So if I were to slap a portable screen and a battery to my Gamecube, would that make it a handheld, not a console now, too? Does the Gameboy Player make GBA games console games now and not handheld games? What exactly differentiates consoles and handhelds if not a self-contained power source and dedicated screen?
ICO and Shadow of the Colossus. Ueda's games are on a completely different level, emotionally, than any other game I've ever played. They're so beautiful.
Actually, Leela being a mutant was decided on very early, possibly even before the show went on the air when it was just something that Matt Groening and David Cohen were developing. In the first episode of the second season, I Second That Emotion, you can see Leela's parents off to the side in one wide shot of the mutants.
Similarly, the whole Nibbler / Fry story arc was worked out well before the series went on the air, with several hints cropping up well before it's revealed, one in the very first episode. And in an interview Matt Groening recently did with The Onion A.V. Club, apparently there are more story arcs that he and David Cohen had mapped out prior to airing that they didn't get a chance to develop on.
I guarantee you Sony and MS are going to be spending more on marketing than Nintendo, not only because they have the money but because they're at each other's throats when it comes to sales. But which console is everyone talking about? The Wii. Word of mouth is not only the best form of marketing out there, it's also the cheapest.
There's been a lot of confusion over whether or not Futurama is actually coming back for some 13+ episodes on Comedy Central. Initially it was reported so, but then GotFuturama.com relayed that there was some confusion with the news reports and Comedy Central is doing nothing more than splitting up the 4 DVD movies, already in production, into 4 episodes each and showing *those*. But otherwise, no new Futurama beyond the DVD movies.
So, which is it? Can we get excited for brand new Futurama or just remain excited for the movies?
Nintendo may be the #3 home console manfucturer in America, but when you take into account the handheld portion of the industry, Nintendo is far and away the #1 hardware manufacturer. *Especially* in Japan right now, where the DS alone is making up almost 75% of the weekly hardware sales.
If you watch the promotional video Nintendo made to explain the thought process behind the name Wii, when it shows the Wii logo at the end, there's a little TM next to it.
I suppose that doesn't prove anything, but I really doubt Nintendo's pulling that complex of a hoax. This sounds more like the machinations of some people who REALLY don't want the console to be called the Wii.
Not to say I don't agree, though, and I really hope I end up eating my words, but realistically I don't think I will.
Again, you've missed the point- you're assuming that 3D graphics are inherently of better quality than 2D graphics. Rather, 3D graphics are just another medium, like, say, oil paint as opposed to watercolor.
Just look at animated movies- would Snow White have worked as well as a CG movie? Would Toy Story have worked as well as a classically animated movie? No on both accounts. Some pieces work better as 3D, some better as 2D.
Now that's not to say the level of quality in the graphics of Oblivion aren't important, because for a game like Oblivion, it *is* important. Oblivion's main goal is to immerse you in a virtual world, so a better argument you could have made would have been asking me if Oblivion would have worked on the N64 or Playstation, in which case the answer is no. The gameplay would be just as good, but the experience as a whole would be incredibly lacking.
However, I wasn't making the case that graphical quality improvements as a whole weren't important, but more that the improvements made between last generation and this generation aren't terribly important. I think Oblivion would work almost as well on the XBox (and in fact it did as Morrowind).
In the Great Gatsby, you read about a fictional story that delves into humanity. It's all passive. Games tend to bring out that humanity in YOU, even on a relatively basic level. Granted, that aspect of your humanity will also be basic, but arguably just as important. I believe games are just a different kind of art that invoke a different kind of response. Maybe Ebert just doesn't understand the change. I don't think he's railing against videogames, though, he's actually making some objective comments, which I like. I just happen to think he's wrong.
You have completely missed the point- Nintendo fanboys, as you're calling them, aren't attacking graphics as a whole, they're attacking the notion that higher-quality graphics make for a better game on their own.
Beyond that, if they ARE implying a new controller makes for a better game, they're dead wrong. Rather, what myself and many others are excited about are the *possibilities* offered by the new controller. It has the potential to open up completely new avenues of game design, which may end up changing the industry.
