Nintendo president and revolution

BlitzKrieg

Discussing this in another forum


and was wondering who here supports nintendo's attempt to recreate the games market and who feels its a overall mistake...


discuss






my view:

despite both the n64 and gamecube making the equivilent impact on the overall games market as a orange to a tank nintendo have survived. this is because of the companies constant delivery of (lack of better word) cult games (specialised and unique) and their understanding of the handheld market.

despite the huge amount of money pumped into it i think the psp will be a rubbish handheld console (and i am not nintendo's biggest fan) simply because super 3d graphic games never really work on a handheld, they are for mobile use and its impossible to take in the all mighty splendour of a huge 3d world while playing it on a train or bus. I mean the GBA was meant to be 32 bit...yet no tomb raiders or snazy 3d platformers took centre stage. The DS is designed so that yes it will have the functionality and freedom of those big 3d games, but they are not the pulling factor nor are they essential for the machine.

now the revolution...i think the name gives it away. Nintendo's president is not telling all 3rd party companies to **** off. He is warning them. This new console is redefining how games are played. therefore cross platform titles like the FIFA series and so on will be physically impossible because the entire game system will have to be gutted to work in whatever the nintendo mystical system will be. 3rd party support will be welcomed. just not the sort that EA has established as the norm, which is cross console mass produced. while not bad system of making games has created untold amounts of trash.

As i also have a keen interest in film and politics i can draw parallels between nintendo and EA in the games indsutry and hollywood and Dogme 95*. While not a commercial or worldwide success dogme 95 is a highly respected form of cinema. Nintendo are creating a similer situation in games. Its a huge risk. Suicidel even, as the costs alone in the game industry require nintendo to be semi successfull in at least 2 of the 3 major markets (Japan, europe, usa) while japan is fairly safe and europe is almsot a lost cause, usa will be the crucial market.

so its a fine wire. Nintendo's system needs to be something amazing beyond belief that surpasses the cliche graphics and gameplay demands yet the simple economics of the current industry spell doom doom and doom.

i have lost my train of thought so i'll simply state....Virtual game boy.


* Dogme 95 -danish rethinking of what film is and how it should work...no special fx, no soundtracks and no amazing stories.

Goodshape

All very interesting.
Nintendo have really won me over with the Gamecube to be honest. I didn't get into the N64 much at all - just didn't appeal to me at the time when I was playing far superior games on the PC (same goes for PS1, Saturn) - but the cube has shown me what a console can be used for, IMO.

I think Ninty's president is right in thinking developers should take more care to create games specifically for the environment, although I wonder what exactly can be added to the existing joypad interface - which I assume is what they mean by 'revolution'.

I've got faith enough that Nintendo will continue to make great games for their machines, but I'm also fearful that they're just going to throw a few gimmicks on there and no-one else is going to be arsed with it.

They're right to try though.


...Dogma95 is an interesting simile. That didn't do to well in the end, did it? (actually I've got a book about it here. must give it a read sometime)

I've been a big fan of Nintendo over the years, but recently I've begun to play games on PC and other formats, for variety.

Because Nintendo's business is video games, they have always been about fun, family interactive entertainment and quality. Very rarely would you get a Nintendo first-party game and find it to be complete rubbish...different maybe, but not completely rubbish.

They have always been the innovative party in the video games industry...no console had the analogue stick on their controllers before the N64 (i think i'm right on that), the four ports as standard on the N64 were a first also and I think the rumble pak was their creation, which led the way for the other companies to place vibrating functionality into their products.

Sony's business however, is just that...business. It wouldn't have the same strict measures on quality, just as long as plenty of games companies sign up and use their products and bring games on Sony's platform, so more people would buy it. Sony have produced some fine products but, as they are more diverse (they're into everything), I can see that sometimes they may be a bit unfocused and would wish to stick to a formula, while companies like Nintendo create the innovation.

yawnstretch

BlitzKrieg- Nintendo may have done well with the handheld market in the past but it's obvious you know little about the PSP from your comments about not being able to enjoy a next-gen games on a hand-held.

"simply because super 3d graphic games never really work on a handheld".

They havent in the past - that's for sure and whats also for sure is that Nintendo's efforts are unwieldy when it comes to 3d handheld games (the DS is a pain in the neck to play in any portable situation).

The PSP will re-create the handheld market and if you dont believe me wait till you've played on one yourself - PSP is the revolution here.

Nintendo are slipping up too much of late and if they're not careful they'll be in Sega's position in around 2 years (if that).

Ciaran500

BlitzKrieg wrote:

simply because super 3d graphic games never really work on a handheld, they are for mobile use and its impossible to take in the all mighty splendour of a huge 3d world while playing it on a train or bus.

