IGN: Sega ahead of it's time.

[Gamerforlife]

I've always liked the S companies, Sega and Sony. Well, SNK is cool too I guess, but I never was that impressed by their overpriced hardware and their love of ripping off all things Capcom

Sega and Sony though, always trying to push the industry forward. Always evolving, though they sometimes do dumb things and fall flat on their face. Turned out to be more of a problem for Sega in the long run.

I find other companies to just champion stagnation. Nintendo is always staying a step behind everyone else's technology(so when are we finally going to get an HD console from them?) and Microsoft is happy to shovel the same stuff down our throats over and over again(here comes fifty new shooters and more online multi-player whatever).

[MrPopo]

I've always liked the S companies, Sega and Sony. Well, SNK is cool too I guess, but I never was that impressed by their overpriced hardware and their love of ripping off all things Capcom

Sega and Sony though, always trying to push the industry forward. Always evolving, though they sometimes do dumb things and fall flat on their face. Turned out to be more of a problem for Sega in the long run.

I find other companies to just champion stagnation. Nintendo is always staying a step behind everyone else's technology(so when are we finally going to get an HD console from them?) and Microsoft is happy to shovel the same stuff down our throats over and over again(here comes fifty new shooters and more online multi-player whatever).

I suppose the analog stick, the DS, and the fully motion control Wii weren't innovative. HD isn't even a new technology. It's just a higher resolution.

[BoringSupreez]

^^^ Except for the fact that the N64 used carts, it was more technologically advanced than the other systems. It wasn't until the last two gens that Nintendo started falling behind, and even then it's only their home consoles.

[BurningDoom]

^^^ Except for the fact that the N64 used carts, it was more technologically advanced than the other systems. It wasn't until the last two gens that Nintendo started falling behind, and even then it's only their home consoles.

That's not entirely true, and I think you know better. It may have had some better processing power. However, we all know that because of CD-roms, disc-based console games could hold a lot more information. Which is the main reason series like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid appeared on the PS1 rather than the N64.

[AppleQueso]

^^^ Except for the fact that the N64 used carts, it was more technologically advanced than the other systems. It wasn't until the last two gens that Nintendo started falling behind, and even then it's only their home consoles.

...last two gens?

Gamecube was only a few hairs behind the Xbox, and graphically blew the Ps2 out of the water.

[BoringSupreez]

^^^ Except for the fact that the N64 used carts, it was more technologically advanced than the other systems. It wasn't until the last two gens that Nintendo started falling behind, and even then it's only their home consoles.

...last two gens?

Gamecube was only a few hairs behind the Xbox, and graphically blew the Ps2 out of the water.

Very little real online support and no DVD playing abilities puts the GCN a bit behind the PS2 and oXbox.

[Gamerforlife]

I've always liked the S companies, Sega and Sony. Well, SNK is cool too I guess, but I never was that impressed by their overpriced hardware and their love of ripping off all things Capcom

Sega and Sony though, always trying to push the industry forward. Always evolving, though they sometimes do dumb things and fall flat on their face. Turned out to be more of a problem for Sega in the long run.

I find other companies to just champion stagnation. Nintendo is always staying a step behind everyone else's technology(so when are we finally going to get an HD console from them?) and Microsoft is happy to shovel the same stuff down our throats over and over again(here comes fifty new shooters and more online multi-player whatever).

I suppose the analog stick, the DS, and the fully motion control Wii weren't innovative. HD isn't even a new technology. It's just a higher resolution.

Fair points, but it's always minor stuff with Nintendo. HD resolution, powerful hardware, online capabilities(for better or for worse), better software mediums(CDs vs cartridges), it's always the competition that pushes that stuff. Nintendo is always behind the technology curve and too lazy (or cheap) to try and keep up with the rest of the industry. Sony and Sega have always been pushing technology forward though. Even the PSP blows the DS out of the water as far as what it's capable of.

And when it comes to their games, Nintendo likes to mostly stick to their same old first party stuff while Sega always comes up with creative, innovative, stylisitc, and edgy games while Sony has always been good about pushing really artsy stuff like Flower, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus and lots of new IPs instead of relying on the same ones all the time like the big N.

That's all I'm saying.

[AppleQueso]

^^^ Except for the fact that the N64 used carts, it was more technologically advanced than the other systems. It wasn't until the last two gens that Nintendo started falling behind, and even then it's only their home consoles.

...last two gens?

Gamecube was only a few hairs behind the Xbox, and graphically blew the Ps2 out of the water.

Very little real online support and no DVD playing abilities puts the GCN a bit behind the PS2 and oXbox.

The online support was bullshit. The Gamecube had a broadband adapter you could get, it was completely online-capable, yet multiplatform games would regularly cut online from games that had them on the ps2 and xbox. WHY?

As for DVD, well there is the Panasonic Q... other than that, you can't even physically fit a DVD into that drive without some heavy modding to the case.

In any case, Gamecube had much stronger hardware than the ps2.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

I'm a PS2 fan. It definitely has some pretty games, but there's no way it could pull off F-Zero GX or Metroid Prime 2. I'm just confused as to why Nintendo would choose far less storage space than their competitors two gens in a row.

that miniDVD can spin faster than normal ones without fear of damage, so loading times are usually faster, but it's sad the really big games never made it on that system.

The GBA blew away what little competition it had and the DS was a step up from that. A portable that's one gen behind rather than two! Who woulda guessed? But the PSP was, ah...

I don't think Nintendo was ever "behind" until this generation. It's cool that, prior to last gen, each console had some unique feature or capability that the others couldn't replicate. SNES vs Genesis, N64 vs PS1 and Saturn, hmm. Can't have just one.

[MrPopo]

Fair points, but it's always minor stuff with Nintendo. HD resolution, powerful hardware, online capabilities(for better or for worse), better software mediums(CDs vs cartridges), it's always the competition that pushes that stuff. Nintendo is always behind the technology curve and too lazy (or cheap) to try and keep up with the rest of the industry. Sony and Sega have always been pushing technology forward though. Even the PSP blows the DS out of the water as far as what it's capable of.

So raw technological power is the important thing? As mentioned, on the console front Nintendo has had the most powerful hardware until this gen (Xbox launched late enough that the fact that they barely edged out the GC's hardware power is meaningless). It's really only this gen that Nintendo decided to focus their R&D and marketing on carving out a totally new market (and succeeded brilliantly). Their handhelds have always been behind the graphical curve compared to the competition, but that's because Nintendo figured out early on that battery life is the single most important factor in a handheld.

I'll give you the online stuff, though I'd argue Nintendo could have decided to go for online but correctly saw that the market wasn't ready for it yet.

And when it comes to their games, Nintendo likes to mostly stick to their same old first party stuff while Sega always comes up with creative, innovative, stylisitc, and edgy games while Sony has always been good about pushing really artsy stuff like Flower, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus and lots of new IPs instead of relying on the same ones all the time like the big N.

Remind me which games sell the best and have the longest sales tail. New for the sake of new is meaningless. Also, you can't condemn Nintendo for sticking with Mario and Zelda when Sega has run Sonic into the ground (they've only recenly rediscovered how to make a good Sonic game) and Sony have turned to God of War and Uncharted to make their money. I'd argue the reason Sony didn't push franchises is that Crash Bandicoot didn't do as well as they'd like and they weren't able to come up with any franchises between then and now.