Random Gaming Thoughts

[Erik_Twice]

Wait, what? Where are people asking Nintendo to do this? Modern Capcom totally sucks!

Haha, they aren't. They are simply saying that Nintendo should go third party, start being like its competitors, make more shooters, focus on online play and fire Iwata because Nintendo turned a loss. Which made me think of Kotick and Capcom.

[Gunstar Green]

I don't understand why people think Nintendo has to either be on top or be out of the hardware market all together.

Their hardware is fine, their games are fine, they sell enough to justify being around. They're a marked alternative to their competitors who do very little to differentiate themselves from each other.

The video games market and gamers themselves benefit from having Nintendo doing their own thing and Nintendo has survived perfectly fine in the past without being top dog.

[Erik_Twice]

I don't understand why people think Nintendo has to either be on top or be out of the hardware market all together.

I would wager it's part of the marketing machine of the video game industry. It has always been that way, I think.

[RCBH928]

I think we are seeing a transformation in the videogames industry. Consoles used to be differentiable , like each with some kind of a special characteristics. You know, 64 with fast loading, PSX with cd quality audio, Neo-Geo is for arcade games, Genesis is the mature console against the kiddy SNES. But technology became so powerful that all consoles now look and perform the same. You really can't tell Bioshock Infinite if it is on a PS4, 360, or PC .

Nintendo is trying hard to give a different reason to play their devices like double screen on the DS, then 3D gaming. Motion controls on the Wii and then tablet for the Wii U . I am not sure how much longer they can do that in the future though.

I think for Nintendo it boils down to a simple answer: Is it more profitable for us to develop and market our own hardware, then release games that are only playable on that hardware OR should we cut costs on hardware developing & marketing, and instead of selling to our user base of (for example) 40-50m , we can sell to the other 70m on PS4, 80m on Xbox, and god knows how many on iOS, iphone, and PC ?

Nintendo has the numbers and its up to the management to make the decision. It worked for Sega.

It's nice to picture an alternate reality where Dreamcast kept on trucking, content to hold an arcade-ish niche instead of trying to compete with the likes of the PS2 and so-on.

I like how you think, but don't you think the PS2 can play arcade-ish games just as well , or better, eating into that market? We know well the SNES and the 3DO couldn't do that so the Neo-Geo had that Niche all for itself.

Coming to think of it, is the PSX more powerful than the Neo-Geo? Probably is in the 3D games, but what about arcade ports?

[Valkyrie-Favor]

Consoles are still differentiable, I don't know what you're talking about. Ask any forum member who plays modern games, "Do you prefer PS3 or Xbox 360?" Most of us will have strong answers with plenty of good reasons. As for the Wii, DS, 3DS, PSP, and Vita, nothing even needs to be said.

I do hope Nintendo keeps making hardware, if only for their handhelds. They always get the broad install base a healthy handheld industry needs, and a smartphone without buttons is not a suitable replacement. Yeah, I love my 3DS, and I don't have any Nintendo games for it besides Fire Emblem. Nintendo has never joked around with their handhelds, even if their home consoles are the strangest things around.

The Vita is super cool, but I have a feeling it wouldn't conquer the market if the 3DS suddenly dropped out.

[BoneSnapDeez]

Consoles are still differentiable, I don't know what you're talking about. Ask any forum member who plays modern games, "Do you prefer PS3 or Xbox 360?"

PS3 and Xbox 360 are way more similar to each other than, say, the NES vs. SMS or SNES vs. Genesis. Huge number of overlapping games + very similar controllers. The "HD twins" moniker was coined for a reason.

[BurningDoom]

It worked for Sega.

If you're a Sonic fan (which I am, don't get me wrong). But a lot of those lovely exclusive series and games we used to get from Sega, we no longer get. I'd hate to see that happen with Nintendo. I'm sure Metroid would get the axe, and that would break my heart.

[Violent By Design]

Nintendo is trying hard to give a different reason to play their devices like double screen on the DS, then 3D gaming. Motion controls on the Wii and then tablet for the Wii U . I am not sure how much longer they can do that in the future though.

I see this a lot, but then how come Microsoft has a powerful console, 3rd party support and something unique about it?

We can play the "it sucks card" all we want, but fact of the matter is, Sony and Nintendo's consoles do not have anything like the Kinect. By all accounts, the Kinnect is going to be a major part of the X1 this generation, where as the first Kinnect was more of a prototype to combat the motion control surge.

So does the unique thing really work here?

It worked for Sega.

If you're a Sonic fan (which I am, don't get me wrong). But a lot of those lovely exclusive series and games we used to get from Sega, we no longer get. I'd hate to see that happen with Nintendo. I'm sure Metroid would get the axe, and that would break my heart.

You think that because Sega isn't in the hardware business, that is why we don't see Phantasy Star V or Vectorman 3?

Sega has ALWAYS been like this. Aside from Sonic and maybe 1 or 2 other franchises, they've usually abandoned all of their other franchises with in one generation. There is a reason you don't see some of the Master System greats on Genesis, and you don't see some of the Genesis greats on Saturn, and you don't see some of the Saturn greats on Dreamcast.