Therefor, your analogy of comparing graphics to controllers is flawed. Graphics are extremely important in communicating gameplay, but that has more to do with style and less to do with actual quality. A better comparison would be like saying the Revolution controller is akin to a completely new art style: not inherently good on its own, but when used correctly can create very new experiences. What you're talking about is like comparing the quality of graphics to the quality of the build of the controller- just as adding a few more polygons really doesn't offer a whole lot to the game, just like making the controller a bit sturdier really doesn't add a whole lot to the game..
So what I'm saying is, graphics become integral to a game's quality based on *how* they're used, not to the level they're used. Similarly, the Revolution controller becomes integral to a game's quality based on *how* it's used, not to the level it's used (as in, employing as many crazy features as possible). The controller is not the game itself but can enable great things *in* the game. The Revolution is all about posibilities.
Takahashi is making the same mistake a lot of developers made before the DS came out: he's assuming that because this new control mechanism is offered, you *must* use it to make a good game. That's not it at all, the Revolution controller simply opens up a brand new area of control never before offered in such a way- the focus on it is marketing.
The same thing happened to the DS- developers assumed that because there were 2 screens and a touch screen and a microphone, you had to use all of that in your game. A few developers pre-emptively knocked the DS for this very reason. But look at the best DS games, like Castlevania, Mario Kart, or Nintendogs: they're all more or less the same kind of games we're used to but they use the features the DS offers in exciting ways to enrich the gameplay and immerse us in it. The Revolution operates on the same principle- don't build your game AROUND the features but rather use the features to enhance an already-good game design.
So in that sense I agree with Takahashi, that the quality of a game design is not inherently linked to a controller. However, I think the best game designs are the ones that use the unique tools available to them. Dawn of Sorrow would've been just like the trifecta of Castlevanias on the GBA had it not included the new spell system you drew onto the touch screen yourself. In this way, a good game design was enhanced with the DS's tools to make it unique, which I think very much helped Dawn of Sorrow become the best game in the series, save Symphony of the Night only.
The Revolution is all about ENHANCING gameplay, not CREATING gameplay.
-1 bajillion for completely and single-handedly destroying painting as an art form (it did, look it up).
When will people learn that videogames destroy art? Ugh!
In all seriousness, awesome mod, man. I was actually getting really annoyed with the length of the wire just today and wondering about a wireless controller, so this was a nice surprise to see tonight. If you ask me, hack jobs like this are a work of art.
No, that's not the same crowd Nintendo's targeting at all, not in the least- I don't see why so many people think the tech heads represent such a significant portion of the gaming community. They're marketing the virtual console to the same people they marketed the NES Classic series to, the nostalgic casual/non-gamers who perhaps played some games back in the NES/SNES days but not since.
And if the NES Classic series is any indication, the virtual console will probably turn Nintendo a profit on the Revolution alone.
"If anything I think the PSP is increasing the market or perhaps people just have both it certainly is not distracting from the DS sales."
Not quite- the people buying PSP's are your normal gamers. The people buying DS's are the non-gamers- Nintendo is the one increasing the market. That's why you have the DS selling as many as 600,000 units in a single week and the top selling software charts (especially in Japan) being *dominated) by DS titles, because Nintendo has tapped into a new market.
"But so what? The gameboy always sold well. It was the 'main' consoles that Nintendo has been having troubles with. So this is like saying, Pokemon GB/GBA sold well so the Playstation 1/2 were a flop."
Can you read? Alternatively, do you just choose not to? You've missed the point entirely. First of all, the Gameboy is marketed at gamers, nothing disruptive about that. Quite different from the DS, which is marketed to non-gamers as well. Secondly, you assume a direct correlation, which, admittedly, is pretty stupid. I believe the implication being made was that the DS's immense success is proof that a market of non-gamers is out there. Beyond that, I don't think anyone he said the PS3 would be a flop for any reason at all. Did you actually read what he said?
"Oh and then comes the old sales pitch. Simple. Yes, we are going to reach that part of the market that is to dumb to figure out a lightswitch. Someone should really tell marketing people that there will always be people who claim X is to complex and they will buy X the moment it reaches their level of understanding. Problem is you can't. As long as their are people who are confused by revolving doors or even those who push when it says pull you will have people who can't figure out X."