There are no games out on the PSP yet that have "huge 3d world" and TBH I can't think of any examples of a detailed huge 3d world on a handheld so I think its a bit early to judhe that concept.

Just because the PSP has power doesn't mean games will have to have big 3D enviroment. Lumines and Mercury are perfect examples of this. Lumines is just as good as Ridge Racers and people that have played Mercury said it was excelent.

flogen

yawnstretch wrote:

(the DS is a pain in the neck to play in any portable situation).

The PSP will re-create the handheld market and if you dont believe me wait till you've played on one yourself - PSP is the revolution here.

Nintendo are slipping up too much of late and if they're not careful they'll be in Sega's position in around 2 years (if that).

How is it a pain in the neck to play in any "portable situation"? I've had no trouble so far.

Also, I haven't tried the PSP just yet but its safe to say that no matter how good it there will be no revolution from it, simply because it's a re-hash of what has been before but in a portable form. I'm not saying its a bad thing, its just nothing new.


On topic I think the DS will do well and I commend nintendo for doing somethign different, the fact that its something you cant get anywhere else is the reason why I want it much more than a PSP.
As far as the revolution goes it will be a risk if it's as unique as the DS is in handheld terms but I hope developers will utilise it rather than get lazy (I'm sure many will, and if a game is made for a specific system there's more chance of it being good IMO).
I guess we'll have to wait and see just what Revolution means to gaming before we judge how much of a risk they're taking, but once again, kudos to Nintendo for having balls

flogen

BlitzKrieg

i freely admit i am not the most knowledgable in the psp. but from what i have seen and heard all everyone tells me is that they can play ps2 quality games in handhelds...looking at those 2 games i admit they suit handhelds well and look like fun.


but i am still yet to see a killer handheld game...you say its a revolution but looking at the website you gave me it seems to be a load of sequels and remakes.

Syth

Sounds like a lot of hype to me, so I don't really pay attention to a lot of it. But they might try to be 'revolutionary'. I'm just going to wait and see and not get caught up in the hype.

steviec

Nintendo used a lot of this 'Revolutionary' language about the DS before they announced what it actually was. And to be honest it's not all that amazing. Touch screen and two screens are certainly new yes, but there's yet to be any games that have really deep gameplay that takes advantage of them. Warioware is fantastic and fun for a blast, but other than that the DS so far is nothing but sequels and rehashes of old games, the PSP has been far more 'Revolutionary'(and if you'd played one you'd understand), sure its basically like a PS2 shrunk down, but whats wrong with that? I mean by that logic you could say that the DS is just a palm pc with a second screen attached for no good reason...

As for the Revolution, I'm going to wait and see what exactly is so different about it. If it's just (as I've read in rumours somewhere) just a gyroscope/motion detector thing in it, it's not gonna impress me too much, I have a sidewinder pad that does that on PC and its not particularly great, I'd rather have good games with a normal joypad. And good games is what Nintendo do really really well, I wish they'd focus on that rather than coming up with Gimmicks(DK Jungle Beat is great fun but it's gonna take something deeper than that to compete with GTA, MGS, GT, Halo, KOTOR and other big games on other formats at the moment)

I'd say E3 will reveal a lot. Need to know exactly what they have up their sleeve to pass judgement.

BloodBath

Nintendo have slipped up since the snes. The N64 while being unique with some great games was massively flawed with the choice of using cartridges. They lost some big Nintendo titles (mgs and ff7 to name 2) because of this. Developers were more attracted to the playstation because of the cd format and the larger potential that the machine offered. The gamecube is a similar story. It is a great machine but again Nintendo opt for their unique disks instead of dvd. A lot of people opted to go with a ps2 or x-box because they could play their dvd's on it and again Nintendo didn't get much 3rd party backing.

From the rumors and confirmed technology coming from the sony and microsoft camps Nintendo will have their biggest challenge to date. The DS will sell but it won't save Nintendo. Their loyal fans have kept them alive the last few years but I don't see them ever regaining the crown. Nintendo should give up making consoles and start making games on other formats like sega. Nintendo fans flame away.


BloodBath

Giblet

So I guess this will be Nintendos final console then.

skywalker

flogen wrote:

the fact that its something you cant get anywhere else is the reason why I want it much more than a PSP.
flogen

i was listening to your opinion until you said that. think about what you just said. and all sonys marketing tricks of old of not releasing enough units to cope with demand so they could claim ps was a sellout even though it was being outsold by other consoles at the time. the reason to want a console should be the games you can play on it (or in the case of psp its other multimedia functions) not that its a bit exclusive because it cant be bought anywhere for the next 2 weeks.

i_am_dogboy

BloodBath wrote:

From the rumors and confirmed technology coming from the sony and microsoft camps Nintendo will have their biggest challenge to date. The DS will sell but it won't save Nintendo. Their loyal fans have kept them alive the last few years but I don't see them ever regaining the crown. Nintendo should give up making consoles and start making games on other formats like sega.

