The Gamecube really didn't sell well out of the gates in 2001. The XBox has outsold the Gamecube since the introduction of both units.
As for the Wii, if old game downloads are cheap, that'll be a huge selling point for the system. It will also be the only selling point for me. I'm not looking for a gimmick gamepad design or dumbed down features like 480p support.
Nope, I camped out for both systems since I hadn't made up my mind at the time of release which system I would go for. Both companies sold every single unit they had, but Microsoft had a larger allotment of consoles for their launch.
The Gamecube was also available in Japan 2 months earlier, so that would skewed initial numbers in favor of Nintendo.
What niche? Nintendo has practically zero market share. Sony has about 65%, Microsoft about 30% and Nintendo 5%. That's the only thing they have in common with Apple - they are niche players.
It's hilarious to hear someone on an Apple forum slating the little guy who tries to be different because they are little and think different.
Yes, Nintendo, like Apple are the smaller fish in the games market, and just like Apple they are in that position on purpose because they decided to go for idealism over mass-market appeal, and just like Apple they are fantastically successful and wealthy and likely to exist forever with a die-hard core of fans who will buy their products even though they may cost more and have less mass-market support.
Nintendo are the Apple of the games console world. Their machines are more user friendly, their interfaces simpler and with fewer features but intentionally so because they've looked at the market and thought "how many people buy a games console to play mp3s, or watch videos?" - a bit like Apple did with the original iPod, which was slated for not having voice recording or video, and yet somehow became the most popular player in the world.
Neither Nintendo nor Apple try to target the 95th percentile of their market, and neither of them are likely to be the big player any time soon, but for the people who understand what they are trying to do they are a godsend. They will keep existing, quietly innovating in the background without getting credit (analogue joysticks on a gamepad anyone?) while their competitors wait around to see which of their ideas work best and then flog cheaper poorly-conceived knockoffs to the mass market and claim it as an innovation.
So before you slag Nintendo off because they don't roll out generic first person shooters like every other console company, consider carefully what the gaming scene would be like without them. There would probably be no hand held consoles if the Gameboy hadn't come along to demonstrate the market potential. There would probably be no Playstation if the Famicom hadn't paved the way - just as Apple did with the GUI, the laptop, the digital camera, etc.
And all of this nyah-nyah stuff has exactly what to do with Apple being at E3?
For the second time, because people speculated that Apple would link up with Nintendo.
Anyway, I wasn't saying Nintendo are bad because of a low market share. I was saying they have a low market share because they don't meet the consumer demand.
Yes, Apple also have a low market share but that doesn't mean they think alike. Apple have a low market share because they were screwed in the past. Nintendo have a low market share because they are taking the piss.
Apple were among the first on the HD bandwagon making their software products HD ready and introducing H264. Nintendo aren't even offering HD support.
Apple have switched their product line to Intel chips because they want to give consumers the best performance. Nintendo are happy to provide the lowest spec hardware in the gaming market.
Apple are expensive (another reason for low market share) and stylish but Nintendo go for cheap and ugly.
Apple have introduced the ability to use Windows and so meet consumer demand, Nintendo have a lower game selection than the competition and those games mostly cater for children or non-serious gamers.
They are different companies and are in their positions for different reasons.
In summary, Nintendo is cheap but looks crap. PS3 looks good but is expensive. Nintendo = Dell, PS3 = Apple. Sony and Apple have always been more alike IMO.
I probably won't buy the PS3 either for a while but remember this: the PS3 can come down in price but the Wii can't improve in performance.
In summary, Nintendo is cheap but looks crap. PS3 looks good but is expensive. Nintendo = Dell, PS3 = Apple. Sony and Apple have always been more alike IMO.
I see this is one of those debates that isn't going to be settled in a reasonable period of time. The problem is that you are comparing Nintendo with Apple on a cosmetic level rather than looking deeper. It is true that Sony hardware looks nicer, in fact I own a PSP myself and it is indeed gorgeous - unfortunately it is very shallow by comparison to the DS, and this is reflected in the lack of decent or enjoyable games. Most PSP games are direct ports from other consoles, others like Ape Academy are flagrant rip-offs of Nintendo originals (Wario Ware), and not nearly as good as the games they plagiarise.
