoffs it'll have. Gamers won't see Master Chief again for a long, long time, not even in said spinoffs. Microsoft knows the series is over. That's it, finito. Microsoft will have to come up with something new if they wanna keep selling their consoles. This acts as fuel for creativity, something Nintendo just doesn't have. Can you tell me when, if ever, the Mario and Zelda series will reach a fucking CLIMAX? They never go anywhere with these games, they just repeat the same shit, always. When's Mario gonna get married to Peach? When are all the Zelda games going to be tied together in a meaningful, significant way? Knowing Nintendo, probably never.

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.

Oh yes, you've proven yourself to be quite unbiased and impartial with the rest of your brilliant post, and totally not the kind of person who chugs Nintendo's cock every waking moment of his life. You have completely respectable opinions and I doubt very much you'd pay money to play an old Nintendo game simply for nostalgia reasons! You must be a true gentleman, and not someone who responds with personal attacks whenever someone dares even imply that his favorite video game company might be less than perfect! [/sarcasm? no shit?]

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?

I don't recall any of Sega's consoles doing particularly well, not even the Genesis. It doesn't mean their games were bad.

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.

What the fuck are you talking about?

You're saying that the Xbox is only for "chumps" who like "blowing stuff up" in video games? Yes, blowing stuff up isn't fun at all and only for the lowest common denominator of guttermouthed neanderthals who can't comprehend the deep, emotional intensity of platform hopping in a Mario game, which you have to be a member of MENSA to truly appreciate.

Far better for them to like blowing stuff up and having actual variety in their games than to be a deluded wiitard who is constantly duped into re-purchasing and downloading the same Zelda or Mario game every year. I wonder when the nostalgic appeal of having to push blocks and light torches with a stick will start to lose its edge. Maybe never in a hundred years.

I'm not showing brand-loyalty.

I'm just not oblivious to the fact that Nintendo is the king of video games for good reason.

...

...Not only have you contradicted yourself in the biggest possible way, you have also proven that if every single atom in the universe were a colored pixel that could be turned on or off to collectively form an image, it still wouldn't form enough rolleyes smileys to properly express what an utter and complete moron you are.

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 shudder at the implications of this. I'm apparently not enough of a Nintendo fanboy to exist in this new ideal world of yours, which only the Nintendo Cumswallowing Elite may walk upon. Billions of people all under the despotic rule of Nintendo, living with a law that decrees not having at least one TV and one Nintendo console in every household is punishable by execution. You'd live as a duke of this new Earth, and holding your iron wiimote high in the air, you would seek out blasphemers of the Nintendo Seal of Quality, and bring down the thunder onto the backs of their skulls with the power... super power bestowed upon you to play with by the terrestrial gods of gaming.

It's quite a horrible thought, a world inhabited only by your drooling, retarded offspring... but then I breathe a sigh of relief, knowing you're the kind of person who will never get that kind of opportunity.

 

[TheTakenOne]

LOL, you are wrong!

I love the Wii and I know spyro and crash were big hits on the Playstation 2.

I own my very own Wii, also I was just making a simple point about how...
1) The Wii is a console that should be admired for getting creative.
2) The PS3 has no great titles and fails to be better than the Wii in 08.
3) The X-box 360 is the greater console, yet people are to caught up online to play a story mode with a straight face.

"SORRY, BUT JESUS CHRIST MAKE FUN GAMES AGAIN BEFORE VIDEOGAMING BECOMES DEAD"!!!!!!!!

"AND NO REMAKES, JUST KEEP TO MOST GREAT OLD GAMES WITH NEW FUN MODES AND A MIX OF NEW GAMES"

I'm so not wrong. I'm never wrong. It's a universal impossibility. Check it out sometime.

The PS3 has indeed had a bad start, but I believe this is because the damned thing was released far too early. Given some time it'll have plenty of good games and the system will be better(hopefully cheaper too) and I'll be more than happy to go grab one.

Of course, I could be wrong about that and it'll fall behind just like the Gamecube in the previous generation.

The 360 is only the best console because it's had about a year's head start, and even then I'd rather have the Wii for the few games I like on it.

 

[briantw]

Whoever said that KOTOR had the same story as Mass Effect, just shut up, seriously. The gameplay is only similar in that you go around talking to people (which is true for every RPG), and that you start in a large city. And you save the galaxy, but every
game is like that.

Let's recap.

KOTOR: Evil villain is trying to utilize the Star Forge to create a massive army and destroy the universe. Meanwhile, a rogue hero (who also happens to be an elite warrior known as a Jedi) and his group of rag-tag friends must band together and put a stop to this.

Mass Effect: Evil villain is trying to utilize the Citadel Relay to summon a massive army and destroy the universe. Meanwhile, a rogue hero (who also happens to be an elite warrior known as a Spectre) and his group of rag-tag friends must band together and put a stop to this.

