The Nintendo Discussion Thread

[愛]

Having more allies on Nintendo's side would definitely work to their advantage. They still have the advertising problem, though. Then again, with other allies, that should boost up some.

And a quick mention, TMB, nice avatar. Welcome to the Battle Royale Club.

[ThirdMarioBro]

he he, thank you

[Kid Icarus]

If this happens, another plus, i I won't have to worry about Too Human showing up on a system I won't buy .

[Kid Icarus]

Double post, bad bad. I know. But this is some cool stuff I found....

http://www.zoonami.com/intelligence/...na_of_time.php

Zoonami, a European developer who was funded by Martin Hollis (lead on Rares Goldeneye and Perfect Dark teams), has tons of info as to how Ocarina of Time was made.

If you're even slightly interested in game design, it's a GREAT read. That water Temple chart, and then the map they have, is CRAZY. I never realized that much work went into making that level so damn frustrating.

[jeff the cheff]

64 stars on SM64DS. I love this game.

[ThirdMarioBro]

Originally Posted by Gwgtrunks

Double post, bad bad. I know. But this is some cool stuff I found....

http://www.zoonami.com/intelligence/...na_of_time.php

Zoonami, a European developer who was funded by Martin Hollis (lead on Rares Goldeneye and Perfect Dark teams), has tons of info as to how Ocarina of Time was made.

If you're even slightly interested in game design, it's a GREAT read. That water Temple chart, and then the map they have, is CRAZY. I never realized that much work went into making that level so damn frustrating.

That water Temple chart scares me. Whoever drew that has to have long short term memory, or be completely insane.

http://gc.advancedmn.com/index.php
or
http://gc.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=4063


Say hello to my first article, "The Legendary Race - The History of F-Zero". I write this a while back. It covers the entire history of F-Zero. Tell me what you think.

[Peanut]

Nice work TMB. Looking forward to more of your stuff!

[Kid Icarus]

Actually, TMB, I'm thinking that came from Nintendo. Zoonami was funded by Nintendo if you recall... and Hollis has a good background with them as well.

[ThirdMarioBro]

Okay then, I guess it the madness of Creative Geniuses.

[Leo656]

I didn't read all the posts in this thread, so I apologize if I said anything that was already said, or anything like that.

My opinion on Nintendo is that they're simply my favorite game company, because they are exactly that: a GAME COMPANY. They understand the business and are commited to quality over quantity, and to me, that's important. Sony and Microsoft, for all their positives, are not game companies; they're technology/software/consumer electronics companies who got into the business as a way to pad their already-huge earnings. We all know videogames sell, thus it's no surprise that "Playstation" is Sony's most successful brand ever. But the "outsider" status of Sony and especially Microsoft has always bothered me a little bit. They may put out quality merchandise, but they aren't committed the way Nintendo is. They don't live and die by their products' success and, as such, I just never got the feeling that their games were as "polished" or that as much effort went into them as I do from Nintendo's products.

There are exceptions, nor am I blatanly biased or anything. I own an NES, Super Nintendo, N64, PS2, Genesis, Dreamcast, XBox, Gamecube, and I had a GBA and even a Coleco-Vision with the Atari 2600 add-on module before they were stolen. I own almost 200 games across all systems and have never sold or traded in any game I've ever owned. I could be called a "hardcore gamer". The point is, I love games. I play a lot of 'em, new and old. And I like to play good games. I don't like to look forward to a game for months, only to play it and find out that it sucks.

And to me, the "Nintendo difference" means that, even if a game like Zelda gets delayed for over a year before its release, I'm still 99.9999999% sure that it'll not only kick ass, but possibly be even better than the previous games in the series. Because that's what Nintendo does better than anyone else: make games. The two biggest gripes against them are the fact that the best games are almost ALWAYS delayed, and that there just ain't enough of them. But as a consumer, a paying customer, I myself would rather wait long to buy a few games that are almost guaranteed to be good or even great, rather than sift through a sea of sh*t to find a few gems.

And that's what looking for good games on XBox and PS2 can be like at times: looking for diamonds inside a river of feces. They have great games. Metal Gear Solid. Final Fantasy. Star Wars: KOTOR. Some truly awesome, great games that you can't get anywhere else. But the fact is, both companies, not being dedicated solely to the game biz, employ the "throw sh*t at the wall" practice, figuring that if their system has a library of a billion games, well then surely a few of them will be true classics by default. And that works. But it's also been said that a hundred monkeys sitting at a hundred typewriters can somehow come up with Shakespeare, and yet, I know of no major literary publisher with a "drunken primate" division.

