Like HOM said, it was a big investment for companies to make games for the N64.
The limitations of cartridges made sure that the quality of textures of games were low... yeah yeah, graphics dont make games great, but they sure add to it. Also I believe that Squaresoft had a problem with cartridges (plus the buckets of money from Sony probably did not help Nintendo either)
The Dreamcast was great IMHO... but after the CD add on, 32X and Saturn failures I think a lot of people were uninterested in a Sega console.
When you have a pretty weak polygon limit (N64) textures don't do much for you. Even in games like War3, where the models are weak and the textures are very detailed, I think the graphics aren't noteworthy. N64 certainly did better than Playstation as far as graphics were concerned.
Anyway, I think Nintendo will be around for a while. They'll come out with something cool and new when all of us think they're doomed.
Sales for the GC are quite good. The Xbox i selling well but at a much higher loss (since it's launch).
Online gaming is something that will never be as good on PCs as it is on consoles. Most will tell you Xbox live is a Gimmick rather than a serious rival to games you can play online on a PC (or mac). Everyone knows it is better on the PC, and it looks as though it's going to stay that way.
Hell, the only console games I would want on the internet would be F Zero GX and Burnout 2.
It's pointless arguing about consoles, you cannot win or lose.
The Dreamcast was going to be huge. They had a very large user base in the US and Japan and huge third party support. But Sony started talking up the PS2 and how the graphics were going to blow anything else away. Sony's FUD, Sega's terrible business management, and Microsoft pulling support of the Dreamcast in favor of the Xbox were all large contributers to Sega's downfall and their decision to get out of the hardware business. But the biggest contributor to the Dreamcast's downfall was the huge amount of piracy. That's one of the reasons that Nintendo didn't want to move to optical media and the reasons that Nintendo moved to a proprietary DVD like disc for the GCN.
I highlighted this quote because it touches on the one aspect that really killed the Dreamcast -- NO DVD SUPPORT! That was the major mistake that allowed Sony to fud-up the works. When the Dreamcast came out, DVD was far far far from embedded. A year later many people bought PS2's precisely because they made convenient little DVD players. Not the best DVD players, but good enough that they coul swing the decision. Also, using the DVD would all but have solved the piracy problem for the first 3 years of the console's life. Who had a DVD burner way back when?
If they'd sold it with a DVD, we'd still be buying them today.
Oh yeah, Nintendo mistake#4 - NO DVD movie player in GameCube.
But those tindy discs are damn cute!
Why would you want a DVD player in your console? By now, just about everyone has a standalone. Better to cut costs and lower the price. I got a GC when it and the XBox came out. The lower price of the GC won me over. And I'm sure it did (and does) the same for many would-be buyers.
Why would you want a DVD player in your console? By now, just about everyone has a standalone. Better to cut costs and lower the price. I got a GC when it and the XBox came out. The lower price of the GC won me over. And I'm sure it did (and does) the same for many would-be buyers.
edit: 666!!!. I believe I should stop here...
ure right, I am eating my words
Yes the GameCube is selling very well at the moment, lets hope in continues to sell well so that we can see some more great exclusive games for it.
But I would still like it if my cute little wonderbox played DVDs and it would be one more + point to buy a GameCube for everyone else.
Why would you want a DVD player in your console? By now, just about everyone has a standalone. Better to cut costs and lower the price. I got a GC when it and the XBox came out. The lower price of the GC won me over. And I'm sure it did (and does) the same for many would-be buyers.
First, I don't think the capability of playing DVDs is a significant contributor to the price gap.
Second, I like the feature. I have a PS2, which is located at a friend's place for the immediate future. I don't have a TV or a suitable video input. If I happened upon a cheap TV, I'd surely use my PS2 to play DVDs. (yep, I have a pile of DVDs laying around, that I never watch at home)
I'd expect a lot of folks who have kids to like the feature as well. From my experience it seems small kids like to watch the same favorite movies over and over again. If there's just one TV-attached DVD player in the house, there will be problems.
Aparently for every DVD movie playing device, a percentage of its price has to be contributed to the DVD Consortium (or something or rather) and Sony is a big part of that consortium... So not give Sony any extra money perhaps Nintendo opted not to have DVD movie playback and Microsoft released a cheap add on, thus the amount of money paid to Sony would only be minimal... ofcourse I dont really know how relavant all this is to the point...