Oh wow, your big rebuttal is accusing Nintendo of marketing to retards? You must be completely ignorant- what Reggie and Iwata have been saying all along is that they're trying to draw in people who don't play games period, people who have never felt the urge to pick up a controller. I find it interesting you equate these people with those who can't turn on a light switch or operate a revolving door. That tells me a bit about how you view people not as technologically inclined as yourself.
"Marketing to them is stupid. Why? Because you are insulting the intelligence of everyone else. Don't believe me? How many of you actually like using dumbed down products with zero options to confuse you? Oh don't get me wrong. They are nice at first, when you are still new and unsure of what to do. And then you move on and want more."
Again, you're looking this from your perspective. You need to think like a technophobe, where holding a controller with a thousand buttons is daunting. Not everyone wants to sit at their computer for 20 hours straight playing the latest MMO, some people just want to have a few minutes of fun and then go on and do something else. That's why Wario Ware is popular- it only uses one button! Super Monkey Ball uses *no* buttons! Neither does Katamari Damacy. Quit acting like your mindset is the standard, because it's not.
"Part of the fun for me in playing a game is learning to play it. I think it is true with any type of game. The basics are simple but as you move on it becomes more and more complex. You can play chess just fine without knowing the more obscure rules like that move where you can switch the king and towers BUT the game will become deeper and more challenging as you learn more."
Then don't buy a DS or Revolution! It's as simple as that! Nintendo's new strategy is quite obviously not your cup of tea, so just refrain from patronizing it. I don't see why you have to assume that since YOU don't like it, NOBODY will, and therefore is a stupid marketing strategy. That's rather egocentric of you.
"Oh and as for nintendogz attracting females to play and that being the road to success. Sorry but if women were the road to success the PC would be the top console. The Sims and similar games are dominated by women
Don't get me wrong, I love all of Silicon Knights' games, but Too Human has been in development since before The Legacy of Kain: Blood Omen (meaning over 10 years, probably more) and has switched consoles twice. Now, I have no doubt it'll eventually come out and most likely be excellent, but why is Twilight Princess or even DNF on the list and not Too Human?
For that matter, why is Zelda on the list but not Mario 128? Mario 128 has been promised to us since, what was it, Spaceworld 2000? I could be mistaken, but regardless, it's been a while and we have seen no demoes, videos, or even screenshots, and it's switched development from the Gamecube to the Revolution. How is Twilight Princess being delayed 4 or 5 months but still having videos, screens, and demoes galore count as vaporware, but Mario 128 not? Odd...
Just like Sony is replicating the DS's obvious success with the PSP, eh? When's that new model, with the second screen, the microphone, and the touch screen due to hit the market? Logically speaking, shouldn't Sony be following Nintendo's lead? I mean, the DS is outselling the PSP almost 2:1 worldwide, and lately more than 4:1 in Japan.
The problem is, if Sony replicated the DS's design now, it'd be too late. They waited to see if it would take off and hedged their bets on a conventional handheld. Now that it's clear that the best route was Nintendo's, Nintendo has already stolen the market and locked it up- they have the home field advantage, as well as the experience and user base, if Sony wants to try to challenge them on it.
Now look at the Revolution- if the Revolution does what Nintendo wants it do that, then they'll basically be replicating the DS's success in the home console market. Sony and Microsoft will be hedging their bets on a generic home console while Nintendo tries something new. If the Revolution takes off, it'll be too late for Sony and Microsoft to follow suit- they'll have to compete with an established system, an established user base, and Nintendo's experience with it. They'll be at a serious disadvantage.