Sega was great from an entertaining point of view because they made so many new ips, but they were terrible at branding. Probably why some of their franchises have such a poor legacy, kids aren't growing up playing them like they did with Nintendo products.

I think we are seeing a transformation in the videogames industry. Consoles used to be differentiable , like each with some kind of a special characteristics. You know, 64 with fast loading, PSX with cd quality audio, Neo-Geo is for arcade games, Genesis is the mature console against the kiddy SNES. But technology became so powerful that all consoles now look and perform the same. You really can't tell Bioshock Infinite if it is on a PS4, 360, or PC .

Yes, you can, and Bioshock Infinite isn't even a game that is designed to scale well, but there is still a massive difference between PC version and console version. There is far less difference between Genesis and Snes aesthetically.

I like how you think, but don't you think the PS2 can play arcade-ish games just as well , or better, eating into that market? We know well the SNES and the 3DO couldn't do that so the Neo-Geo had that Niche all for itself.

[/quote]The PS2 was great, it gave basically everything a console gamer would want.

The Dreamcast was a great arcade machine, but it's not like the PS2 was a slouch in there. PS2 had a ton of great fighting games and guncom games to boot.

[BurningDoom]

You think that because Sega isn't in the hardware business, that is why we don't see Phantasy Star V or Vectorman 3?

Sega has ALWAYS been like this. Aside from Sonic and maybe 1 or 2 other franchises, they've usually abandoned all of their other franchises with in one generation. There is a reason you don't see some of the Master System greats on Genesis, and you don't see some of the Genesis greats on Saturn, and you don't see some of the Saturn greats on Dreamcast.

Sega was great from an entertaining point of view because they made so many new ips, but they were terrible at branding. Probably why some of their franchises have such a poor legacy, kids aren't growing up playing them like they did with Nintendo products.

But a lot of those franchises did continue just as often as they didn't. Shinobi was on every Sega system minus the Dreamcast. The Sega Disney games spanned the Master System, Game Gear, and Genesis, as did Wonder Boy. Golden Axe was from Master System up to Saturn. Space Harrier had a release on every Sega system except Dreamcast. Phantasy Star Online on Dreamcast. House of the Dead. Shining Force. Sega Rally Championship. Virtua Fighter. After Burner even.

Yeah, I think putting out consoles forced Sega to constantly make new games outside of the safe games like Sonic because first-party support was key. And if Nintendo bows out of the console market, the same could happen to them which I would hate to see.

[Violent By Design]

But a lot of those franchises did continue just as often as they didn't.

Shinobi was on every Sega system minus the Dreamcast. Shinobi is one of their best examples of them actually making sequels for their franchises.

But even if they continued with as many series as they left behind, that is still a lot of series they left behind. It seemed like a preference or lack of interest choice to me.

The Sega Disney games spanned the Master System, Game Gear, and Genesis, as did Wonder Boy.

While this is true, you're talking about a very tiny time span. The Master System and Genesis were essentially supported at the same time. This also leaves the question of where were those games on Saturn and Dreamcast?

Golden Axe was from Master System up to Saturn. Space Harrier had a release on every Sega system except Dreamcast.

There's no Space Harrier game for the Saturn to my knowledge. Just MS and Genesis.

Phantasy Star Online on Dreamcast.

Hm? This game just uses Phantasy Star canon and tropes. It's nothing like Phantasy Star.

House of the Dead.

They made like two, and aside from that they still make them post Hardware era (and have done so in different eras).

Shining Force.

Sega Rally Championship. Virtua Fighter. After Burner even.

True to an extent, but they still make some of those games, so I'm not really sure if these are that great of examples. They all exist post hardware era, maybe except for After Burner, though I'm sure they've pumped one out with in the 7th gen.

Yeah, I think putting out consoles forced Sega to constantly make new games outside of the safe games like Sonic because first-party support was key. And if Nintendo bows out of the console market, the same could happen to them which I would hate to see.

[/quote][/quote]
It would be the opposite. Sequels are easier and safer to sell than original content. Most Sega games didn't sell that well when they were a hardware console compared to Nintendo's stuff, which they constantly made sequels for most of their games.


I also see that a lot of these games never made the Dreamcast (at least not well with in its time span, like to 2006 or something if they had kept supporting it). I'm assuming the argument is the Dreamcast had to short of a life span, so it is a relative given that some of those games would have seen sequels on the DC if it had a proper shelf life. Which is a fair enough assumption (if this assumption is even being made), but the first 2 years of the Dreamcast we saw so many new, original and qwirky titles, that I have a hard time believing that Sega was going to focus hard on bringing back older ips. I don't think we would have seen a Nights or Space Harrier for Dreamcast even if it hadn't died prematurely.

Just think about how many original ips were made by Sega when Dreamcast came out with in the time span of like 2 or 3 years. They make more original stuff then than they do now.