You must be the same type of person who thinks that BioShock's story is radically different from System Shock 2 because the game is set underwater instead of in space.

The fact that KOTOR and Mass Effect tell the same basic story doesn't make Mass Effect a bad game (I actually liked it quite a bit), but I don't see how you can ignore the obvious similarities between the two narratives.

However, that's not the point. Other developers are guilty are reusing the same ideas multiple times, but that doesn't make it right. And, none of them, not even Final bloody Fantasy, are guilty of the systematic whoring that Nintendo has done to its characters.

I'll agree that Nintendo does whore out its characters, but it does so in a relatively competent manner. Sure, there are duds out there like most of the Mario Party series, but the fact is that Nintendo has created some of the most iconic characters in gaming, and if they want to make a tennis game and throw Mario in it to spur some sales, I don't see what the big problem is so long as the game is fun.

I don't care if they're fun, or even if they deviate significantly from their predecessors (although they probably don't very much, from what I've seen they're all basically the same with a few differences to get people to buy them), Mario should not appear in over 100 games over the past 20 years.

If you don't care if a game is fun, why do you even play games at all? Is the whole point of playing a game not to have fun? Does Nintendo slipping Donkey Kong into a soccer game make the game automatically suck? Of course not. The fact remains, though, that it's a lot easier to sell a game (especially one like most of the Mario sports titles that's based around simple multi-player fun) with characters that people recognize on the box than it is to make the same game into an original IP that plays the same, but lacks said characters.

What does the amount of games a character appears in have to do with anything? The fact remains that, well, Mario sells. People recognize him. People love him. People have fond memories of him from when they were kids. Add to that the fact that, by and large, most of the games that feature him are actually pretty good, and you can quickly see why it's justified for him to appear in so many games. Now, if every spin-off he appeared in sucked ass, you'd certainly have a case, but that's just not how it is.

At some point, you have to move on and come up with new characters.

As others have mentioned, Nintendo does make other games from time to time, while still managing to pump out their core franchises once every four or five years. Remember Pikmin? That was an original concept. And, as others have mentioned, the Fire Emblem games consistently offer gamers original story-lines. Then there's Battalion Wars and Advance Wars, each of which brought something new to the table. Or how about Animal Crossing, which is a pretty unique experience? Oh yeah, and new ideas like Disaster: Day of Crisis, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and more. People like to act like all Nintendo ever makes is Mario games, but that's not the case. The Mario games just tend to get most of the attention.

Nintendo has, however, created some pretty damned iconic characters. Everyone knows who Mario is, and he is still very relevant over twenty years after he was created. He'll probably continue to be relevant as long as most of us are alive. The bottom line at the end of the day, though, is that Nintendo is still able to make good, fun Mario games, and as long as they are able to do so, I've got no problem playing them.

Yeah, Halo 3 is somewhat similar to Halo 1. The Master Chief has still only appeared in 3 games. That's a big difference. If Bungie is still making Halo games 20 years from now, then they are comparable.

Halo was also only created six years ago, so it's an entirely unfair and pointless comparison. However, we're already going to see four games in six years (counting Halo wars), so I think that Microsoft may be ready to out-whore Nintendo with the Halo franchise. Hell, we're already seeing Halo soft drinks...

 

[TheTakenOne]

Deep breath, rub hands, clear throat, and away we go.

Too true, too true. I'm sorry, most of that post was indeed embellished; NO ONE AT ALL is capable of finding anything wrong with Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3. They're pure gaming perfection, and making a post like this implies that I haven't played these glorious titles bestowed upon us by the gods of gaming. [/humorousandoriginalsarcasmtagwhichdoesntreallyexist]

If you were to actually confront me about either of those games, I would tell you that Metroid Prime 3's controls are extremely off-putting and I couldn't play the game for more than 10 minutes without getting annoyed. And I've never even touched Super Mario Galaxy and for all I know it really could be a crap game, but to be honest I don't really care because I never intended to get it in the first place.

That's your first failure: your presumption to understand my taste in video games. The second is believing that I responded to your foolish post because I was rushing to the defense of my "beloved Nintendo" when the fact is I know full well that they are far from perfect and that the only reason I decided to take apart your post is because 1) it reeked of ignorance and 2) it was very therapeutic and did well to ease the stress of my lousy holiday weekend, and fortunately for me you've given me another opportunity to do the same, so for this I thank you for allowing me this second opportunity to tell you that you, sir, are a presumptuous moron.

You missed one, it's also for Zelda: LTTP.

What's Zelda: LTTP?

Actually, don't answer that.