It's doubtful that will even happen, though- I severely doubt, regardless of the Revolution's success, that conventional gaming will fade away, certainly not in one generation. I think the Revolution is going to end up coexisting with the XBox 360 and PS3, rather than taking sales away from them. I think you'll see houses with a Revolution and a PS3, or a Revolution and an XBox 360, sort of the best of both worlds. Sony and Microsoft aren't going to need to compete with the Revolution- that's not their game, it's not their field. They're better than Nintendo at the conventional system, and as long as the Revolution isn't seriously encroaching on that, I think they'd much rather stick with it than risk everything by taking on Nintendo face-to-face. Sony and Microsoft have each other to worry about- I don't think they can live together peacefully, I think one of them is going to slip and fall, and whoever comes out on top will be sitting comfortably on the conventional game market while Nintendo sits comfortably on the unconventional game market. I think that's much more likely than Nintendo taking over the entire industry all at once. That's not going to happen, and I don't think that's what Nintendo is trying to do.
Sony and Microsoft took away Nintendo's games and changed the rules. Now Nintendo is going to go make a new game.
I have done my reading, and it seems that there's a lot more debate than you all think there is. There are scientists with credible evidence on both sides of the issue, and failure to recognize this is what has made global warming such painful area of discussion.
-Moses
Everyone, don't do what THIS guy did. He applies labels to people who disagree, herds them all into a forced idealogy, and then rail agains THAT. That's bad debating, that's bad science, that's just not good common sense. Don't do that.
(Hopefully) before this ends up in a big pissing match over whether or not global warming is real, I'd like to lay down some ideas.
Our climate changes- it has for billions of years and it will for billions of more years.
Our climate is *incredibly* complex, so accurate prediction either way is nigh impossible (and I think it's arrogant to imply we know enough about our climate to even try to control it).
Global warming *is* happening, but factually only in the sense that our planet has been getting warmer- the debate is over whether or not man is to blame. Keep in mind, we just came out of an ice age several thousand years ago, so global warming is basically a given until we enter the next ice age.
There is NO consensus on whether or not man-made global warming is happening- anyone who claims to have "climatologist" friends who say it most definitely is or isn't real and that all the real scientists agree are just pulling stuff out of their ass (and it's pretty obvious, too, so don't even try to do it).
Not everyone who believes global warming is caused by man is a crazy hippy and not everyone who believes it isn't caused by man is some money-grubbing republican. It's that kind of black and white approach to this and other topics, both by the people and especially the media, that has trivialized the issue at hand.
If we're only talking about console versions, then, that's only 3 games, and Adventure of Link is the only thing that justifies your argument on a technical level because Nintendo tried something completely different (and it didn't work as well as they had hoped). So you know what they did? Went back to how it was before- LttP operated on the exact same formula as LoZ, just on a much more intricate level. I really don't see how you can argue any other way, it's completely obvious. And the next console Zelda after LttP was OoT, which was a massive change. I think most of you guys are just looking for things to complain about with the 3D games, which I find odd because most sane people regard them as the best games ever made, or at least second only to LttP, but that's purely a matter of personal opinion, and you don't need to justify personal opinion by making stuff up...
Early in the series, each game was hugely different from the predecessor.
You're kidding, right? A Link to the Past was basically like a massively souped up Legend of Zelda, in the same way Super Mario World was a massively souped up Super Mario Bros- way better looking and a lot bigger, but otherwise almost the same. Link's Awakening might as well have been running on the same engine as Legend of Zelda. I'm fairly certain the Oracles were running on the same engine as Link's Awakening, and the Minnish Cap was a much simpler, much prettier version of the Oracles.
Granted they're all incredible games, but the only 2D Zelda that was "hugely different" from its predecessor was Adventure of Link and it is clearly the oddball of the franchise. And if you consider each of the top-down games to be hugely different from one another, then I don't see how Majora's Mask's time paradox and Wind Waker's unbelievably huge ocean fail to qualify. I seriously wonder if a lot of you guys are even talking about the same series...
Slashdot Mirror
So if I were to slap a portable screen and a battery to my Gamecube, would that make it a handheld, not a console now, too? Does the Gameboy Player make GBA games console games now and not handheld games? What exactly differentiates consoles and handhelds if not a self-contained power source and dedicated screen?
-Moses
ICO and Shadow of the Colossus. Ueda's games are on a completely different level, emotionally, than any other game I've ever played. They're so beautiful.
