Shadow Wolf Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Nobody's screwing Nintendo, they're developing on whatever system will sell the most games and let them develop it how they want. For example: I think most people have to admit at this point that the N64 certainly LOOKED better than the PSX, by a long shot. Any side by side comparison of a game that released on both systems will show that. But the reason the PSX rocketed to the top of the market is that it was incredibly cheap for developers to simply use more than one disc for a game. See Squaresoft for further info. They could put beautiful cutscenes in their games to advance incredibly long stories, all for less than the cost of releasing on a cartridge. Cartridges didn't have the space the developers needed anymore. Moving into the Gamecube era, in October 2000, the PS2 released, and it was much like the second coming of Christ. The system simply dug in and fortified an incredibly solid market position for years to come. The Gamecube didn't have a chace in hell of getting on top of it, especially not with how well the new X-Box was received as well. What was the problem with Gamecube? Why couldn't it draw developers to make larger and better games for it? Once again, I'd say that at least one of the reasons was that Nintendo, just like they did with the N64, was using outdated storage mediums. They opted to go with the 1.4 gig minidiscs when every other system was using 4.7 gig full size DVDs, and even later on dual layer DVDs. They didn't have the storage space so many developers want. Now, Nintendo has done it again. In order to stay on the cheap side, they've given us a system that uses 4.7 gig discs when the rest of the gaming world is moving on to Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, with 25 to 50 gigs of storage PER DISC. Furthermore, they haven't even given us music CD playback with the Wii, an option that was built into the Playstation ONE that released 13 years ago. They did the same thing with DVD playback, an option found in the PS2 that released 8.5 years ago. I understand Nintendo's position that most people have those machines already, and I understand they don't want their systems to be multimedia machines, but a.) Multimedia machines are what a large chunk of the market wants these days and b.) when you could add something like that by simply writing a few more lines of code into your firmware, it's ludicrous to NOT have it. Fact of the matter is, I've used my PS2 for DVD playback since 2002. My PS2 was crapping out on that end in 2007, so I was excited when I bought the Wii because I thought I was getting a DVD player as well. Imagine my surprise. So I went out and had to buy a cheap ass DVD player for a year, and now I use my PS3 for DVD playback. Anyone else catching the irony? I didn't have a standalone DVD player like Nintendo thought I would, and I bought their system with one of the (minor) selling points being its supposed DVD playback. Turns out Sony's media behemoths are the only ones I can rely on to give me that. I would imagine this happens to consumers far more than Nintendo would like to think. I love Nintendo's games, and they've released some excellent and wonderfully fun stuff for their systems, but that's the key word, "they." I haven't bought a Nintendo system since the SNES for the third party games. I buy them knowing that the main reason for it was Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Donkey Kong, and every other awesome first party franchise that simply isn't going to move to any other system. If I want excellent third party games, I buy a PS2 or PS3. That's where I get the Final Fantasy games, Metal Gear Solid, etc. The point is, gone are the days when people can only own one system to have their cake and eat it too. They were gone all the way back when the SNES and Genesis were competing and people wanted to play Mario AND Sonic. For some reason the fanboys turned it into a landwar in the N64/PSX generation and now for some reason it seems to be earth-shatteringly important that the system you own is on top of the market. Why? Buy what you need to play the games. It's about having fun anyhow. But my main point is that I personally think Nintendo should rethink their stance on jacking up the cost of a system by 100 to give us more options. People have shown that they'll willingly shuck out 500-700 dollars for a media center system like the 360 or PS3. If I was Nintendo I'd be on it like white on rice on a paper plate with a glass of milk in a snowstorm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overflow Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 @Shadow Wolf Except for one major thing you missed: Nintendo is making RIDICULOUS amounts of money on the Wii. That's because it's the cheapest and most user-friendly. Almost any person of any age can play and enjoy the Wii. I heard that even the Queen of England plays the Wii. Because of its crazy success, it's unlikely that Nintendo's going to change its strategy when it seems to be working so well. Only the hardcore gamers buy the 360 or PS3. You don't often see some middle aged couple or parents with young kids get a PS3. But about the PSX, the only AAA games I know for it are Crash Bandicoot 1-3, Gran tourismo 1-2, Omega boost, and FF7. While for N64 there was smash bros, Mario 64, LOZ: OoT and MM, Mario party, Goldeneye, Kirby 64, Mario kart, mario tennis, Banjo kazooie, Banjo tooie, and Rouge squadron. Did I miss something the PSX had(aside from cheap disks) that made it take first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sephfire Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 But about the PSX, the only AAA games I know for it are Crash Bandicoot 1-3, Gran tourismo 1-2, Omega boost, and FF7. Did I miss something the PSX had(aside from cheap disks) that made it take first place? I was an N64 owner myself during that era, but the PSX had way more than just those games going for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivi22 Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Now, Nintendo has done it again. In order to stay on the cheap side, they've given us a system that uses 4.7 gig discs when the rest of the gaming world is moving on to Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, with 25 to 50 gigs of storage PER DISC. Nitpicking a bit, but the 360 uses regular DVD's. But about the PSX, the only AAA games I know for it are Crash Bandicoot 1-3, Gran tourismo 1-2, Omega boost, and FF7. While for N64 there was smash bros, Mario 64, LOZ: OoT and MM, Mario party, Goldeneye, Kirby 