Nintendo are like Apple because they innovate and are not afraid to go against market trends. They don't do things just because their competitors do them. They are not like Apple because they necessarily share all the same specific ideals, such as stylish industrial design (although they do happen to share the ideal of user-friendliness).
When Apple decided to start making computers look like works of art, the rest of the market still thought it wanted to buy beige boxes - this was an innovation. But Sony making its PSP look pretty is not innovative - mobile phones, PDAs and other personal devices have been going that route for many years. Sony is a trend follower - they see what everybody else is doing and then they do it better, cheaper, more stylishly - whatever. This is not innovation - there isn't a single original idea in the PSP, it's just a amalgam of a bunch of pre-existing technologies and ideas wrapped in a pretty casing.
Nintendo made their console look like an ugly piece of junk, which was arguably a mistake, much like Apple's mistake in not integrating CD burners into its machines earlier, or not including USB 2.0, or leaving out analogue audio in, or any number of other blunders.
But to say that Nintendo is like Dell because they make ugly consoles is to completely miss the point. Nintendo is about one thing only and that is making innovative, fun games. They don't care that their consoles are tacky because their target audience doesn't care.
Nintendo intentionally designed the DS with an interface unlike any other console so that it would not end up with a bunch of crappy ports - it was an attempt to force the developers to innovate, to try something new, and it appears to be working, at least in some cases. There are games on the DS that could not be done on any other console. PSP by comparison is basically just a diminutive PS2, which is great if that's what you want, but it's not exactly thinking different is it?
Nintendo have consistently led the advance of console technology. I mentioned in my previous post that they reinvented the analogue controller as a 'mushroom' stick, which has been copied by every subsequent console. They also set standard for platform games with mario, and then set it again for 3D platformers with mario 64. They constantly invent new game genres and interface ideas, and continue to enjoy success despite nay-sayers who claim that they don't understand the market. And maybe not everything they invent is an immediate success, a bit like the Newton with Apple, but if they weren't out there trying new things then there would be no innovation in the console world at all.
Apple and Nintendo may not make good partners because their actual goals are different, and I don't know that Nintendo would have that much to offer Apple. I do feel however that within their own domains the two companies fill the exact same niche - that of the wise old innovator who is scorned by the flashy newcomers who think they know it all and who have grabbed all the market share, but who actually contribute very little to the advancement of the field, and rely on their ability to copy Apple/Nintendo as their only genuine means of advancement because they are too frightened or too apathetic to risk their own money gambling on a new idea.
Limited invitation-only (absolutely no reporters or media of any kind) session.
Apple only exihibited behind closed doors - I am not sure what this entails though. I suspect that we won't know because if it was anything significant, there were probably NDAs that were signed.
Not sure why you would want to copy the imac design though. It's ugly as hell. Yeah, yeah, it's all about looks with me, whatever. I'm an artist and I just appreciate beauty.
[snip]Not sure why you would want to copy the imac design though. It's ugly as hell. Yeah, yeah, it's all about looks with me, whatever. I'm an artist and I just appreciate beauty.
Artist Fartist
Are you blind?
Get your head out of your ass and learn something about esthetics.
Apple have introduced the ability to use Windows and so meet consumer demand, Nintendo have a lower game selection than the competition and those games mostly cater for children or non-serious gamers.
I probably won't buy the PS3 either for a while but remember this: the PS3 can come down in price but the Wii can't improve in performance.
I could care less if Nintendo produced a system with 10Ghz processor with a million pixels, blah, blah, blah...
I want a system that has good fun games and from what I've seen and read the Wii will have more launch titles then the PS3...
(The PS3 will have about 10 title while the Wii will have more then 10)
Heres a list of some Wii games..
Quote:
E3 2006: Wii's 27 Playable Games
Reggie promised 27 playable Wii games and now we've got the full list.
by JKR and Matt Casamassina
May 11, 2006 - At Nintendo's pre-E3 press conference, executive vice president of sales and marketing, Reggie Fils-Aime, told the audience that Wii 27 titles would be available to play on the E3 floor this week. The following is a breakdown of the games actually on display.