You're right(probably) that Nintendo will never regain their crown as the big player in the console industry, but that's nothing that will disappoint the likes of me. As you said the loyal fans have kept them alive-but if they hadn't pleased the loyal fans they probably wouldn't be around any more-after all whose gonna buy a gamecube for games you can get on the other more versatile consoles. I don't see them giving up on consoles any time soon, and I'd rather they not just go into development/publishing, but as long as nintendo make good nintendo games I'll be happy.

As far as "revolution" is concerned-I don't see it as revolution, but more innovation, they will make something special that works really well, but it probably won't revolutionise the industry. It is hype, just like everything you hear about a console before it's released. No doubt it'll make some of nintendo's more hard core fans wet thier pants though.

hal9000

No offence but this whole dual screen thing aint that new either, its a nod back to Nintendos first handhelds, ones like dual screen donkey kong, god i loved those I always seemed to destroy the screen though.

Dogg Thang

Whether these 'innovations' are new or not, the word seems to be thrown around quite a bit when speaking of Nintendo when the word 'gimmick' would be far more appropriate. Basing a whole console around one of these 'innovations' would seem to me to be a mistake - it would be like Sony making the PS3 EyeToy only. Or Sega making a Samba De Amigo maracas console. Yeah, these things are all great fun and, yeah okay, maybe you can use the word innovation with them but they won't sustain more than a few games.

Nintendo needs to spend less time making gimmicks or fancy colours for their consoles and spend more time making some good games.

Dogg.

i_am_dogboy

Eh, if there's anything Nintendo have been doing well it's making good games, and you can be sure that any amount of "gimmicks" will not change that. The truth is the gimmick factor of the hardware is completely dependant on its use, sure enough if the second screen of the ds was only used as an alternative viewpoint it would be a gimmick, but it's not, it's used as part of the gameplay(in some cases any way). And we don't know enough about revolution to say whether or not it will compare to an eye toy only console or something else as ridiculous-but it probaby won't be.

Retr0gamer

I think Nintendo really need a killer app on launch of their console. They didn't have one for the gamecube and we had to wait until Metroid PRime for something that was truly ground breaking. Just look at what Halo did for the Xbox. The xbox is now only becoming a respectable console. And I think for almost 2 years it had nothing but Halo on it that was worth buying. But halo was such a high quality game that it convinced a lot of people to buy it (I was tempted as well but held off for a while due to lack of funds ). And remember the buzz around Mario 64 which really is an amazing game. Nintendo need a game like these but also a game that will get the attention of the masses. And unfortunately mario won't reach the masses. I've an Idea for them: Mario 128: Underground.

BlitzKrieg

while i know its a long shot...but could the killer ap game please not be a sequel or a remake PLEASE!!!

its all anyone ever seems to think with these next gens...OOii the next MGS, HALO, MARIO will look amazing on the next gen...F*CK YOU I WANT SOMETHING NEW!

in fairness despite trying to get back to what made *sega* good i thought the dreamcast did alot of new things to warrant interest...damn fickle gamers.

Dogg Thang

i_am_dogboy wrote:

sure enough if the second screen of the ds was only used as an alternative viewpoint it would be a gimmick, but it's not, it's used as part of the gameplay(in some cases any way).

I have a DS and quite a few games for it and I can tell you that the second screen is mostly used for maps so far. Maps in games aren't an innovation. Any game that does use it in gameplay (Wario Ware for example) could have done the same job on one screen - they simply split stuff up for no other reason then they can. That's not to say that it won't be used well in the future but until many developers find a legitimate use for it and its innovation shines through it should stay under the heading 'gimmick'.

Now we can't comment on the Revolution yet but Nintendo have said that traditional control methods will be dropped. So their 'innovation' (or gimmick), whatever that may be, will seemingly be the only control mechanism. Hence the comaprison with an EyeToy-only PS3. As it is, with the GBA 2, the DS could well turn out to be Nintendo's 32X, but if the DS didn't also have a regular control setup along with the touch screen it would have been crippled.