The way I see it, the only major problem Nintendo has is an image problem. Because of Mario, Zelda, etc., people see them as the "kiddie company" when that's not really the case at all. They have their "mascot characters", but so do the other companies. It's just that the best games for every system are what gets the most press, and while the best PS2 games are often stuff like GTA and Final Fantasy, and XBox has Halo and its sports games, the best Nintendo games as far as overall quality are Mario, Zelda, etc., "kids characters". but that's just because Nintendo's in-house team is about as good as it gets when it comes to game development. If they could shake their "kiddie" image, more third parties might be more interested in developing games for the Nintendo systems, and they could suddenly become the top game company in the world again. I don't see their situation as being as bad as some say. I think they'll still be around long after Microsoft gets bored with the biz, especially since in Japan, the Motherland of video games, the XBox isn't such a big deal, to put it mildly.

Personally, I don't think people buy systems based on image as much as what they like to play. I like wrestling games. When N64 and Playstation were at war, I had both systems, but I played the N64 more because they had better wrestling games. So far on XBox, the only exclusive games for it that make me glad I own it are the Star Wars: KOTOR games (the first KOTOR is one of my favorite games ever, luckily for XBox), and since I don't like Halo, nothing else exclusively for that system thrills me. Every system has its specialties, genres that it does better than anyone else: Nintendo has its platformers, PS2 its RPGS, and XBox has sports games. I think that the market will continue to sustain things as they are, at least into the next console generation.

But then, that's just my two cents.

[愛]

You basically just covered all...whatever pages we have in this thread in one post, minus the TMB fanboy comments. Think of it as a little "this is what's going on" post.

[ThirdMarioBro]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I didn't read all the posts in this thread, so I apologize if I said anything that was already said, or anything like that.

My opinion on Nintendo is that they're simply my favorite game company, because they are exactly that: a GAME COMPANY. They understand the business and are commited to quality over quantity, and to me, that's important. Sony and Microsoft, for all their positives, are not game companies; they're technology/software/consumer electronics companies who got into the business as a way to pad their already-huge earnings. We all know videogames sell, thus it's no surprise that "Playstation" is Sony's most successful brand ever. But the "outsider" status of Sony and especially Microsoft has always bothered me a little bit. They may put out quality merchandise, but they aren't committed the way Nintendo is. They don't live and die by their products' success and, as such, I just never got the feeling that their games were as "polished" or that as much effort went into them as I do from Nintendo's products.

There are exceptions, nor am I blatanly biased or anything. I own an NES, Super Nintendo, N64, PS2, Genesis, Dreamcast, XBox, Gamecube, and I had a GBA and even a Coleco-Vision with the Atari 2600 add-on module before they were stolen. I own almost 200 games across all systems and have never sold or traded in any game I've ever owned. I could be called a "hardcore gamer". The point is, I love games. I play a lot of 'em, new and old. And I like to play good games. I don't like to look forward to a game for months, only to play it and find out that it sucks.

And to me, the "Nintendo difference" means that, even if a game like Zelda gets delayed for over a year before its release, I'm still 99.9999999% sure that it'll not only kick ass, but possibly be even better than the previous games in the series. Because that's what Nintendo does better than anyone else: make games. The two biggest gripes against them are the fact that the best games are almost ALWAYS delayed, and that there just ain't enough of them. But as a consumer, a paying customer, I myself would rather wait long to buy a few games that are almost guaranteed to be good or even great, rather than sift through a sea of sh*t to find a few gems.

And that's what looking for good games on XBox and PS2 can be like at times: looking for diamonds inside a river of feces. They have great games. Metal Gear Solid. Final Fantasy. Star Wars: KOTOR. Some truly awesome, great games that you can't get anywhere else. But the fact is, both companies, not being dedicated solely to the game biz, employ the "throw sh*t at the wall" practice, figuring that if their system has a library of a billion games, well then surely a few of them will be true classics by default. And that works. But it's also been said that a hundred monkeys sitting at a hundred typewriters can somehow come up with Shakespeare, and yet, I know of no major literary publisher with a "drunken primate" division.