1- Super Mario Galaxy (temporary name)
2- The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
3- Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
4- Red Steel
5- Excite Truck
6- Sonic: Wild Fire
7- Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz
8- Project H.A.M.M.E.R.
9- Demo: Shooting
10- Demo: Obstacle
11- Demo: Table Tennis
12- WarioWare: Smooth Moves
13- Final Furlong
14- Madden NFL 07
15- Tony Hawk´s Downhill Jam
16- SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab
17- Elebits
18- One Piece Ultimate Adventure
19- Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2
20- Wii Sports: Tennis
21- Wii Sports: Golf
22- Wii Sports: Baseball
23- Wii Sports: Airplane
24- Necro-Nesia
25- Bomberman Land
26- Wii Music: Orchestra
27- SD Gundam
An impressive variety of titles, to be sure, however we wonder how the three demos can really count as playable games. Nevertheless, Nintendo came through on its promise to supply an assortment of different genres and game types for many different audiences.
In addition to these playable titles, dozens of other Wii games were announced, but were either only shown in video form or in screenshots on the show floor, or were absent completely. These other titles include everything from the Monolith Soft-developed Disaster: Day of Crisis to the only-on-video Trauma Center: A Second Opinion. Other non-playable Wii entries include Harvest Moon, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Crystal Bearers, Dragon Quest Swords, Pangya Golf, and Metal Slug Anthology.
Oh and one more thing I've read the wait times to play Wii demos was about 4 hours long while the PS3 was less the 30 minutes and that it has been reported that there was (in one day) around 1500 to 2000 people in line.
I used to work with several video game companies designing music for games, and I went to E3 on several occasions. Apple was there every time. In fact, in 2000 it had an entire room full of computers, G4s and iMacs, all networked and with people playing a variety of games on them.
I think it's a no-brainer that Apple would be there this year probably more than ever before, now that software development for Intel-based Macs is a lot easier to bring about than for PPC versions.
The optical drive should be in the base and possibly the hard drive. Then the chinny chin chin contents should go where the optical drive was.
Quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Apple
An impressive variety of titles, to be sure
Sure if you like the same games again and again. Like I said, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Sonic, Super Monkey Ball, WarioWare, Dragon Ball Z, Bomberman and then some silly party games with a handful of popular titles that are even themselves very tired out. That sort of thing doesn't impress me.
What does impress me is flying through cities in a souped up machine and hitting 3 nitros to scrape first place by taking a shortcut through some arches that are just wide enough to fit your car in.
But you don't get Midnight Club for Nintendo consoles.
Quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Apple
Oh and one more thing I've read the wait times to play Wii demos was about 4 hours long while the PS3 was less the 30 minutes
That's because the PS3 is 8 times faster than the Wii .
To answer the original question, Apple is there because E3 is the Electronic Entertainment Expo. It's not strictly a video game event, though you'd be hard pressed to know that anymore with the way coverage of the event is.
What was the explanation for dumping the Sunflower? Christ, what an innovative and elegant piece of hardware.
Exactly. The obvious issue is size but they just need to find a way to detach the monitor from the base.
The base could also be smaller but they could do what I said. The CPU/GPU/ports/Ram could be in the middle of the display at the back and the optical drive and HD could be placed in the base. That would make a footprint smaller than the Mini.
This also separates the parts which are generally user serviceable from the parts which are not so Apple could make the base easily accessible for minor modifications like HD upgrade.
It evenly distributes the size of the display and the base so that neither the base is too big nor are there huge bulges on the display.
Sure if you like the same games again and again. Like I said, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Sonic, Super Monkey Ball, WarioWare, Dragon Ball Z, Bomberman and then some silly party games with a handful of popular titles that are even themselves very tired out. That sort of thing doesn't impress me.
Ya just like the hundreds of first person shooters and racing games!