-Moses
You sure give enough of a shit to rant about it...
Seriously, when has that ever been fun?
Actually, Leela being a mutant was decided on very early, possibly even before the show went on the air when it was just something that Matt Groening and David Cohen were developing. In the first episode of the second season, I Second That Emotion, you can see Leela's parents off to the side in one wide shot of the mutants.
Similarly, the whole Nibbler / Fry story arc was worked out well before the series went on the air, with several hints cropping up well before it's revealed, one in the very first episode. And in an interview Matt Groening recently did with The Onion A.V. Club, apparently there are more story arcs that he and David Cohen had mapped out prior to airing that they didn't get a chance to develop on.
Makes me REALLY want those movies.
-Moses
Didn't they say the gimmicky factor was going to fade fast for the DS, too?
Just making a point...
-Moses
I guarantee you Sony and MS are going to be spending more on marketing than Nintendo, not only because they have the money but because they're at each other's throats when it comes to sales. But which console is everyone talking about? The Wii. Word of mouth is not only the best form of marketing out there, it's also the cheapest.
-Moses
I think this guy is operating on the idea that if you want something HARD ENOUGH, maybe it'll actually come true! Let me try it out:
Gamers WILL only care about the games and let petty bias and pent up nerd angst go!
Ah shit, I don't think it worked.
-Moses
There's been a lot of confusion over whether or not Futurama is actually coming back for some 13+ episodes on Comedy Central. Initially it was reported so, but then GotFuturama.com relayed that there was some confusion with the news reports and Comedy Central is doing nothing more than splitting up the 4 DVD movies, already in production, into 4 episodes each and showing *those*. But otherwise, no new Futurama beyond the DVD movies.
So, which is it? Can we get excited for brand new Futurama or just remain excited for the movies?
-Moses
Nintendo may be the #3 home console manfucturer in America, but when you take into account the handheld portion of the industry, Nintendo is far and away the #1 hardware manufacturer. *Especially* in Japan right now, where the DS alone is making up almost 75% of the weekly hardware sales.
-Moses
If you watch the promotional video Nintendo made to explain the thought process behind the name Wii, when it shows the Wii logo at the end, there's a little TM next to it.
I suppose that doesn't prove anything, but I really doubt Nintendo's pulling that complex of a hoax. This sounds more like the machinations of some people who REALLY don't want the console to be called the Wii.
Not to say I don't agree, though, and I really hope I end up eating my words, but realistically I don't think I will.
-Moses
Again, you've missed the point- you're assuming that 3D graphics are inherently of better quality than 2D graphics. Rather, 3D graphics are just another medium, like, say, oil paint as opposed to watercolor.
Just look at animated movies- would Snow White have worked as well as a CG movie? Would Toy Story have worked as well as a classically animated movie? No on both accounts. Some pieces work better as 3D, some better as 2D.
Now that's not to say the level of quality in the graphics of Oblivion aren't important, because for a game like Oblivion, it *is* important. Oblivion's main goal is to immerse you in a virtual world, so a better argument you could have made would have been asking me if Oblivion would have worked on the N64 or Playstation, in which case the answer is no. The gameplay would be just as good, but the experience as a whole would be incredibly lacking.
However, I wasn't making the case that graphical quality improvements as a whole weren't important, but more that the improvements made between last generation and this generation aren't terribly important. I think Oblivion would work almost as well on the XBox (and in fact it did as Morrowind).
-Moses
In the Great Gatsby, you read about a fictional story that delves into humanity. It's all passive. Games tend to bring out that humanity in YOU, even on a relatively basic level. Granted, that aspect of your humanity will also be basic, but arguably just as important. I believe games are just a different kind of art that invoke a different kind of response. Maybe Ebert just doesn't understand the change. I don't think he's railing against videogames, though, he's actually making some objective comments, which I like. I just happen to think he's wrong.
-Moses
You have completely missed the point- Nintendo fanboys, as you're calling them, aren't attacking graphics as a whole, they're attacking the notion that higher-quality graphics make for a better game on their own.