The way I see it, the only major problem Nintendo has is an image problem. Because of Mario, Zelda, etc., people see them as the "kiddie company" when that's not really the case at all. They have their "mascot characters", but so do the other companies. It's just that the best games for every system are what gets the most press, and while the best PS2 games are often stuff like GTA and Final Fantasy, and XBox has Halo and its sports games, the best Nintendo games as far as overall quality are Mario, Zelda, etc., "kids characters". but that's just because Nintendo's in-house team is about as good as it gets when it comes to game development. If they could shake their "kiddie" image, more third parties might be more interested in developing games for the Nintendo systems, and they could suddenly become the top game company in the world again. I don't see their situation as being as bad as some say. I think they'll still be around long after Microsoft gets bored with the biz, especially since in Japan, the Motherland of video games, the XBox isn't such a big deal, to put it mildly.

Personally, I don't think people buy systems based on image as much as what they like to play. I like wrestling games. When N64 and Playstation were at war, I had both systems, but I played the N64 more because they had better wrestling games. So far on XBox, the only exclusive games for it that make me glad I own it are the Star Wars: KOTOR games (the first KOTOR is one of my favorite games ever, luckily for XBox), and since I don't like Halo, nothing else exclusively for that system thrills me. Every system has its specialties, genres that it does better than anyone else: Nintendo has its platformers, PS2 its RPGS, and XBox has sports games. I think that the market will continue to sustain things as they are, at least into the next console generation.

But then, that's just my two cents.

Daaaaamn, that just about covered it all. Very VERY well said Leo.

[Kid Icarus]

With any luck, Reggie's going to do some miracle work on Nintendo image. It's already started, with the DS ads using sex to sell (Someone, somewhere, wants to touch you right now... Touching is good... Go ahead, touch it... ect).

Part of the problem with their image is NCL's strangle hold on NOA. NCL's forcing NOA in to a Japanese business plan that's focused on Japan, not a Japanese buisness plan that focused on America. The gaming market in Japan IS crashing. It's not going fast now, but it'll be picking up speed soon. Thats where these "the old way of making games doesn't work anymore" things are comming from. That just doesn't apply here though, and word is NCL's opened their eyes, and they're giving Reggie tons of controll over marketing in the US (pgc just had an editorial on this, which is where I've gotten most of my info from).

And Leo, great post. You forgot something though . Nintendo's also focused on changing the way we play games. I have a strong feeling the DS is just the starting point. Revolution's going to be one hell of a machine, if the rumors about it are true. It'll be even bigger if they find a way to make it backwards compatable from NES-GCN.

[Leo656]

I did? damn, I am good

As for Nintendo changing the way we play games, they definitely are good at that, as they do have a lot of unusual and revolutionary ideas. Not all of them hit, though. For every Game Boy that changed the way we play games and became an entire market in itself, there has been a Virtual Boy, Power Pad, R.O.B., or Power Glove or something.

Though I used to f*cking RULE at World Class Track Meet for the Power Pad... I gotta dig that thing out one'a these days... but aaaanyway...

I'm torn on the whole "connectivity" thing. Originally, I felt the whole thing had potential way back when the concept was first floated around back in the tail end of the N64 era. Doing things by hooking your GBA to your 'Cube is a swell idea, but there's a little something lacking in the way of using it as a multiplayer technique, especially the expensive nature inherent in GBA-GBA or GBA-GC connectivity. I don't think entire games should be designed around the gimmick as it exists currently, but having it as an extra in a bunch of games could work better.

I know a lot of people harp on Nintendo's online strategy, but I'm not sure that's such a big deal and actually proceeding with an online strategy may, in fact, be more harm than good in the long run. Some people, like me, could not care less about online gaming, and they do make up a large part of the videogame-playing public. Furthermore, most gamers' online gaming needs are already being satisfied by XBox Live and so on, so aside from a few exclusive games, Nintendo's entry into the online market could in fact do them harm by further splitting a market that is a relatively small part of the whole picture. They might turn out to be smarter in the long run by avoiding competition in a market they probably wouldn't be able to make a huge impact on anyway, and focusing on what their strengths are: quality games and systems, and dominance of the handheld market (I believe that Nintendo will still be the dominant name in the handheld market despite Sony's PSP attempts). Would it be worth all the trouble and dollars necessary, just so people could play Mario Kart online? Because aside from exclusivity for certain titles, I don't think Nintendo has overall very much to gain by going online.