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
What does impress me is flying through cities in a souped up machine and hitting 3 nitros to scrape first place by taking a shortcut through some arches that are just wide enough to fit your car in.
But you don't get Midnight Club for Nintendo consoles.
actually there is a GBA version, but Nintendo does have Need For Speed: Most Wanted which looks great.
But like I said there sooooooooo many racing games and versions that it gets boring...
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
That's because the PS3 is 8 times faster than the Wii .
hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Do you really think that most people care if it's 8 times faster or if most people EVEN notice?
They only care about the games being 'FUN' (the majority, not game geeks)
Sony screwed up (IMO) they made the system to expensive and parent arent going to buy it, especially when both the XBox 360 and Wii will be cheaper and have plenty of great games...
The PS3 will only cater to the same people who spend lots of money on an alienware, etc., which is a small fanbase compared to the average joe.
But thats my opinion...
Btw I used to love the PlayStation and I still have the PS1, but Nintendo has really impressed me so I know where I'm spending my money this year
Yah the only people who are gonna buy the PS3 are the dedicated fanboys who will buy anything PS, even if it sucks (trust me, I know many *shudder*) and the people who want the fastest possable system...even if it doesn't necessarily have all the games they want.
I know if I was between the age of 7-12 when parents usually buy most things for you (and there are lots of people who play video games in that age group) then my parents sure wouldn't drop $600. And most kids don't like to settle for the "bad" version. They would rather go for a $400 360 than a $500 PS3.
And the parents will LOVE the Wii. Cheap, small, simple. Something to appease the wants of their kids without really paying as much as they could have and also keeping them (for the young kids) more safe from the violent games. The only violent one is Resident Evil. Unless you count jumping on turtles heads with a plumber violent.
Comments
Originally posted by Eugene
The Gamecube really didn't sell well out of the gates in 2001. The XBox has outsold the Gamecube since the introduction of both units.
As for the Wii, if old game downloads are cheap, that'll be a huge selling point for the system. It will also be the only selling point for me. I'm not looking for a gimmick gamepad design or dumbed down features like 480p support.
Nope, I camped out for both systems since I hadn't made up my mind at the time of release which system I would go for. Both companies sold every single unit they had, but Microsoft had a larger allotment of consoles for their launch.
The Gamecube was also available in Japan 2 months earlier, so that would skewed initial numbers in favor of Nintendo.
Originally posted by Marvin
What niche? Nintendo has practically zero market share. Sony has about 65%, Microsoft about 30% and Nintendo 5%. That's the only thing they have in common with Apple - they are niche players.
It's hilarious to hear someone on an Apple forum slating the little guy who tries to be different because they are little and think different.
Yes, Nintendo, like Apple are the smaller fish in the games market, and just like Apple they are in that position on purpose because they decided to go for idealism over mass-market appeal, and just like Apple they are fantastically successful and wealthy and likely to exist forever with a die-hard core of fans who will buy their products even though they may cost more and have less mass-market support.
Nintendo are the Apple of the games console world. Their machines are more user friendly, their interfaces simpler and with fewer features but intentionally so because they've looked at the market and thought "how many people buy a games console to play mp3s, or watch videos?" - a bit like Apple did with the original iPod, which was slated for not having voice recording or video, and yet somehow became the most popular player in the world.
Neither Nintendo nor Apple try to target the 95th percentile of their market, and neither of them are likely to be the big player any time soon, but for the people who understand what they are trying to do they are a godsend. They will keep existing, quietly innovating in the background without getting credit (analogue joysticks on a gamepad anyone?) while their competitors wait around to see which of their ideas work best and then flog cheaper poorly-conceived knockoffs to the mass market and claim it as an innovation.
So before you slag Nintendo off because they don't roll out generic first person shooters like every other console company, consider carefully what the gaming scene would be like without them. There would probably be no hand held consoles if the Gameboy hadn't come along to demonstrate the market potential. There would probably be no Playstation if the Famicom hadn't paved the way - just as Apple did with the GUI, the laptop, the digital camera, etc.
Originally posted by cubist
And all of this nyah-nyah stuff has exactly what to do with Apple being at E3?
