GTA3 + VC on XBox

[jollyrancher]

The current image of Nintendo as a developer of "kiddie games" does have some basis in fact. I'd say it started with the Mortal Kombat fiasco on the SNES where they got rid of all the gore, while the graphically inferior Genesis version kept it. Then you move to the N64 with 90% of the budget spent on developing platformers. Where were the fighting games on the N64??? You can blame lack of 3rd party support to some degree... but Nintendo thought they'd cover this genre by developing Super Smash Brothers... not a bad game, but no serious fighting game fan is going to be thrilled by it. Nintendo's doing a better job with the GCN of developing titles for older gamers and having more 3rd party support, but they still have to live with the image they created in the past. I almost think they'd be more successful if they got rid of their hardware unit and concentrated on what they're best at... developing great games for a younger audience.

 

[AlphaWolf]

If history has taught us anything when it comes to all computer related hardware, is that theres no room for third place. The third place always falls quickly...happened to atari, apple, cyrix, sega, and several others.

[chrono cross drama] If nintendo wants to beat fate, they're gonna have to fight with all of their soul, lest they take the route of sega. [/chrono cross drama]

And for those of you who insist that microsoft is only temporarily in the video game scene...well, they are now where sony was when the playstation first came around (albeit they have lost a bit more money, but they have taken the market just the same). Previously a non video game console company, some people didn't realy anticipate much from sony.

 

[blizz]

While I don't doubt Nintendo has the game devlopment talent to regain market share, I do doubt it's ability to market itself successfully, and to focus on what is actually required in a game for today's market.

indeed a problem that has been illustrated in this generation is an over-reliance on old franchises, whilst we may be nostalgic for the old N64 games somehow WW and Sunshine didn't cut it, I think this is because we'd essentially seen them before, tie into this their simplicity and the lack of a challenge becomes a drawback, (TOOT and Mario64 were far more challenging), but I suspect this simplicity also has a lot do with the pad design limiting button usage (the design has already proven itself to be a double edged sword, PSO is somewhat awkward, whereas Ikaruga and Burnout are relatively more straight forward to play)

in short the next generation will be very interesting as it's become rapidly apparent that Nintendo just aren't cutting the mustard in either their sales or their game design, despite claims to the contrary

 

[Tagrineth]

The current image of Nintendo as a developer of "kiddie games" does have some basis in fact. I'd say it started with the Mortal Kombat fiasco on the SNES where they got rid of all the gore, while the graphically inferior Genesis version kept it. Then you move to the N64 with 90% of the budget spent on developing platformers. Where were the fighting games on the N64??? You can blame lack of 3rd party support to some degree... but Nintendo thought they'd cover this genre by developing Super Smash Brothers... not a bad game, but no serious fighting game fan is going to be thrilled by it. Nintendo's doing a better job with the GCN of developing titles for older gamers and having more 3rd party support, but they still have to live with the image they created in the past. I almost think they'd be more successful if they got rid of their hardware unit and concentrated on what they're best at... developing great games for a younger audience.

It had some basis in fact... over a decade ago.

Mortal Kombat 2 for SNES (I have the cartridge myself) kept full gore.

And what's so kiddy about platformers? WTF? And there are fighting games on N64, but not many, and that is only because of the Cartridge decision, which alienated most third-party devs. Nintendo didn't make any of their own fighters until Smash Bros... the closest thing they had to a first-party fighter was Killer Instinct, and most KI fans enjoyed KI Gold tremendously. Oh, and I know plenty of serious fighting game fans (including one guy who's the uber-God of Capcom vs. SNK 2 on Xbox) who loves to play Smash Bros.: Melée.

 

[pandamoan]

i definitely think the gamecube got it's ass kicked all over the globe (even somewhat in japan!!), but i'd have to say nintendo isn't really in third though because:

the gameboy.

simply put they DOMINATE this market, and it is a very "fast nickles" kind of market, with huge profit margins possible, etc.

nintendo is dead. LONG LIVE NINTENDO.

not that it matters, they're the same ruthless money grubbing pricks that sony and ms are, if you owe allegiance to any corporation (short of a non-profit, i guess) then you've pretty much thrown all rational ethics out the window.

all any of them care about is the bottom line
_____________________________________

 

[Macca]

but gc is currently second worldwide?

it was neck and neck with xbox but with the recent pricedrop sales have increased everywhere

 

[AlphaWolf]

but i'd have to say nintendo isn't really in third though because:

the gameboy.