On the subject of system quality, I just wanted to say that I find Nintendo products in general to be insanely sturdy. My original NES from 1987 still works just fine, and the battery in my Adventure of Link cart still has my original save from 1991 on it. I wonder why, if Sony's such a big name in consumer electronics, their game systems seem to break so easily. Pisses me off.

[Kid Icarus]

About online: The DS was built to go online. For free. Take that baby to some place that offers free WiFI, and you've suddenly got a highspeed internet connection. Reggie described this as "Noline" gaming.

And I really doubt Nintendo's going to make you pay a fee to play online. I'm imagining something where the My Nintendo account's used as your screen name.

That's the only way I'd play online, is if it's free. Nintendo also already has built in chat software for the DS that developers can access. I think the DS might also be able to act as a server, and do something with single card multiplayer over the net.

I'm sure we'll hear something durring E3.

About connectivity: Nintendo'll have this with Revolution, I'm sure, just because it can. Sony's also giving the PS3 the ability to link up with the PSP, so I guess it wasn't too bad of an idea ol' Ninty had after all. I didn't care for it much, but it'll be nice to have the option.

[ThirdMarioBro]

[QUOTE=Leo656]I did? damn, I am good

As for Nintendo changing the way we play games, they definitely are good at that, as they do have a lot of unusual and revolutionary ideas. Not all of them hit, though. For every Game Boy that changed the way we play games and became an entire market in itself, there has been a Virtual Boy, Power Pad, R.O.B., or Power Glove or something.

Though I used to f*cking RULE at World Class Track Meet for the Power Pad... I gotta dig that thing out one'a these days... but aaaanyway...

Originally Posted by Leo656

I'm torn on the whole "connectivity" thing. Originally, I felt the whole thing had potential way back when the concept was first floated around back in the tail end of the N64 era. Doing things by hooking your GBA to your 'Cube is a swell idea, but there's a little something lacking in the way of using it as a multiplayer technique, especially the expensive nature inherent in GBA-GBA or GBA-GC connectivity. I don't think entire games should be designed around the gimmick as it exists currently, but having it as an extra in a bunch of games could work better.

Connectivity was a good idea in theory, and still is. It was just way too early to be attempting something of that magnitude. We were still living in an age where the Link Cable had a use. Now even that has gone wireless. The Game Boy had to have special equipment to allow it to be set up to communicate with the Gamecube. Add on the fact that the Game Boy Advance wasn;t back lit at the time. Most people's living rooms or dens aren't known for being well lit. All of this made connectivity a problem to set up. But with the DS, the idea can finally come to life. Wi-Fi is built in, the screens are back lit, and the touch screen allows for new interface woth games. All of this could ingeniously be used with the Gamecube's suscessor, Revolution. I seriously doubt Nintendo would pass up such an opportuinity.

Originally Posted by Leo656

I know a lot of people harp on Nintendo's online strategy, but I'm not sure that's such a big deal and actually proceeding with an online strategy may, in fact, be more harm than good in the long run. Some people, like me, could not care less about online gaming, and they do make up a large part of the videogame-playing public. Furthermore, most gamers' online gaming needs are already being satisfied by XBox Live and so on, so aside from a few exclusive games, Nintendo's entry into the online market could in fact do them harm by further splitting a market that is a relatively small part of the whole picture. They might turn out to be smarter in the long run by avoiding competition in a market they probably wouldn't be able to make a huge impact on anyway, and focusing on what their strengths are: quality games and systems, and dominance of the handheld market (I believe that Nintendo will still be the dominant name in the handheld market despite Sony's PSP attempts). Would it be worth all the trouble and dollars necessary, just so people could play Mario Kart online? Because aside from exclusivity for certain titles, I don't think Nintendo has overall very much to gain by going online.

Nintendo has been reluctant to go online because they don't want to leave people out. It'd be a little difficult to split the market when the service would be free. The thing is, gamers are of all ages. People over the age of 16 can usually afford to pay monthly fees associated with online services (Everquest, Xbox Live ext), but anyone below that has to nag they're parents, who will all give the same answer. "Go outside and play" It leaves a huge age group out of the picture. If the service is free, uncompllicated, and easy to set up, then they will have no problem getting onboard. I imagine a world where gamers of all ages can come together to play the best online titles there are, without monthly fees, and new relationships can be forged between gamers simply because Nintendo had the vision to hold off on online this generation until they could find a way to simplify the entire process.