For the second time, because people speculated that Apple would link up with Nintendo.
Anyway, I wasn't saying Nintendo are bad because of a low market share. I was saying they have a low market share because they don't meet the consumer demand.
Yes, Apple also have a low market share but that doesn't mean they think alike. Apple have a low market share because they were screwed in the past. Nintendo have a low market share because they are taking the piss.
Apple were among the first on the HD bandwagon making their software products HD ready and introducing H264. Nintendo aren't even offering HD support.
Apple have switched their product line to Intel chips because they want to give consumers the best performance. Nintendo are happy to provide the lowest spec hardware in the gaming market.
Apple are expensive (another reason for low market share) and stylish but Nintendo go for cheap and ugly.
Apple have introduced the ability to use Windows and so meet consumer demand, Nintendo have a lower game selection than the competition and those games mostly cater for children or non-serious gamers.
They are different companies and are in their positions for different reasons.
Here are some reviews from E3:
http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/profile...dnNgxTCo5bMJuQ
http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/profile...ICA7nmer5bMNsg
In summary, Nintendo is cheap but looks crap. PS3 looks good but is expensive. Nintendo = Dell, PS3 = Apple. Sony and Apple have always been more alike IMO.
I probably won't buy the PS3 either for a while but remember this: the PS3 can come down in price but the Wii can't improve in performance.
Originally posted by Marvin
In summary, Nintendo is cheap but looks crap. PS3 looks good but is expensive. Nintendo = Dell, PS3 = Apple. Sony and Apple have always been more alike IMO.
I see this is one of those debates that isn't going to be settled in a reasonable period of time. The problem is that you are comparing Nintendo with Apple on a cosmetic level rather than looking deeper. It is true that Sony hardware looks nicer, in fact I own a PSP myself and it is indeed gorgeous - unfortunately it is very shallow by comparison to the DS, and this is reflected in the lack of decent or enjoyable games. Most PSP games are direct ports from other consoles, others like Ape Academy are flagrant rip-offs of Nintendo originals (Wario Ware), and not nearly as good as the games they plagiarise.
Nintendo are like Apple because they innovate and are not afraid to go against market trends. They don't do things just because their competitors do them. They are not like Apple because they necessarily share all the same specific ideals, such as stylish industrial design (although they do happen to share the ideal of user-friendliness).
When Apple decided to start making computers look like works of art, the rest of the market still thought it wanted to buy beige boxes - this was an innovation. But Sony making its PSP look pretty is not innovative - mobile phones, PDAs and other personal devices have been going that route for many years. Sony is a trend follower - they see what everybody else is doing and then they do it better, cheaper, more stylishly - whatever. This is not innovation - there isn't a single original idea in the PSP, it's just a amalgam of a bunch of pre-existing technologies and ideas wrapped in a pretty casing.
Nintendo made their console look like an ugly piece of junk, which was arguably a mistake, much like Apple's mistake in not integrating CD burners into its machines earlier, or not including USB 2.0, or leaving out analogue audio in, or any number of other blunders.
But to say that Nintendo is like Dell because they make ugly consoles is to completely miss the point. Nintendo is about one thing only and that is making innovative, fun games. They don't care that their consoles are tacky because their target audience doesn't care.
Nintendo intentionally designed the DS with an interface unlike any other console so that it would not end up with a bunch of crappy ports - it was an attempt to force the developers to innovate, to try something new, and it appears to be working, at least in some cases. There are games on the DS that could not be done on any other console. PSP by comparison is basically just a diminutive PS2, which is great if that's what you want, but it's not exactly thinking different is it?
Nintendo have consistently led the advance of console technology. I mentioned in my previous post that they reinvented the analogue controller as a 'mushroom' stick, which has been copied by every subsequent console. They also set standard for platform games with mario, and then set it again for 3D platformers with mario 64. They constantly invent new game genres and interface ideas, and continue to enjoy success despite nay-sayers who claim that they don't understand the market. And maybe not everything they invent is an immediate success, a bit like the Newton with Apple, but if they weren't out there trying new things then there would be no innovation in the console world at all.
