Thursday, October 25, 2007

Posing a question

If Nintendo started releasing all their first party titles (Mario, Donkey Kong, etc) as cross-platform games during the N64 phase do you think they'd still be in a position to build their own consoles today?

Your thoughts?


  1. Isn't that pretty much what Sega started doing? Look what happened to them.

    Or, did they loose the console market first and then started porting to other consoles to save their ass? /shrugs.

    That's an interesting question though. I know your take on the Wii, and I want to say that "No, they wouldn't have any real console presence if that were the case", but they do tend to come out with most of the advancements in colsoles (rumble, analog, whatever you want to call the wiimote thing). So if they could continue to innovate, they may have a good presence.

  2. I don't buy that Mario, Metroid, Halo, Ratchet and Clank, or really any x-console only games "sells" consoles.
    Mario allways sells fucking gangbusters because everyone buys the nintendo consoles. Everyone knows the Mario name. I don't think many people bought the wii just because one day Mario Galaxy is going to come out and be awesome. People are latching onto the wii because of how innovative and fun it is. Nintendo would still be making innovative and fun stuff regardless, they allways have and allways will.

    All that aside, they started out as a card game company back in 1889, and today they are the 3rd largest listed company in Japan. I'm pretty sure even without consoles between they would still be capturing the market, and doing whatever the fuck the wanted console wise. Same with Sony, and unfortunately same with Microsoft. If noone bought any of the current xbox360's or Ps3s, both companys are still gonna come out with a next gen. What killed sega was several failed systems before the Dreamcast (32x and jaguar anyone?), and then having the ps2 come out too soon after the dreamcast and take over the market completely.

  3. Btw
    Watch this awesome review of Halo2334123 or whatever the new one is.

  4. It's Halo 3. You know the game that elevated 360 sales in the US for September above the much cheaper Wii?

    Consoles flurish based on game attachment rate. It doesnt matter if the console can render my butt in photo-realistic detail or if I interface with it by waving a giant ring around my left nipple. Whoever has the biggest game attachment wins.

    I hope no one at Nintendo reads this, otherwise they will have another "innovation" next year with their Nintendo Nipple Ring controller.

    BTW, how many Mario games are there again? hehe. I mean at this point, is the Princess REALLY worth all the hassle?

    And personally I dont know anyone who bought the Wii because of the Wii-mote, but because of the games or the hope of good games coming out for it.

    But I digress. My thought on the matter is that I think Nintendo could be enjoying larger success if their focus was developing their first party games as cross-platform and cut their hardware R&D down to just the NintendoDS.

  5. I think the draw to the Wii is that the console and interface design set it so far apart from the others. The only thing that did this at the beginning of the console war was the 'face' they put on the games they bundled with the systems. After NES, The Genesis had Sonic, the N64 Had Super Mario World, etc.

    Things started to change with the Sega Saturn, Game Cube, etc.. The advancements and innovations in the console horsepower itself started to become the focus, and since this was along the same time as the crazy benchmarking phase, I think this is when I started getting a little bummed about the direction the industry was taking. Suddenly everything was about polygon counts, framerates, and game content largely went out the window. I found myself playing games that looked gorgeous compared to the past but didn't have much creativity behind them.

    I think since people have gotten used to how 'pretty' games are, the draw has started to shift back to the game experience again - hence the wii and it's Nipple Ring Controller... I think this is really exciting, because since pretty much all the systems are up to par now on the visual aspects, manufacturers are being forced to again push the envelope with the actual 'fun' factor of the games.

    So anyway, during that time period I don't really know that putting a face on the consoles by not offering exclusive 'faces' for the consoles would have been a good decision...

    I am excited to see the shift slowly moving toward making the actual experience of playing the game more fresh and new. I thought the Wii was stupid until I played it. Then I thought it was great, because it's so different and fresh.

  6. Ok 2nd to last paragraph had a misplaced 'not'. : )

    Should have been:

    So anyway, during that time period I don't really know that not putting a face on the consoles by offering exclusive 'faces' for the consoles would have been a good decision...

  7. Halo 3 is still a FPS on a console. I'll gladly play it when it comes out for my PC, just like the other two halos.
    I guess to me, at least the wii has a gameplay experience that is difficult to replicate on my PC. The ps3 still appeals to me for the bluray capability, and the graphics.
    Xbox360? Everything I could really want to play on it comes out cross platform, or on my pc..
    Though I do love my modded original xbox. Need to get another one of those and a wireless adapter for my bedroom.

  8. Large-motion based gaming has been tried several several times in the past and have always failed. The Wii is no different other than that it's new. Give it time and it will be forgotten.

    All gaming will NOT eventually evolve based off this "initial innovation" of large-motion based gaming from the Wii. Heck I'd lay even money that Nintendo doesnt even carry it onto their next platform.

    Let's hope they got enough money off the DS and the Wii so they can invest in some bigger technology for their next round, so when I'm playing a new game on it, it doesnt look like something from the PS2 or worse.

    And yes, yes good graphics do not make a good game, but good graphics AND a good game make a GREAT experience and is equally enjoyable relaxed on the couch barely moving my thumbs or standing up slinging my arm around until I tear my rotator cuff.

    If everything you can play on the 360 you can play on a PC, then why do you own one?

  9. Yeah I'm not saying good graphics are bad. But I think there was a period where too much focus was placed on graphics and not enough on much of anything else. A lot of crap games were released during that period.

    Maybe I am just bitter because I can't play a FPS for more than a half hour without getting motion sickness and vomiting. Man that sucks. : )

  10. meh, I got rid of my 360 cause i wasn't buying any games for it. I have a xbox because with the modded firmware and xbmc it kinda rocks socks. But it never sees a game put into it, well.. Occasionally I use it to emulate those old grappy graphic NES and SNES games.