Nintendo has carved out a nice niche for themselves, they have an undeniably cool and kind of a nostalgia factor that goes along with buying into the whole Nintendo universe.
if by "niche" you mean "games that are fun to play"
sitting down to play Monkey Target (2) in Super Monkey Ball is fun for hours. it's easy to play, hard to master. that's what makes a great game.
i don't want to spend an hour learning the damn buttons, looking up how to do special moves etc.
THAT SUCKS.
i want a game where i can understand how to play it in 5 min., but one that will take hours to really learn how to play well. Super Monkey Ball is a perfect example of that, and that's the Nintendo philosophy.
That's really just the arcade philosophy, but it still works. More complicated games have their place but are really in a different category like fiction and non-fiction books. Same, but different.
I'm not sure why other companies don't make more games like this, but it's why I think Sony's portable system has a chance to fail.
except that they're #2 world wide, and their sales have gone through the roof.
As for MS's online service, how much money have they made while making a "killing"?
See the latest Metal Gear Solid. UGH! cut scenes and convoluted stories do not a fun game make. it can be done, but there's a dangerous shift from gameplay to appearance. make it look good, and then you're done. gameplay trumps graphics every day of the week.
as for making games more accessable, i'm all for it. not everyone has 20 hours a week to commit to the game of the week.
one of the most fun games i've ever played is Super Monkey Ball. the single player mode uses 0 buttons. the multiplayer uses 2 buttons.
it's a blast. guys and girls like to play it, and there isn't a 40 hour learning curve. you don't have some dork who spends half a month downloading and memorizing 8 button combo hits etc.
nintendo makes fun games.
On the latter of your points, that is exactly what pissed me of about the original Playstation. I found it hard to find games that were fun to play instead of just loaded with cut scenes and cinematics, whereas with the N64 one could just play a game and have fun. Now, I know graphics have been updated since, but people still look like shit in games for the most part. Something like Mario Kart Double Dash is perfect: fun, great graphics/colour, and easy to just play instead of being lost in excessive storylines, bad cut scenes, and lousy trying-to-make-things-look-real-but-they-don't graphics.
Nintendo = Aracade Games. (Not exactly, but they are trying.)
Nintendo ownz j00.
Don't get me wrong, but silly games like Dynomite, etc. from Shockwave.com are more fun and relaxing than Judge Dread Vs. Death and Unreal Tournament. Think about the stress one gets from PVP in Dark Age of Camelot or the frusturation of camping from Everquest; We play games to have fun, there is plenty of stress available in RL without entertainment (video games) adding to it.
Comments
Originally posted by Lain
Like HOM said, it was a big investment for companies to make games for the N64.
The limitations of cartridges made sure that the quality of textures of games were low... yeah yeah, graphics dont make games great, but they sure add to it. Also I believe that Squaresoft had a problem with cartridges (plus the buckets of money from Sony probably did not help Nintendo either)
The Dreamcast was great IMHO... but after the CD add on, 32X and Saturn failures I think a lot of people were uninterested in a Sega console.
When you have a pretty weak polygon limit (N64) textures don't do much for you. Even in games like War3, where the models are weak and the textures are very detailed, I think the graphics aren't noteworthy. N64 certainly did better than Playstation as far as graphics were concerned.
Anyway, I think Nintendo will be around for a while. They'll come out with something cool and new when all of us think they're doomed.
Online gaming is something that will never be as good on PCs as it is on consoles. Most will tell you Xbox live is a Gimmick rather than a serious rival to games you can play online on a PC (or mac). Everyone knows it is better on the PC, and it looks as though it's going to stay that way.
Hell, the only console games I would want on the internet would be F Zero GX and Burnout 2.
It's pointless arguing about consoles, you cannot win or lose.
Originally posted by HOM
The Dreamcast was going to be huge. They had a very large user base in the US and Japan and huge third party support. But Sony started talking up the PS2 and how the graphics were going to blow anything else away. Sony's FUD, Sega's terrible business management, and Microsoft pulling support of the Dreamcast in favor of the Xbox were all large contributers to Sega's downfall and their decision to get out of the hardware business. But the biggest contributor to the Dreamcast's downfall was the huge amount of piracy. That's one of the reasons that Nintendo didn't want to move to optical media and the reasons that Nintendo moved to a proprietary DVD like disc for the GCN.
I highlighted this quote because it touches on the one aspect that really killed the Dreamcast -- NO DVD SUPPORT! That was the major mistake that allowed Sony to fud-up the works. When the Dreamcast came out, DVD was far far far from embedded. A year later many people bought PS2's precisely because they made convenient little DVD players. Not the best DVD players, but good enough that they coul swing the decision. Also, using the DVD would all but have solved the piracy problem for the first 3 years of the console's life. Who had a DVD burner way back when?