Nintendo's innovation track record consists of GC/GBA connectivity and the DS. The GC/GBA thing only served to remove content from games to put them on the GBA (like Wind Waker). Removing content is not innovative. The only innovative use of this I ever saw was that Pac-Man game and that never seemed to materialise. I'm not just on Nintendo's case here - I'll also bring up VMUs and Pocketstations too. As long as game companies are forcing developers to use their ill-concieved 'innovations', we're unlikely to see more than a handful of games that work with them. And, though both the GC and GBA have some excellent games, Nintendo's output since the SNES days has been on a slippery slope and they simply don't seem to have the killer apps they used to. They need more than sticking Mario into every genre possible to keep them going.

Dogg.

i_am_dogboy

Have you ever played a game with an analogue controller? or a dpad?(correct me on that one if I'm wrong) You have a console with 4 controller ports as standard? Used the rumble feature on a controller? They are all nintendo 'gimmicks' as you put it, and I'm pretty sure there are more than I know of. If someone had said before the n64's release that nintendo wouldn't be relyign on-at the time-traditional control's you'd have thought they were crazy, but still look at the difference that 'gimmick' made to the industry.

You're right they need an actual killer app, but you can't say they haven't innovated, because without their input the last twenty something years you can be sure gaming wouldn't be quite what it is now.

steviec

i_am_dogboy wrote:

Have you ever played a game with an analogue controller? or a dpad?(correct me on that one if I'm wrong) You have a console with 4 controller ports as standard? Used the rumble feature on a controller? They are all nintendo 'gimmicks' as you put it, and I'm pretty sure there are more than I know of. If someone had said before the n64's release that nintendo wouldn't be relyign on-at the time-traditional control's you'd have thought they were crazy, but still look at the difference that 'gimmick' made to the industry.

You're right they need an actual killer app, but you can't say they haven't innovated, because without their input the last twenty something years you can be sure gaming wouldn't be quite what it is now.

Analogue joysticks existed on PCs long before the N64. And I remember reading news a couple of months ago that some unheard of company sued(and succeeded) all the major console companies for using their patent for rumbling joypads, so I dont think they can be classed Nintendo innovations. In fairness though everything comes to PC first, there were Eyetoy-style games long before the Eyetoy for example.

The point is that Analog input, force feedback, 4 players, all made perfect sense and all appeared in some form before the N64 whether as add-ons or on PCs and none of them completely revolutionised the industry, in fact the N64 Joypad really made me hate the idea of Analog, until I got a PS1 analog that was actually comfortable to use(Although the Gamecube is my favourite analog stick of any console...)

But theres nothing obvious and sensible that you know can add to any game that I can think of for Revolution(the DS 'innovations' certainly wouldn't make it into that category). Maybe they'll prove us wrong, but for now if its just the gyroscope control that's been rumoured, that's more likely to put me off the console than buy it!

Retr0gamer

Analogue control may have been on PC joysticks but was never used in anything other than flight sims. Nintendo showed how it could be used in all 3D games and made it more mainstream. As for the comment on the N64 pad I feel differently from you. I loved the N64 pad and still think the dualshock is horrendous. If you are left handed then I'd know where you are coming from. Different strokes for different folks.

Nintendo's output since the SNES days has been on a slippery slope and they simply don't seem to have the killer apps they used to. They need more than sticking Mario into every genre possible to keep them going

Youm obviously don't own a nintendo console.

I'm not too sure about this new controller nintendo are trying to sell us. I hope they keep it simple and functional in traditional games like with the N64 pad. It better not be the return of the power glove.

TerrorFirmer

They have always been the innovative party in the video games industry...no console had the analogue stick on their controllers before the N64 (i think i'm right on that), the four ports as standard on the N64 were a first also and I think the rumble pak was their creation, which led the way for the other companies to place vibrating functionality into their products.

The N64, was pretty much like the Atari Jaguar in a sense. Superior to all other current consoles, but it just didnt get the publicity it deserverd and it lost out to already estabhlished markets. Even today people buy PS2 over X-box because its "cooler", or "everyone else has one". Its technical inferiority doesnt really come into it for most people.

Goldeneye - that was one game nintendo made that EVERYONE in the world has played nearly. Sure, its not the greatest game around now - but I think it still is the greatest game ever in respect to its release date. Perfect Dark was another killer game. Perfect Dark might have been released a little too late, but Goldeneye was somewhat like Xbox's Halo.

Even today I can't stand the ps2 analogue sticks. I think they are inaccurate and difficult. I find the x-box and most definately the n64 analogue controller excellent for games (bar maybe driving games)

But after the mistake of using cartidges rather then cd's, Nintendo started digging their own grave by using the mini discs for the cube. Like Sega, I think its inevitable that eventually Nintendo will go the whole way from market kings to third party developers.