Beyond that, if they ARE implying a new controller makes for a better game, they're dead wrong. Rather, what myself and many others are excited about are the *possibilities* offered by the new controller. It has the potential to open up completely new avenues of game design, which may end up changing the industry.
Therefor, your analogy of comparing graphics to controllers is flawed. Graphics are extremely important in communicating gameplay, but that has more to do with style and less to do with actual quality. A better comparison would be like saying the Revolution controller is akin to a completely new art style: not inherently good on its own, but when used correctly can create very new experiences. What you're talking about is like comparing the quality of graphics to the quality of the build of the controller- just as adding a few more polygons really doesn't offer a whole lot to the game, just like making the controller a bit sturdier really doesn't add a whole lot to the game..
So what I'm saying is, graphics become integral to a game's quality based on *how* they're used, not to the level they're used. Similarly, the Revolution controller becomes integral to a game's quality based on *how* it's used, not to the level it's used (as in, employing as many crazy features as possible). The controller is not the game itself but can enable great things *in* the game. The Revolution is all about posibilities.
-Moses
Takahashi is making the same mistake a lot of developers made before the DS came out: he's assuming that because this new control mechanism is offered, you *must* use it to make a good game. That's not it at all, the Revolution controller simply opens up a brand new area of control never before offered in such a way- the focus on it is marketing.
The same thing happened to the DS- developers assumed that because there were 2 screens and a touch screen and a microphone, you had to use all of that in your game. A few developers pre-emptively knocked the DS for this very reason. But look at the best DS games, like Castlevania, Mario Kart, or Nintendogs: they're all more or less the same kind of games we're used to but they use the features the DS offers in exciting ways to enrich the gameplay and immerse us in it. The Revolution operates on the same principle- don't build your game AROUND the features but rather use the features to enhance an already-good game design.
So in that sense I agree with Takahashi, that the quality of a game design is not inherently linked to a controller. However, I think the best game designs are the ones that use the unique tools available to them. Dawn of Sorrow would've been just like the trifecta of Castlevanias on the GBA had it not included the new spell system you drew onto the touch screen yourself. In this way, a good game design was enhanced with the DS's tools to make it unique, which I think very much helped Dawn of Sorrow become the best game in the series, save Symphony of the Night only.
The Revolution is all about ENHANCING gameplay, not CREATING gameplay.
-Moses
Scoreboard for Mario Paint?
+1 for being incredibly fun and creative.
-1 bajillion for completely and single-handedly destroying painting as an art form (it did, look it up).
When will people learn that videogames destroy art? Ugh!
In all seriousness, awesome mod, man. I was actually getting really annoyed with the length of the wire just today and wondering about a wireless controller, so this was a nice surprise to see tonight. If you ask me, hack jobs like this are a work of art.
-Moses
No, that's not the same crowd Nintendo's targeting at all, not in the least- I don't see why so many people think the tech heads represent such a significant portion of the gaming community. They're marketing the virtual console to the same people they marketed the NES Classic series to, the nostalgic casual/non-gamers who perhaps played some games back in the NES/SNES days but not since.
And if the NES Classic series is any indication, the virtual console will probably turn Nintendo a profit on the Revolution alone.
-Moses
"If anything I think the PSP is increasing the market or perhaps people just have both it certainly is not distracting from the DS sales."
Not quite- the people buying PSP's are your normal gamers. The people buying DS's are the non-gamers- Nintendo is the one increasing the market. That's why you have the DS selling as many as 600,000 units in a single week and the top selling software charts (especially in Japan) being *dominated) by DS titles, because Nintendo has tapped into a new market.
"But so what? The gameboy always sold well. It was the 'main' consoles that Nintendo has been having troubles with. So this is like saying, Pokemon GB/GBA sold well so the Playstation 1/2 were a flop."
Can you read? Alternatively, do you just choose not to? You've missed the point entirely. First of all, the Gameboy is marketed at gamers, nothing disruptive about that. Quite different from the DS, which is marketed to non-gamers as well. Secondly, you assume a direct correlation, which, admittedly, is pretty stupid. I believe the implication being made was that the DS's immense success is proof that a market of non-gamers is out there. Beyond that, I don't think anyone he said the PS3 would be a flop for any reason at all. Did you actually read what he said?