Apple and Nintendo may not make good partners because their actual goals are different, and I don't know that Nintendo would have that much to offer Apple. I do feel however that within their own domains the two companies fill the exact same niche - that of the wise old innovator who is scorned by the flashy newcomers who think they know it all and who have grabbed all the market share, but who actually contribute very little to the advancement of the field, and rely on their ability to copy Apple/Nintendo as their only genuine means of advancement because they are too frightened or too apathetic to risk their own money gambling on a new idea.
|
|
\\/
Originally posted by rongold
Limited invitation-only (absolutely no reporters or media of any kind) session.
Apple only exihibited behind closed doors - I am not sure what this entails though. I suspect that we won't know because if it was anything significant, there were probably NDAs that were signed.
Originally posted by Shadow Slayer 26
so now that E3 is over what exactly DID they do?
I think they waited in line to play with a Wii, along with everyone else...
Originally posted by Shadow Slayer 26
so now that E3 is over what exactly DID they do?
Maybe they showed off some technology they just patented. A touch screen iphone with wifi itunes downloading or some tablet perhaps?
At least we know what Alienware did, those copying sons o' bitches:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/05...ware/index.php
Not sure why you would want to copy the imac design though. It's ugly as hell. Yeah, yeah, it's all about looks with me, whatever. I'm an artist and I just appreciate beauty.
Originally posted by Marvin
[snip]Not sure why you would want to copy the imac design though. It's ugly as hell. Yeah, yeah, it's all about looks with me, whatever. I'm an artist and I just appreciate beauty.
Artist Fartist
Are you blind?
Get your head out of your ass and learn something about esthetics.
Originally posted by Marvin
Apple have introduced the ability to use Windows and so meet consumer demand, Nintendo have a lower game selection than the competition and those games mostly cater for children or non-serious gamers.
I probably won't buy the PS3 either for a while but remember this: the PS3 can come down in price but the Wii can't improve in performance.
I could care less if Nintendo produced a system with 10Ghz processor with a million pixels, blah, blah, blah...
I want a system that has good fun games and from what I've seen and read the Wii will have more launch titles then the PS3...
(The PS3 will have about 10 title while the Wii will have more then 10)
Heres a list of some Wii games..
E3 2006: Wii's 27 Playable Games
Reggie promised 27 playable Wii games and now we've got the full list.
by JKR and Matt Casamassina
May 11, 2006 - At Nintendo's pre-E3 press conference, executive vice president of sales and marketing, Reggie Fils-Aime, told the audience that Wii 27 titles would be available to play on the E3 floor this week. The following is a breakdown of the games actually on display.
1- Super Mario Galaxy (temporary name)
2- The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
3- Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
4- Red Steel
5- Excite Truck
6- Sonic: Wild Fire
7- Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz
8- Project H.A.M.M.E.R.
9- Demo: Shooting
10- Demo: Obstacle
11- Demo: Table Tennis
12- WarioWare: Smooth Moves
13- Final Furlong
14- Madden NFL 07
15- Tony Hawk´s Downhill Jam
16- SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab
17- Elebits
18- One Piece Ultimate Adventure
19- Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2
20- Wii Sports: Tennis
21- Wii Sports: Golf
22- Wii Sports: Baseball
23- Wii Sports: Airplane
24- Necro-Nesia
25- Bomberman Land
26- Wii Music: Orchestra
27- SD Gundam
An impressive variety of titles, to be sure, however we wonder how the three demos can really count as playable games. Nevertheless, Nintendo came through on its promise to supply an assortment of different genres and game types for many different audiences.
In addition to these playable titles, dozens of other Wii games were announced, but were either only shown in video form or in screenshots on the show floor, or were absent completely. These other titles include everything from the Monolith Soft-developed Disaster: Day of Crisis to the only-on-video Trauma Center: A Second Opinion. Other non-playable Wii entries include Harvest Moon, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Crystal Bearers, Dragon Quest Swords, Pangya Golf, and Metal Slug Anthology.