BTW - on the subject of Nintendo - wasn't there an add-on planned for the N64 to compete with the PSX?

The best handheld (and possibly on ANY format) game I have EVER played is nintendos Advance Wars games on GBA. They are the perfect example of what portable gaming should be. I really don't have any interest in getting either the DS or PSP.

i_am_dogboy

steviec wrote:

The point is that Analog input, force feedback, 4 players, all made perfect sense and all appeared in some form before the N64 whether as add-ons or on PCs and none of them completely revolutionised the industry, in fact the N64 Joypad really made me hate the idea of Analog, until I got a PS1 analog that was actually comfortable to use(Although the Gamecube is my favourite analog stick of any console...)

I suppose I should have been more specific, I was talking about the analugue controller, and the other features i mentioned, being standard for the console, rather than saying they were the first to use analogue controls. Nothing from pc gaming, good or bad, really picks up in relation to console gaming-which is a shame, I've yet to see a console controller as intuitive or innovative as the keyboard and mouse....but that's just me.

Retr0gamer

I find PC controls only work for third person shooters, first person shooters and strategy games. Give me a joypad for everything else please.

wasn't there an add-on planned for the N64 to compete with the PSX

There was an add-on but not to compete with the PSX. It was released only in japan and was a huge flop. The F-zero X expansion on it was very good supposedly because of the track designer.

Dogg Thang

Sure they have contributed massively to gaming. Hugely. That's why I find it disappointing that they seem to have lost their way. There is no doubt that they contributed to making analogue control on consoles standard (though it was old news to anyone who had used a computer in the 80s) and I've no idea about the origin of the rumble features but, much more than that, what they contributed gameplay-wise has been stunning. I wouldn't dispute that. And they still deliver the odd classic but, in general, they seem to have lost their focus. I mean, the upcoming DS line-up is embarrasing. They have not yet delivered on any promise of innovation. And, with talk of the Revolution and GBA 2, things seem to shifting away from the games and is just all about the machines. Where are the games?

Dogg.

Edit: And as for me not having a Nintendo console - I have a GC, GBA, DS and N64. I have plenty of Nintendo consoles.

Retr0gamer

Well if you put it that way I know what you mean. Their output has gone from releasing nothing but classics to releasing some great games but a few that are only okay. In fact if it wasn't for the quality pouring from their intelligent systems team there aren't too many classics since the N64 days.

flogen

skywalker wrote:

i was listening to your opinion until you said that. think about what you just said. and all sonys marketing tricks of old of not releasing enough units to cope with demand so they could claim ps was a sellout even though it was being outsold by other consoles at the time. the reason to want a console should be the games you can play on it (or in the case of psp its other multimedia functions) not that its a bit exclusive because it cant be bought anywhere for the next 2 weeks.

No, you misunderstood me, It's not that I want something thats new and exclusive regardless of the quality, its just that I have a PS2 at home and I'm not pushed into playing it on the bus instead, the DS offers games that can't be played on any other console, even their own (even the remakes are different). Now that doesnt mean I'd buy it, the unique games have to be worth it and at launch I can see three titles I want to have, and there are more on the way soon. In the same breath the PSP is offering a lot of racing games, not my thing, and otherwise a lot of remakes of ps2 titles. I may change my mind if I see a lot of really good and fresh titles coming out but for now it just seems to be ps2 ports.

flogen

BloodBath

The d-pad and analouge controls were inovative. A dual screen handheld imo is a gimmick. Seriously how many titles will make good use of it? I have no interest in handhelds but if I did the psp looks a lot more appealing.

I love nintendo games but they have been churning out to many bad consoles. Look at sega, they really only had 1 major sucess with the mega-drive. Then the **** began, the mega-cd 300 quid for a cd player. It added no real graphical improvements. Then the 32x (I had both) Added the graphics that the mega-cd should have had but the bitch was you had to own a mega-drive, a 32x and a mega cd all connected to play the top games. It got no 3rd party support as a result. The saturn was inovative but it was supposed to be a bitch to program games for so again it got little 3rd party support.

Nintendos early life was excellent. The GB, NES and SNES were all great for their time. It's been down-hill since then though. The n64 and cube aren't bad machines by any means but they could have been much more. Nintendo need to start attracting more 3rd party support. That's what it all comes down to. Gimmicks like a dual screen will put them off if anything. Sure the console will get more crap games but it will get more good ones as well. People buy consoles based on what games are available and other handy features like cd/dvd. The nintendo fans will buy them just for the excellent Nintendo games but the majority of us are look for more. Nintendo haven't been able to top the graphics abilities of other consoles as of late either.