"Oh and then comes the old sales pitch. Simple. Yes, we are going to reach that part of the market that is to dumb to figure out a lightswitch. Someone should really tell marketing people that there will always be people who claim X is to complex and they will buy X the moment it reaches their level of understanding. Problem is you can't. As long as their are people who are confused by revolving doors or even those who push when it says pull you will have people who can't figure out X."
Oh wow, your big rebuttal is accusing Nintendo of marketing to retards? You must be completely ignorant- what Reggie and Iwata have been saying all along is that they're trying to draw in people who don't play games period, people who have never felt the urge to pick up a controller. I find it interesting you equate these people with those who can't turn on a light switch or operate a revolving door. That tells me a bit about how you view people not as technologically inclined as yourself.
"Marketing to them is stupid. Why? Because you are insulting the intelligence of everyone else. Don't believe me? How many of you actually like using dumbed down products with zero options to confuse you? Oh don't get me wrong. They are nice at first, when you are still new and unsure of what to do. And then you move on and want more."
Again, you're looking this from your perspective. You need to think like a technophobe, where holding a controller with a thousand buttons is daunting. Not everyone wants to sit at their computer for 20 hours straight playing the latest MMO, some people just want to have a few minutes of fun and then go on and do something else. That's why Wario Ware is popular- it only uses one button! Super Monkey Ball uses *no* buttons! Neither does Katamari Damacy. Quit acting like your mindset is the standard, because it's not.
"Part of the fun for me in playing a game is learning to play it. I think it is true with any type of game. The basics are simple but as you move on it becomes more and more complex. You can play chess just fine without knowing the more obscure rules like that move where you can switch the king and towers BUT the game will become deeper and more challenging as you learn more."
Then don't buy a DS or Revolution! It's as simple as that! Nintendo's new strategy is quite obviously not your cup of tea, so just refrain from patronizing it. I don't see why you have to assume that since YOU don't like it, NOBODY will, and therefore is a stupid marketing strategy. That's rather egocentric of you.
"Oh and as for nintendogz attracting females to play and that being the road to success. Sorry but if women were the road to success the PC would be the top console. The Sims and similar games are dominated by women
Don't get me wrong, I love all of Silicon Knights' games, but Too Human has been in development since before The Legacy of Kain: Blood Omen (meaning over 10 years, probably more) and has switched consoles twice. Now, I have no doubt it'll eventually come out and most likely be excellent, but why is Twilight Princess or even DNF on the list and not Too Human?
For that matter, why is Zelda on the list but not Mario 128? Mario 128 has been promised to us since, what was it, Spaceworld 2000? I could be mistaken, but regardless, it's been a while and we have seen no demoes, videos, or even screenshots, and it's switched development from the Gamecube to the Revolution. How is Twilight Princess being delayed 4 or 5 months but still having videos, screens, and demoes galore count as vaporware, but Mario 128 not? Odd...
-Moses
Just like Sony is replicating the DS's obvious success with the PSP, eh? When's that new model, with the second screen, the microphone, and the touch screen due to hit the market? Logically speaking, shouldn't Sony be following Nintendo's lead? I mean, the DS is outselling the PSP almost 2:1 worldwide, and lately more than 4:1 in Japan.
The problem is, if Sony replicated the DS's design now, it'd be too late. They waited to see if it would take off and hedged their bets on a conventional handheld. Now that it's clear that the best route was Nintendo's, Nintendo has already stolen the market and locked it up- they have the home field advantage, as well as the experience and user base, if Sony wants to try to challenge them on it.
Now look at the Revolution- if the Revolution does what Nintendo wants it do that, then they'll basically be replicating the DS's success in the home console market. Sony and Microsoft will be hedging their bets on a generic home console while Nintendo tries something new. If the Revolution takes off, it'll be too late for Sony and Microsoft to follow suit- they'll have to compete with an established system, an established user base, and Nintendo's experience with it. They'll be at a serious disadvantage.