64, Mario kart, mario tennis, Banjo kazooie, Banjo tooie, and Rouge squadron. Did I miss something the PSX had(aside from cheap disks) that made it take first place? Well, aside from the ones you mentioned, there was also MGS, Silent Hill, Resident Evil 1-3, FF8, FF9, Parasite Eve, Syphon Filter 1&2, Chrono Cross, FF Tactics, Castlevania Symphony of the Night, Dino Crisis, and Medal of Honor. And I got those without even bothering to name any games I don't own. I would like to point out as well that you missed Perfect Dark on your N64 list. It was better than Goldeneye if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekofrog Posted April 1, 2008 Author Share Posted April 1, 2008 You're making a huge mistake in only counting "AAA" games, though. The N64's "AAA" games were pretty much the ONLY games worth playing on the system, whilst the PS1 had a SHITLOAD of "AAA" games as well as games that were good/great. Tell you what, I'll compile a list of good/great/AAA games for the PS1, and you do the same for the N64. Then we'll see which system was better in terms of software. Ready? In no particular order, up to the year 2001 because I need to go to lunch (I'll keep going once I get back) Good Ridge Racer Battle Arena Toshinden Tekken Jumping Flash! Twisted Metal Alien Trilogy (far better on the PS1 than the PC) Mega Man X3 Vandal Hearts Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain Mega Man 8 Bushido Blade Die Hard Trilogy SaGa Frontier Azure Dreams Tales of Destiny Xenogears Brave Fencer Musashi Star Ocean: The Second Story Final Fantasy VIII (arguable, I find it terrible) Dino Crisis Vandal Hearts II Resident Evil 3: Nemesis (arguable, I find it terrible) Wild ARMs 2 Wild ARMs Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage! Chrono Cross Parasite Eve II (arguable, I find it terrible) Valkyrie Profile: Lenneth Syphon Filter 2 Dino Crisis 2 Tales of Eternia Great Mega Man X4 Alundra Einhänder Tomba! Tekken 2 Crash Bandicoot: Warped MediEvil Tomb Raider III Syphon Filter Lunar 2: Eternal Blue Complete Breath of Fire IV Final Fantasy IX Spyro: Year of the Dragon AAA Dragon Quest VII Resident Evil Crash Bandicoot Tomb Raider Final Fantasy VII Castlevania: Symphony of the Night Final Fantasy Tactics Breath of Fire III Resident Evil: Director's Cut Crash Bandicoot 2: Cortex Strikes Back Tomb Raider II Mega Man Legends Resident Evil 2 Parasite Eve Tekken 3 Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete Metal Gear Solid Spyro the Dragon Suikoden II Suikoden Silent Hill Ape Escape Gran Turismo 2 Vagrant Story Mega Man Legends 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bahamut Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Why does everyone like X4? It was way too easy - I liked X5 a lot more. I like Tales of Eternia more than Tales of Destiny (also for the PS1 - the comboing was just done great, and some parts of the game are tough as hell, but fairly so. It was released as Tales of Destiny 2 for some stupid reason). And good god, I hate Lunar 2: Eternal Blue for the some of the shittest grinding in an RPG & for the heartbreaking final boss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhsu Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Was the Mega Man Legends series really that good? The reviews always seemed to be lukewarm when it came out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekofrog Posted April 1, 2008 Author Share Posted April 1, 2008 Yes. There is a reason that most of the Megaman fandom wants MMX and the Battle Network series to just die completely, and for a Legends 3 to be made. But Capcom would rather pump out more shit than gold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 well after discussing the exclusion of downloadable songs on the Wii with my pretend-guitarist/wife, we have decided to buy a 360 specifically for Rock Band. I still think internet play is not a selling point, but the lack of DLC is a dealbreaker for us. I am certain they are going to sell the hell out of this when it comes out, but they made the whole thing kindof expensive for us, especially since I can't think of any other 360 games i'd really want to play at the moment to help justify the purchase. Except for the re-release of bionic commando I guess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekofrog Posted April 1, 2008 Author Share Posted April 1, 2008 Ghostbusters 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sephfire Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 well after discussing the exclusion of downloadable songs on the Wii with my pretend-guitarist/wife, we have decided to buy a 360 specifically for Rock Band. I still think internet play is not a selling point, but the lack of DLC is a dealbreaker for us. You won't regret that decision. Rock Band and it's DLC are worth buying a 360. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triad Orion Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Yes.There is a reason that most of the Megaman fandom wants MMX and the Battle Network series to just die completely, and for a Legends 3 to be made. But Capcom would rather pump out more shit than gold. Offtopic, but QFT. Admittedly, I like the ZX series for its faithfulness to the classic Mega Man formula, but seriously. Classic and Legends. Want more of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malaki-LEGEND.sys Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 Yes.There is a reason that most of the Megaman fandom wants MMX and the Battle Network series to just die completely, and for a Legends 3 to be made. But Capcom would rather pump out more shit than gold. QFFE Seriously, I played through Legends(as MM64), and got to play around with Legends 2. Those games were BOSS. They seriously need to get their shit together and keep the legends series going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Equinox Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 The Megaman Legends series were my favorites of the Megaman franchise, and i would prefer they stay finished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekofrog Posted April 1, 2008 Author Share Posted April 1, 2008 MML2 ended on a cliffhanger. Megaman is on the moon, and we don't know the fate of any of the characters involved. It is completely unresolved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Equinox Posted April 1, 2008 Share Posted April 1, 2008 You're right, i vaguely remembered what the end of MML2 was. So in other words, disregard that, i suck cocks. (It could use an appropriate ending) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.