It would be sad to see them go down the road of sega but if they don't get their act together they will.


BloodBath

BloodBath

The N64, was pretty much like the Atari Jaguar in a sense. Superior to all other current consoles, but it just didnt get the publicity it deserverd and it lost out to already estabhlished markets. Even today people buy PS2 over X-box because its "cooler", or "everyone else has one". Its technical inferiority doesnt really come into it for most people.

It wasn't superior to the playstation, graphically or feature wise. People buy the ps2 because it has more titles than the x-box. I bought an x-box because it was the most advanced machine and I can't say I was disapointed. There were enough good titles to keep me happy. The same could be said for the cube but the ps2 has the biggest selection. That's why it is the top seller.


BloodBath

1huge1

if anything they have gained ground in europe

Ciaran500

With which console?

They seem to have given up on the GC in Europe.

Dont be at yourself

Nintendo, Nintendo, Nintendo.

On one hand, I have huge admiration for them. They push boundaries, take more risks than anybody, release more ground-breaking titles than anyone else... they seem to be able to accomplish whatever they want.

On the other hand, they ignore Europe, ignore 3rd party developers, refuse to even acknowledge what the competitors are doing, don't address their faults....

Nintendo undoubtedly has the potential to be the number one brand in videogames again. It's got some of the most talented developers on the planet working for them, the biggest franchises in the world, deep pockets, legions of fanatical followers... and yet they never seems to fulfill that potential.

Nintendo's "Revolution" could just be more of Nintendo stubbornly doing things Their Way, even though if they played ball, released a ps3/xb2-a-like console with a blackbuster launch title (Legend Of Zelda, say) and got the likes of EA on board, they'd probably sew up the next generation.

honru

The main problem I can see with the Revolution is if they complicate matters for third-parties by making a console that forces them to make completely different games. They really need to win back that third-party support before going the niche route. It would be amazing if they could pull it off, however if they lose that support this could be Nintendo's last system.

If there's anything I want to see from Nintendo in the next generation race, it's original IP. With Animal Crossing, Eternal Darkness, Pikmin and Doshin the Giant being the only Nintendo Gamecube games with new IP (two of those games being N64 ports), they're really playing it safe in terms of releasing games. New IP that appeals to the older market is what they need right now. A killer ap at launch would be extremely helpful (the new Zelda GC could be switched to the Revolution, perhaps).

And get online. Really.

Retr0gamer

Whats the odds like that nintendo will be late releasing the Revolution just like every console they have ever made

I have to agree with freak scenery. During the lifetime of the GC Nintendo have managed to form very strong ties with Konami, Sega, Capcom and Namco, in my opinion, the 4 best large game developers other than Nintendo themselves. It would be a huge shame if they pissed those ties away by making a console so unique that traditional games would not work on it. Games and designs would have to be made from the ground up and with development periods and costs set to rise during the next generation the time would be best spent developing for other consoles.

Retr0gamer

BloodBath wrote:

It wasn't superior to the playstation, graphically or feature wise.

What bull, the N64 was a far more powerful console than the PS1 graphically and feature wise. Not only did it have better processing power but had better graphical tricks such as bilinear filtering. As for features sony was always playing catch up with nintendo. They had the analogy stick, rumble packs, 4 joypad ports (take note of that one sony for the love of god) and inexpensive ram expansion upgrades (it did use cartridges which was stubborn idiocy on nintendos part).

Rew

Cannt belive anyone would think the PS1 GFX were better then the N64...

TerrorFirmer

It wasn't superior to the playstation, graphically or feature wise.

What?? Are you suggesting that the fact that the N64 is 64bit as compared to the 32bit PSX allows for no graphical improvement? Anyone who has played an N64, even a kid, could instantly recognise the smoother gameplay and graphics the N64 could offer.

As for features, you are wrong there as well. 4 controller slots? Rumble pack? Analogue stick? None of these were in sonys console prior to N64 release.

skywalker

flogen wrote:

No, you misunderstood me, It's not that I want something thats new and exclusive regardless of the quality, its just that I have a PS2 at home and I'm not pushed into playing it on the bus instead, the DS offers games that can't be played on any other console, even their own (even the remakes are different). Now that doesnt mean I'd buy it, the unique games have to be worth it and at launch I can see three titles I want to have, and there are more on the way soon. In the same breath the PSP is offering a lot of racing games, not my thing, and otherwise a lot of remakes of ps2 titles. I may change my mind if I see a lot of really good and fresh titles coming out but for now it just seems to be ps2 ports.

flogen

i did completely take you up the wrong way. apologies.