The gameboy is in a slightly different market though, they are still third in console sales. Otherwise that would be like saying nintendo is realy first, which simply isn't true.

 

[DuDe]

not that it matters, they're the same ruthless money grubbing pricks that sony and ms are, if you owe allegiance to any corporation (short of a non-profit, i guess) then you've pretty much thrown all rational ethics out the window.

What the fuck does ethics have to do with anything? It's entertainment we're talking about over here, and owing allegiance to any of the gaming companies has absolutely dick to do with ethics, all it has to do with is one's taste in games.
And yeah, gaming companies only care about the bottom line, because that's how you get profit. It's business for fuck sakes. You know, money. To buy things.
Take the red pill or something.

 

[Xade]

The gameboy is in a slightly different market though, they are still third in console sales. Otherwise that would be like saying nintendo is realy first, which simply isn't true.

No, I think they're *just* ahead, what with their total dominance over Xbox in Japan. The price drop should help around Christmas, too (£80 in England).

And, despite Mario Kart's 'kiddie' image, it's sure to sell f'ing loads of the things in the next few months.

As for the whole ethics fiasco here, as DuDe (crudely) put it, Nintendo are a business. As such, they're bound to want to make a profit for themselves. The bigger the better; they'll still invest many hundreds of millions back into their business eventually.

What would you have, pandamoan? Corporations that exist to serve the public alone, and not make any profits? Well... wave that hammer and sickle...

 

[pandamoan]

What the fuck does ethics have to do with anything? It's entertainment we're talking about over here, and owing allegiance to any of the gaming companies has absolutely dick to do with ethics, all it has to do with is one's taste in games.
And yeah, gaming companies only care about the bottom line, because that's how you get profit. It's business for fuck sakes. You know, money. To buy things.
Take the red pill or something.

it's relevant, because i think it's always pertinent to examine the ethics of anything or body you are financially endorsing.

If you pay someone to do something, then it's just like you yourself doing it.

It's very important anytime you spend money to do so in a rational, positive way, where possible.

and ethically spending money doesn't endorse communism or more importantly totalitarianism, which is what the hammer and scythe truly represented.

what i would have is monopoly controls. anti trust lawsuits that actually ended up being good for the consumer. this isn't socialism or communism, or totalitarianism at all, this is just plain good sense, and more importatntly, the only TRUE way to have a "free enterprise" economic system. Other wise it's just "economic might makes right". And dictatorship through market size is a form of tyranny just like any other.

 

[vampireuk]

Christ its a fucking game panda

 

[DuDe]

it's relevant, because i think it's always pertinent to examine the ethics of anything or body you are financially endorsing.

What in the blue hell are you on? Those are bloody game companies we're talking about over here, they have shit to do with ethics. The rest of your post is nothing but irrelevant arguments, because the core of your statement is flawed to begin with.
In short : lay off the PCP.

Edit : and why must you stuff communism into every thread your participate in? It has nothing to do with the subject.

 

[AlphaWolf]

It's very important anytime you spend money to do so in a rational, positive way, where possible.

and ethically spending money doesn't endorse communism or more importantly totalitarianism, which is what the hammer and scythe truly represented.

what i would have is monopoly controls. anti trust lawsuits that actually ended up being good for the consumer. this isn't socialism or communism, or totalitarianism at all, this is just plain good sense, and more importatntly, the only TRUE way to have a "free enterprise" economic system. Other wise it's just "economic might makes right". And dictatorship through market size is a form of tyranny just like any other.

Why don't we just do this: If we realy want something, buy it for the cheapest price available. If any entity or group of entities approaches a total monopoly, have the government split them up.

 

[Remote]

Communism is a decease and we are the cure...

 

[Xade]

I wouldn't go that far, me having a giant Soviet flag and so on (albeit mainly for the commical reaction of others as I wildly parade the thing).

Mind, panda, your views come reasonably close to that of the communist ideal. An ideal, you remember, that has thus far been totally impossible to implement succesfully, and has failed miserably (Soviet Russia, anyone?).

To examine EVERY single company, and their ethics, that you supply currency to is a completely impractical method to live you life by. Going to start examining your local grocery store's profit margins and ethical motives, are you?

Simply put, in a perfect world there wouldn't be profit, market monopoly and motive to worry about. But this is the real world, a place in which individuals exchange currency for goods, sometimes while not considering *gasp* the morality of the seller.

After all, if we're being TOTALLY honest... who really cares?

