Your Thoughts: Nintendo

[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.

 

[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.