Q_Ball

steviec wrote:

the PSP has been far more 'Revolutionary'(and if you'd played one you'd understand), sure its basically like a PS2 shrunk down, but whats wrong with that? I mean by that logic you could say that the DS is just a palm pc with a second screen attached for no good reason...

The PSP is not revolutionary by any means. I believe it was an eventuality (hehe i love big words wont go near perpetuated or you'll have a rant on your hands!). The PSP was always going to be made when existing technology enabled it to be made cost effectively. It makes sense business wise because there is already a huge number of games that can be ported without having to be developed first.

I haven't got an opinion on the DS yet. I think the dual screen may be evolutionary (in the handheld market) more than revolutionary. I'll hold out opinionating till i get one tho.

As for games, both handhelds are suffering and going to suffer from rehashes and sequels for the most part but thats to be expected. Original titles will be more prolific once both systems are established.

As for the term revolutionary, i think you have to put what nintedo said in context. I think whats being pushed around here is that the DS or the revolution wont be revolutionary based on hardware. If thats the case the new playstation wins for the cell processor which looks to be unbelievable. Great hardware doesnt make for great games tho. As far as i can see, when nintendo say revolutionary, they mean to break the boundaries of how games are played and the way we perceive gaming as a hobby. You dont need revolutionary hardware for that (but it probably helps).

What i fear will be most crippling is the potential lack of 3rd party titles tho. There are not a lot of companies in the industry like nintendo, who are one of the few that seem not to be driven by the $. The costs for developing a game these days are extremely high, and its very hard for a new or even most established development houses to survive. Hence why multi-platform titles are so rampant. Developing for one console is a greater risk.

Fair play to nintendo tho. Its always great to see someone is committed to the occasional shake up.

[/RANT]

BloodBath

What bull, the N64 was a far more powerful console than the PS1 graphically and feature wise. Not only did it have better processing power but had better graphical tricks such as bilinear filtering. As for features sony was always playing catch up with nintendo. They had the analogy stick, rumble packs, 4 joypad ports (take note of that one sony for the love of god) and inexpensive ram expansion upgrades (it did use cartridges which was stubborn idiocy on nintendos part).

Right maybe feature wise the n64 was better but definitely not graphically. Have you ever played a game that looked as good as gran turismo 2, tekken 3 resident evil 2, nemisis ect on a n64? I didn't think so. Decent games like tony hawks were ruined on the n64 as well with the crappy audio compressed to fit on the cardridges. I know th n64 had better technology packing inside than the ps1. It's a pity they couldn't put it to use on cartridges though.

What?? Are you suggesting that the fact that the N64 is 64bit as compared to the 32bit PSX allows for no graphical improvement? Anyone who has played an N64, even a kid, could instantly recognise the smoother gameplay and graphics the N64 could offer.

Haha as if it being 64 bit has anything to do with it's graphical abilities. The atari jaguar was 64 bit. It doesn't make a difference.


BloodBath

Retr0gamer

Are you taking the piss. Did you not notice that the N64 had bilinear filtering while everything on the PS1 was blocky low res textures, how easy it was for the N64 to handle transparencies and reflections, how everything ran smoother on the N64 and at higher res. Mario 64 was a launch game and yet nothing on the PS1 could touch it for graphics. Also look at perfect dark, goldeneye and quake 2 on the N64 and compare them to the closest thing the PS1, quake 2 and the medal of honour games. There is a huge difference. As for the resident evil games, have you seen Resi 2 on the N64.It looks much better than the PS1 version. Its in high res with lovely filter effects. The N64 was like a whole new generation above the PS1 technically. The cartridges limited storage space but nothing more. The N64 wipes the floor with the PS1 in terms of raw power and visuals. The sound processor was also far better but wasn't put to good use due to the limitations of the cartridges.

TerrorFirmer

Haha as if it being 64 bit has anything to do with it's graphical abilities. The atari jaguar was 64 bit. It doesn't make a difference.

I'm sorry but this is one of those rare times you just have to say - you are an idiot. I think what retrogamer said is exactly right - are you taking the piss??

Haha as if it being 64 bit has anything to do with it's graphical abilities. The atari jaguar was 64 bit. It doesn't make a difference.

And the difference there was it was never used to its full abilites. Also, it ran at 2 x32bit then true 64bit.

honru

BloodBath wrote:

Right maybe feature wise the n64 was better but definitely not graphically. Have you ever played a game that looked as good as gran turismo 2, tekken 3 resident evil 2, nemisis ect on a n64?

Have you ever played an N64?

BloodBath

Lol I have the nintendo freaks on me now. Sorry to say anything bad towards the company you all obviously love so much but seriously.