It's doubtful that will even happen, though- I severely doubt, regardless of the Revolution's success, that conventional gaming will fade away, certainly not in one generation. I think the Revolution is going to end up coexisting with the XBox 360 and PS3, rather than taking sales away from them. I think you'll see houses with a Revolution and a PS3, or a Revolution and an XBox 360, sort of the best of both worlds. Sony and Microsoft aren't going to need to compete with the Revolution- that's not their game, it's not their field. They're better than Nintendo at the conventional system, and as long as the Revolution isn't seriously encroaching on that, I think they'd much rather stick with it than risk everything by taking on Nintendo face-to-face. Sony and Microsoft have each other to worry about- I don't think they can live together peacefully, I think one of them is going to slip and fall, and whoever comes out on top will be sitting comfortably on the conventional game market while Nintendo sits comfortably on the unconventional game market. I think that's much more likely than Nintendo taking over the entire industry all at once. That's not going to happen, and I don't think that's what Nintendo is trying to do.
Sony and Microsoft took away Nintendo's games and changed the rules. Now Nintendo is going to go make a new game.
-Moses
I have done my reading, and it seems that there's a lot more debate than you all think there is. There are scientists with credible evidence on both sides of the issue, and failure to recognize this is what has made global warming such painful area of discussion. -Moses
Wow, thank you for proving my point.
Everyone, don't do what THIS guy did. He applies labels to people who disagree, herds them all into a forced idealogy, and then rail agains THAT. That's bad debating, that's bad science, that's just not good common sense. Don't do that.
-Moses
(Hopefully) before this ends up in a big pissing match over whether or not global warming is real, I'd like to lay down some ideas.
Our climate changes- it has for billions of years and it will for billions of more years.
Our climate is *incredibly* complex, so accurate prediction either way is nigh impossible (and I think it's arrogant to imply we know enough about our climate to even try to control it).
Global warming *is* happening, but factually only in the sense that our planet has been getting warmer- the debate is over whether or not man is to blame. Keep in mind, we just came out of an ice age several thousand years ago, so global warming is basically a given until we enter the next ice age.
There is NO consensus on whether or not man-made global warming is happening- anyone who claims to have "climatologist" friends who say it most definitely is or isn't real and that all the real scientists agree are just pulling stuff out of their ass (and it's pretty obvious, too, so don't even try to do it).
Not everyone who believes global warming is caused by man is a crazy hippy and not everyone who believes it isn't caused by man is some money-grubbing republican. It's that kind of black and white approach to this and other topics, both by the people and especially the media, that has trivialized the issue at hand.
Please try to keep this in mind.
-Moses
If we're only talking about console versions, then, that's only 3 games, and Adventure of Link is the only thing that justifies your argument on a technical level because Nintendo tried something completely different (and it didn't work as well as they had hoped). So you know what they did? Went back to how it was before- LttP operated on the exact same formula as LoZ, just on a much more intricate level. I really don't see how you can argue any other way, it's completely obvious. And the next console Zelda after LttP was OoT, which was a massive change. I think most of you guys are just looking for things to complain about with the 3D games, which I find odd because most sane people regard them as the best games ever made, or at least second only to LttP, but that's purely a matter of personal opinion, and you don't need to justify personal opinion by making stuff up...
Early in the series, each game was hugely different from the predecessor.
You're kidding, right? A Link to the Past was basically like a massively souped up Legend of Zelda, in the same way Super Mario World was a massively souped up Super Mario Bros- way better looking and a lot bigger, but otherwise almost the same. Link's Awakening might as well have been running on the same engine as Legend of Zelda. I'm fairly certain the Oracles were running on the same engine as Link's Awakening, and the Minnish Cap was a much simpler, much prettier version of the Oracles.
Granted they're all incredible games, but the only 2D Zelda that was "hugely different" from its predecessor was Adventure of Link and it is clearly the oddball of the franchise. And if you consider each of the top-down games to be hugely different from one another, then I don't see how Majora's Mask's time paradox and Wind Waker's unbelievably huge ocean fail to qualify. I seriously wonder if a lot of you guys are even talking about the same series...