Originally Posted by Leo656

On the subject of system quality, I just wanted to say that I find Nintendo products in general to be insanely sturdy. My original NES from 1987 still works just fine, and the battery in my Adventure of Link cart still has my original save from 1991 on it. I wonder why, if Sony's such a big name in consumer electronics, their game systems seem to break so easily. Pisses me off.

Yes yes yes. I mean, I've seen Playstations fall 2 feet on to a concrete floor and shatter into three pieces, but Nintendo systems, namely the Game Boy in particular, I've seen literally be run over by a Ford truck and still work. It was unbelieveable. Then there's the Gamecube durability test. You'll find some videos for it if you go back a few pages in this thread. It was insane to see what that little thing could take. Bless those engineers.

Also, to comment on Gwg's point, NCL has realized how they need to market in America. Lot's of fans protest, but it's a necessary step to their survival. They don't have to change the type of games they produce...only the way they sell them. Nintendo has all these powerful hit and kickass titles, yet Sony projects a false kiddy image on them so people refuse to buy it thinking it's on the level of maturity of Strawberry Shortcake. Nintendo simply has to change the way they market these games. Sometimes, as much as I wish they did, American gamers in general don't tend to think as the Japanese public. Japanese gaming ideals don't apply in the United States. That is why Dragon Quest in Japan can sell multi millions, and GTA Vice City can sell 12 million units here, and the opposite dosen't happen in either country. American gamers have a different mindset.

There are those which play imports and will sift though a translation dictionary for hours on end just so they don't have to wait 3 months for Final Fantasy XII to be translated, but they are a minority in this country. NOA has finally been given the authority in recent times to stretch out and take an Americanized advertising stratagy twords their games. We've seen the first tidbits of this with the "Someone wants to touch you" DS advertisments from this last Christmas season. It was the beginning. So far into this year, nothing has been out of the ordinary, but that will change. This period is always a slow time for the industry. The real mess usually begins in March, and the launch of the PSP is only a testiment to that. At this point, you're most likely to see the birth of a new Nintendo.

The lesson is, Nintendo dosen't have to change the way they make games. That would be a betrayl of their foundations, and most likely serve to do nothing but alieniate their hardcore fanbase. Hardcore gamers see past the preconceptions, but most casual gamers do not. They must change the way they present those games to the American public. People want to play those games in this country, otherwise Nintendo would have died out eons ago. There are truckloads of new, unknowing gamers who have never set hands on a Nintendo product. If Nintendo's revamped advertising system can get their games into these people's hands, then those gamers can be "educated" in the Nintendo style of game design, and as a result, they will demand more from games. That is what competators see as the biggest thread from Nintendo. They know Nintendo is known for raising the bar in the evolution of gaming as we know it. That is why the others work so hard at keeping these games out of the people's hands. If they play them, they'll demand more from the products they buy. Even if they bought one Zelda game, put it down, and never touched another Nintendo product, they would still mentally demand more from any games they played in the future and be disappointed when something else didn;t stack up. That could lead to that person not spending as much on future game purchases. I believe this is what we will see in the coming year. Namely, Nintendo reaching out to these untrained gamers. Using Americanized advertising as a way to get their games into the hands of the untrained public, and show them once and for all, that Nintendo is not just for kids.

[Kid Icarus]

I think a lot of that has to do with Yamauchi stepping down. He's known for his "Americans are stupid buisness men, and don't know what the hell they're doing" thinking, after all.

Iwata, on the other hand, probably knows the markets are hugely diffrent, and is smart enough to realize that you have to try to appeal to American gamers in diffrent ways.

[ThirdMarioBro]

Yamauchi is a genius, but it was time for him to step down. We're on the rise. Our time will come again.

[Spitfire]

Amercian's just want money...this is why I cry to return to my homeland. Where sell outs get the crap kicked out of them in the streets!
Europe: The Angery Mans Country

[ThirdMarioBro]

Geek culture has always been stronger in Europe and Aisa than in America. Over here, the macho man rules. But that way of life is changing. We will rule them all soon.