Are you taking the piss. Did you not notice that the N64 had bilinear filtering while everything on the PS1 was blocky low res textures, how easy it was for the N64 to handle transparencies and reflections, how everything ran smoother on the N64 and at higher res. Mario 64 was a launch game and yet nothing on the PS1 could touch it for graphics. Also look at perfect dark, goldeneye and quake 2 on the N64 and compare them to the closest thing the PS1, quake 2 and the medal of honour games. There is a huge difference. As for the resident evil games, have you seen Resi 2 on the N64.It looks much better than the PS1 version. Its in high res with lovely filter effects. The N64 was like a whole new generation above the PS1 technically. The cartridges limited storage space but nothing more. The N64 wipes the floor with the PS1 in terms of raw power and visuals. The sound processor was also far better but wasn't put to good use due to the limitations of the cartridges.

Not much point having biliniar filtering if there isn't much to filter in the first place. Textures need memory. Most n64 games to keep em cheap, had **** all memory. The likes of mario64 used very simple textures to keep the memory usage to a minimum. Your saying that no game on the ps1 looks better than mario64? Are you ****ing barny the dinosaur? If your idea of great graphics are brightly coloured blocky polygons then good luck to you. It suits the game, yes but to say nothing on the ps1 looked better is a joke. The reason resident evil 2 looked good was because the cardridge was a massive 512mb. This was also 2 years after it came out on the playstation. Resident evil nemisis cam out before this conversion. That was the point I was making earlier. The N64 had better hardware than the ps1 but it wasn't able to make use of it without the storage space. Resident evil 2 is a rare example. The sound processor was better? The n64 didn't have a dedicated sound processor. It used the main cpu afaik. Not much point without cd's. That console would have been huge if Nintendo had chosen cd's.

Btw I did own a ps1 and an n64 and it's just my opinion that the ps1 was the better machine. Maybe not technically but they threw out some great games and a lot of them too. At the same time i've spent a lot of hours on mario64, ocarina of time, mario kart 64, golden eye, most of the n64 clasics.


BloodBath

TerrorFirmer

Your saying that no game on the ps1 looks better than mario64? Are you ****ing barny the dinosaur? If your idea of great graphics are brightly coloured blocky polygons then good luck to you

Brightly coloured blocky polygons the PSX found impossible to reproduce. You have a point with the sound issue, which is obvious given the cartidges - however we were discussing visuals, which you started by saying the N64 was in no way better than the PSX. The bottom line really is, saying the N64 is the same as a PSX is the same as saying a PS2 is as good as an X-Box, and at the end of the day its just not true, no matter what way or how hard you analyse it.

Most n64 games to keep em cheap, had **** all memory.

Of course there are some cheap games on the N64, which are of bare PSX quality, but there are on every console. This isn't really a valid point however, as even the smaller carts on average had much smoother and better textured visuals then even a good PSX game.

Btw I did own a ps1 and an n64 and it's just my opinion that the ps1 was the better machine. Maybe not technically

And of course, thats personnal preference, not fact - which you earlier seemed to be arguing that the visuals were the same on both machines.

Also - without trying to cause offence - this statement has got to be the most ignorant one ive seen in a long time

Haha as if it being 64 bit has anything to do with it's graphical abilities.

Retr0gamer

We aren't Nintendo freaks, we are just stating the blatantly obvious.

BloodBath

Exactly that's just my opinion. They both have their merits.

Also - without trying to cause offence - this statement has got to be the most ignorant one ive seen in a long time

My point was a 64bit console is not necessarily better graphically than a 32 bit console.

Just looking back on some screenshots made me realise how poxy the graphics are on both machines. Great for their time though.


BloodBath

steviec

Being 64 bit or 32 bit has nothing whatsoever to do with graphics.

Technically the X-Box is 32 bit and the PS2 is 128 bit, its really not that important. This is veering off topic anyway, the N64 was technically superior to the PS1 in all but its choice of using cartridges but that is most certainly not simply because 'it's 64 bit!'.

Peteee

Bits have nothing to do with it!

If I remember rightly playing my friends N64 the graphics were a mess, they looked like a crayon drawing (about 256 plain colours, no textures) that had been taken with a camera that was out of focus. And the draw distance was horrendous in some fps (golden eye and errrr south park come to mind!)

Not to say ps1's graphics were good, but gran turismo etc showed how you can push the system to its absolute best

Retr0gamer

It depends what games you played on the system. Gran Turismo 2 was a miracle on the PS1 but the N64 at it's best in, say, Jet Force Gemini or Perfect Dark looked a hell of a lot better than any PS1 game. Then there was Superman on the N64. That looked like a vector graphics C64 machine.