If they'd sold it with a DVD, we'd still be buying them today.
But those tindy discs are damn cute!
Originally posted by Lain
Oh yeah, Nintendo mistake#4 - NO DVD movie player in GameCube.
But those tindy discs are damn cute!
Why would you want a DVD player in your console? By now, just about everyone has a standalone. Better to cut costs and lower the price. I got a GC when it and the XBox came out. The lower price of the GC won me over. And I'm sure it did (and does) the same for many would-be buyers.
edit: 666!!!. I believe I should stop here...
Originally posted by pensieve
Why would you want a DVD player in your console? By now, just about everyone has a standalone. Better to cut costs and lower the price. I got a GC when it and the XBox came out. The lower price of the GC won me over. And I'm sure it did (and does) the same for many would-be buyers.
edit: 666!!!. I believe I should stop here...
ure right, I am eating my words
Yes the GameCube is selling very well at the moment, lets hope in continues to sell well so that we can see some more great exclusive games for it.
But I would still like it if my cute little wonderbox played DVDs and it would be one more + point to buy a GameCube for everyone else.
Originally posted by pensieve
Why would you want a DVD player in your console? By now, just about everyone has a standalone. Better to cut costs and lower the price. I got a GC when it and the XBox came out. The lower price of the GC won me over. And I'm sure it did (and does) the same for many would-be buyers.
First, I don't think the capability of playing DVDs is a significant contributor to the price gap.
Second, I like the feature. I have a PS2, which is located at a friend's place for the immediate future. I don't have a TV or a suitable video input. If I happened upon a cheap TV, I'd surely use my PS2 to play DVDs. (yep, I have a pile of DVDs laying around, that I never watch at home)
I'd expect a lot of folks who have kids to like the feature as well. From my experience it seems small kids like to watch the same favorite movies over and over again. If there's just one TV-attached DVD player in the house, there will be problems.
Originally posted by alcimedes
nintendo makes fun games.
Clear and simple. I couldn't agree more. Playing Mario Cart against my friend on his projector was so much fun.
sitting down to play Monkey Target (2) in Super Monkey Ball is fun for hours. it's easy to play, hard to master. that's what makes a great game.
i don't want to spend an hour learning the damn buttons, looking up how to do special moves etc.
THAT SUCKS.
i want a game where i can understand how to play it in 5 min., but one that will take hours to really learn how to play well. Super Monkey Ball is a perfect example of that, and that's the Nintendo philosophy.
Originally posted by alcimedes
...that's the Nintendo philosophy.
That's really just the arcade philosophy, but it still works. More complicated games have their place but are really in a different category like fiction and non-fiction books. Same, but different.
I'm not sure why other companies don't make more games like this, but it's why I think Sony's portable system has a chance to fail.
Originally posted by alcimedes
except that they're #2 world wide, and their sales have gone through the roof.
As for MS's online service, how much money have they made while making a "killing"?
See the latest Metal Gear Solid. UGH! cut scenes and convoluted stories do not a fun game make. it can be done, but there's a dangerous shift from gameplay to appearance. make it look good, and then you're done. gameplay trumps graphics every day of the week.
as for making games more accessable, i'm all for it. not everyone has 20 hours a week to commit to the game of the week.
one of the most fun games i've ever played is Super Monkey Ball. the single player mode uses 0 buttons. the multiplayer uses 2 buttons.
it's a blast. guys and girls like to play it, and there isn't a 40 hour learning curve. you don't have some dork who spends half a month downloading and memorizing 8 button combo hits etc.
nintendo makes fun games.
On the latter of your points, that is exactly what pissed me of about the original Playstation. I found it hard to find games that were fun to play instead of just loaded with cut scenes and cinematics, whereas with the N64 one could just play a game and have fun. Now, I know graphics have been updated since, but people still look like shit in games for the most part. Something like Mario Kart Double Dash is perfect: fun, great graphics/colour, and easy to just play instead of being lost in excessive storylines, bad cut scenes, and lousy trying-to-make-things-look-real-but-they-don't graphics.
Nintendo = Aracade Games. (Not exactly, but they are trying.)
Nintendo ownz j00.
Don't get me wrong, but silly games like Dynomite, etc. from Shockwave.com are more fun and relaxing than Judge Dread Vs. Death and Unreal Tournament. Think about the stress one gets from PVP in Dark Age of Camelot or the frusturation of camping from Everquest; We play games to have fun, there is plenty of stress available in RL without entertainment (video games) adding to it.