Is that your whole argument here? Seriously? You're honestly saying that the only reason I wrote a negative tirade on the Wii and Nintendo is because I haven't played it? I can't help picture a spectacled, neckbearded blob with a cheeto-stained Super Mushroom T-shirt looking to a giant, framed picture of Shigeru Miyamoto above his desk with fatherly admiration as he types this out.

Yes you idiot, I haven't played the Wii, as it is utterly impossible to hate such an incredible system and I am a heathen to the various golden deities of electronic entertainment. Thank you for striking me down with your mighty keyboard and showing the errors of my ways, o pastor. I will now seek out a Wii to be enlightened with the most wonderful experience in electronic entertainment so that I may join you in the sacred church of deluded fanboy shitheads. [/anotherhilariousfakesarcasmtagthesearentgettingoldatall]

My theory about your hate of the Wii was inferred that you added nothing at all credible to the arguement and instead repeated the same things that have been said ad nauseam by every other commenter who thinks watching a few ads for Wii games and playing Wii Sports lends credence to the belief that it's nothing more than a gimmick to attract new fans. Frankly, it was a risk that nearly prevented me from even going near the damn thing, but I gave it a chance and I'm actually glad I did.

What I'm wondering is how anything in this post or my previous one can automatically label me a fanboy just because I happen to like the Wii and actually want to see a valid arguement against it.

You are so, so wrong it physically hurts. How are you even worthy to breathe the same air as Shiggy-sama if you've already forgotten Nintendo's new mantra?! They don't give a rat's ass about gamers anymore. They know the REAL money is their new expanded audience of little kids, soccer moms and 50-year old golfers. Yet you honestly believe that the Wii is selling for a reason OTHER than its waggle gimmick. Yeah, it's selling for its absolutely stellar titles where you grate cheese/swat flies/roll a ball into a hole/fold laundry. Oh no? Then perhaps it's selling for its incredible online service where you can pay money to download roms. Or maybe, just maybe, it's getting by on impulse sales made by ass-kissing fanboys like yourself and parents who that don't want to spend much on video games for their kids.

No, wait, that last reason is utterly and completely preposterous!

Again, I see the word fanboy. I don't think anything needs to be added here.

A series which is now almost entirely exclusive to the Playstation... indeed, what does it count for? "HURF DURF WELL IT GOT STARTED ON A NINTENDO CONSOLE AND THAT'S THE ONLY PART I NEED FOR MY ARGUMENT SO WHO CARES WHERE IT IS NOW AMIRITE?!"

Final Fantasy started in an era where Nintendo was the only logical choice for any video game developer to make anything, but regardless I bet you're still going to use them for your argument because they started on a Nintendo console even though they didn't really have any other choice. Oh wait, there was the master system, yes, every successful game developer wanted to jump RIGHT ONTO that, didn't they?

It was merely an example that was the most likely to be recognized by anyone else reading it.

I'm not even claiming to know everything but you seem to treat every single one of my posts as an opinion stated specifically to defend Nintendo. I don't care about the corporation in general and I'm not going to go ahead and buy every single game they put out because they do produce some mediocre crap.

A.K.A., pandering to fans with fanservicey games. Oh wait, that's still not "brand loyalty", right?

What's pandering to you? Putting out a sequel to a game that's almost an exact copy of the previous one? I guess Nintendo's the only company that does that.

Anyone who plays a Mario game for the story is an idiotic tool. Even Nintendo knows this, which is why they keep recycling the same "Mario saves the princess from Bowser" storyline over and over again... oh shit, sorry, I just spoiled Mario Galaxy for you!

Tell me what's different about the past 3 Zelda games? You go through elemental-themed dungeons for the nth time (totally not fanservice in any way), pushing blocks and lighting torches to fight an elemental boss and kill him easily by hitting him in his glowing weakspot with the item you just found in that same dungeon. Mario's the same, he saves the princess all the time by collecting gold stars and other colored crap he needs to collect to get to the gold stars, which are, of course, always scattered across the ubiquitous beaches and tundras and haunted houses.

You're the one who should stop touting words that you obviously don't know the meaning of, like "evolution".

I know it's the same basic crap and I don't care. I'll still go ahead and play the Fire Emblem series even though there's been barely any changes to the gameplay in the past few years: weapon triangle, trinity of magic, leveling up, promoting units, permadeath, blah, blah, blah.

Again, I really don't see where you were going with this point. Nobody buys the sequel to a game and doesn't expect the gameplay to do a complete 180 and be completely different from the previous game and anyone who does that is an idiot. At the same time, Nintendo manages to change just enough so that it isn't the exact same game as long as you don't go in scrutinizing it and pointing out every single insignificant similarity to the last game. So Mario has to rescue the princess from Bowser and collect a bunch of stars and coins and jump on a bunch of turtle heads to achieve this end. To this I say "So fucking what?" It doesn't diminish the quality of a game especially when you buy it and expect it to follow the same basic formula as its predecessors, but if you go in and expect something completely new and revolutionary you're bound to be in for a major disappointment.