 

[pandamoan]

lol, yes it is just a game.

and i didn't stuff communism in here. i think somebody called me a socialist.

and xade, that is funny stuff. I've done the same thing (flung a flag just for the reactions). and yes there has never been an example of communism that has been implemented successfully, i quite agree.

we could have a more socialist democracy (in the nature of sweden, for instance, or ancient sparta if you wanna get historical, and a current implementation isn't enough of a foot note.

but mainly i agree with alphawolf, the government should break up monopolies:

microsoft
aol/time/warner/viacomm/blockbuster/walmart

the list goes on. right now, without government intervention these corporations are running rampant and devalueing human life solely to raise profit margins. (lowering pay rates, lowering product quality, expanding production, lowering quality control, unfair business practices, buying politicians, promoting products that are not needed in such a way that slathering consumers are hypnotized into believing that they want said product)

in a free market, without out some referees, the market isn't really free. i dare anyone in this thread to challenge wal mart or microsofts dominance. i'll give you a dollar if you're successful course, you wouldn't need *A* dollar at that point, now would you? LOL

but mainly, yeah it is just a game and not nearly as important as other areas of purchase, etc.

but i do ethically make buying decisions. I don't mind paying a little extra to buy a BETTER product made by a BETTER company who pays employees BETTER, and overall is BETTER for society.

I do eat in-n-out, as even the lowliest burger flipper there gets benefits.

i don't eat mcdonalds for the opposite reason. they won't hire ANYONE beyond part time, save the management, and even managers don't have FULL benefits. and as a result, the food tastes like garbage. In fact sometimes my leftover in-n-out garbage probably would taste a hell of alot better.

but yeah, you can eat at mcdonalds if you want, i don't really consider THEM a monopoly.

 

[DuDe]

but yeah, you can eat at mcdonalds if you want, i don't really consider THEM a monopoly.

Oh gee, thanks a lot for your approval.
By the way, AOL-Time Warner is not a monopoly. In fact, none of the companies that you listed are monopolies (except from Microsoft, but that's debatable). So I repeat, lay off the PCP.

 

[Xade]

I think it's slightly ludicrous to put Nintendo in the same bracket as those boys. For a start, other than the handheld market, Nintendo don't have any sort of monopoly whatsoever.

And the question remains: how did such companies get to be so big in the first place? More often than not, because they are (or at least were) the very best at what the do (did), on a large scale.

That said, I'm agreeable to the idea of stopping companies gaining *total* dominance. However, I don't think it fair to split companies, etc. Who says the government should be allowed to break and make companies as it sees fit?

Something needs be done, but so far, I haven't seen a realistic solution.



... and, er, yeah... Vice City... :sleeping:

 

[pandamoan]

I think it's slightly ludicrous to put Nintendo in the same bracket as those boys. For a start, other than the handheld market, Nintendo don't have any sort of monopoly whatsoever.

And the question remains: how did such companies get to be so big in the first place? More often than not, because they are (or at least were) the very best at what the do (did), on a large scale.

That said, I'm agreeable to the idea of stopping companies gaining *total* dominance. However, I don't think it fair to split companies, etc. Who says the government should be allowed to break and make companies as it sees fit?

Something needs be done, but so far, I haven't seen a realistic solution.



... and, er, yeah... Vice City... :sleeping:

lol, pcp makes you physically violent, maybe you are searching for a hallucinogen? That seems to be your implication. Maybe you mean gypsum weed?

just a thought.

and nintendo certainly is a monopoly in the handheld market. they have no real competition as of right now.

and if BLOCKBUSTER isn't a monopoly, maybe my definition is off. There's no other video chain but blockbuster in california.

and blockbuster is a part of viacomm, which is a part of.....etc etc. so yeah, these corporations are in many ways by most definitions, monopolies.



but i will lay off the pcp, as it can really wreak havoc on your body, and is not primarily a hallucinogen anyway...

 

[DuDe]

and nintendo certainly is a monopoly in the handheld market. they have no real competition as of right now.

and if BLOCKBUSTER isn't a monopoly, maybe my definition is off. There's no other video chain but blockbuster in california.

Your definition is indeed off.
The fact that Nintendo doesn't have any competition in the handheld probably has something to do with the fact that no one else manufactures handheld consoles that can compete with the GBA game wise. No one stops Sega/Microsoft/Sony from creating a handheld, nor does Nintendo prevent the competition.
There might not be chains that compete Blockbuster, but there sure are small video store all around California. If Blockbuster was the only vendor of video cassetes, it would've been a monopoly.