Oh and one more thing I've read the wait times to play Wii demos was about 4 hours long while the PS3 was less the 30 minutes and that it has been reported that there was (in one day) around 1500 to 2000 people in line.
Ya the PS3 really impressed everyone
I think it's a no-brainer that Apple would be there this year probably more than ever before, now that software development for Intel-based Macs is a lot easier to bring about than for PPC versions.
Originally posted by gar
Artist Fartist
Are you blind?
Get your head out of your ass and learn something about esthetics.
If you like the imac design, I have a boyfriend for ya:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=...=Search+Images
pfft, esthetics my ass.
The optical drive should be in the base and possibly the hard drive. Then the chinny chin chin contents should go where the optical drive was.
Originally posted by Darth_Apple
An impressive variety of titles, to be sure
Sure if you like the same games again and again. Like I said, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Sonic, Super Monkey Ball, WarioWare, Dragon Ball Z, Bomberman and then some silly party games with a handful of popular titles that are even themselves very tired out. That sort of thing doesn't impress me.
What does impress me is flying through cities in a souped up machine and hitting 3 nitros to scrape first place by taking a shortcut through some arches that are just wide enough to fit your car in.
But you don't get Midnight Club for Nintendo consoles.
Originally posted by Darth_Apple
Oh and one more thing I've read the wait times to play Wii demos was about 4 hours long while the PS3 was less the 30 minutes
That's because the PS3 is 8 times faster than the Wii
Originally posted by Marvin
pfft, esthetics my ass.
I figured that out already and it's talking too.
The optical drive should be in the base and possibly the hard drive. Then the chinny chin chin contents should go where the optical drive was.
Originally posted by Placebo
What was the explanation for dumping the Sunflower? Christ, what an innovative and elegant piece of hardware.
Exactly. The obvious issue is size but they just need to find a way to detach the monitor from the base.
The base could also be smaller but they could do what I said. The CPU/GPU/ports/Ram could be in the middle of the display at the back and the optical drive and HD could be placed in the base. That would make a footprint smaller than the Mini.
This also separates the parts which are generally user serviceable from the parts which are not so Apple could make the base easily accessible for minor modifications like HD upgrade.
It evenly distributes the size of the display and the base so that neither the base is too big nor are there huge bulges on the display.
Originally posted by Marvin
Sure if you like the same games again and again. Like I said, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Sonic, Super Monkey Ball, WarioWare, Dragon Ball Z, Bomberman and then some silly party games with a handful of popular titles that are even themselves very tired out. That sort of thing doesn't impress me.
Ya just like the hundreds of first person shooters and racing games!
Originally posted by Marvin
What does impress me is flying through cities in a souped up machine and hitting 3 nitros to scrape first place by taking a shortcut through some arches that are just wide enough to fit your car in.
But you don't get Midnight Club for Nintendo consoles.
actually there is a GBA version, but Nintendo does have Need For Speed: Most Wanted which looks great.
But like I said there sooooooooo many racing games and versions that it gets boring...
Originally posted by Marvin
That's because the PS3 is 8 times faster than the Wii
hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Do you really think that most people care if it's 8 times faster or if most people EVEN notice?
They only care about the games being 'FUN' (the majority, not game geeks)
Sony screwed up (IMO) they made the system to expensive and parent arent going to buy it, especially when both the XBox 360 and Wii will be cheaper and have plenty of great games...
The PS3 will only cater to the same people who spend lots of money on an alienware, etc., which is a small fanbase compared to the average joe.
But thats my opinion...
Btw I used to love the PlayStation and I still have the PS1, but Nintendo has really impressed me so I know where I'm spending my money this year
I know if I was between the age of 7-12 when parents usually buy most things for you (and there are lots of people who play video games in that age group) then my parents sure wouldn't drop $600. And most kids don't like to settle for the "bad" version. They would rather go for a $400 360 than a $500 PS3.
And the parents will LOVE the Wii. Cheap, small, simple. Something to appease the wants of their kids without really paying as much as they could have and also keeping them (for the young kids) more safe from the violent games. The only violent one is Resident Evil. Unless you count jumping on turtles heads with a plumber violent.