It seems like you've hated every single game in each series you've mentioned and don't care a lick about what else there is out there. Just Mario and Metroid and Zelda and ZOMG I've gotta get to the Wal-Mart!

That was far too long.

Halo 3 is purely a multiplayer game. All the people who bought it did so for the multiplayer, and that's millions of people who'll be playing it online for several years to come, just as they're still doing with Gears of War and Halo 2. So yes, it does have more depth and length than any Mario game, and that is a fact. They're not like Wii owners; hardly anyone bought the game solely for the single player. I personally can't justify blowing 60 bucks on a game I'll only play through once.

I'll let my friend answer this one for me.

"OMG HALO FUCKING 3~creams my pants~ such a great fucking game, i cant beleive it......~puts a gun to my head and shoots myself~"

Not quite what I'd say, but I still found it funny.

Anyway, Halo 3 was merely an example, and admittedly not even a good one. I don't see how pointing any of this out counts much for anything.

Oh yes, you've proven yourself to be quite unbiased and impartial with the rest of your brilliant post, and totally not the kind of person who chugs Nintendo's cock every waking moment of his life. You have completely respectable opinions and I doubt very much you'd pay money to play an old Nintendo game simply for nostalgia reasons! You must be a true gentleman, and not someone who responds with personal attacks whenever someone dares even imply that his favorite video game company might be less than perfect! [/sarcasm? no shit?]

You know, I think this doesn't even need a reply. It sort of speaks for itself, don't you think?

I don't recall any of Sega's consoles doing particularly well, not even the Genesis. It doesn't mean their games were bad.

Sega's games were certainly not bad. It's just that they kind of screwed themselves up by trying to take their games in directions they did not need to take.

What the fuck are you talking about?

You're saying that the Xbox is only for "chumps" who like "blowing stuff up" in video games? Yes, blowing stuff up isn't fun at all and only for the lowest common denominator of guttermouthed neanderthals who can't comprehend the deep, emotional intensity of platform hopping in a Mario game, which you have to be a member of MENSA to truly appreciate.

Far better for them to like blowing stuff up and having actual variety in their games than to be a deluded wiitard who is constantly duped into re-purchasing and downloading the same Zelda or Mario game every year. I wonder when the nostalgic appeal of having to push blocks and light torches with a stick will start to lose its edge. Maybe never in a hundred years.

I was making a point. The XBox is most certainly _not_ for vapid fools who need to blow shit up, it was merely an example of how stupid an assumption like that is. It's really a shame that you went to the trouble to type all that up and didn't even see the point I was trying to make.

Again there I see "Zelda" and "Mario" again as though they are the paragons of what makes Nintendo great. Truth be told I don't give a flying shit about Mario and haven't since the Nintendo 64, and while I still enjoy the Zelda series I haven't enjoyed it since Ocarina of Time. Again, I fail to see how you get anywhere when you continue to repeat the same old games over and over. You seem absolutely convinced that I love the Mario series when the truth is I haven't even liked it since Super Mario 64.

...

...Not only have you contradicted yourself in the biggest possible way, you have also proven that if every single atom in the universe were a colored pixel that could be turned on or off to collectively form an image, it still wouldn't form enough rolleyes smileys to properly express what an utter and complete moron you are.

I'll concede that your misunderstanding of that particular quote was entirely my fault for not clarifying what I meant, but this misunderstanding had been cleared up long before you posted your response, so I take no blame for that and I feel no need to even repeat myself.

I shudder at the implications of this. I'm apparently not enough of a Nintendo fanboy to exist in this new ideal world of yours, which only the Nintendo Cumswallowing Elite may walk upon. Billions of people all under the despotic rule of Nintendo, living with a law that decrees not having at least one TV and one Nintendo console in every household is punishable by execution. You'd live as a duke of this new Earth, and holding your iron wiimote high in the air, you would seek out blasphemers of the Nintendo Seal of Quality, and bring down the thunder onto the backs of their skulls with the power... super power bestowed upon you to play with by the terrestrial gods of gaming.

It's quite a horrible thought, a world inhabited only by your drooling, retarded offspring... but then I breathe a sigh of relief, knowing you're the kind of person who will never get that kind of opportunity.

There's that "fanboy" word again. I actually stopped reading after that word because I knew the rest would be some dramatic spiel about what a retarded Nintendo-fellating fanboy I am.

To summarize: don't care about Mario, don't care about baseless arguments, don't care about Halo 3 and definitely don't care about you.

I wish I could've made that rhyme.