Nintendo Revolution

Nekra · Post by **Nekra** » Wed May 18, 2005 10:50 pm

[quote="sneaky ninja";p="497297"]
Nekra should just give up making posts.[/quote]

That was a little rude, i've been trying really hard not to get insulting with my posts.

sneaky ninja · Post by **sneaky ninja** » Thu May 19, 2005 12:04 am

Sorry, but it just seemed a stupid thing to say. Nintendo should stop making consoles because they'er not as popular as other companies'? It's not like they put out a bad product. Far from it. There's no reason they should quit what they do because they don't sell as much as other companies. If everyone did that, then there would be like...one or two main manufacturers per product. That doesn't make much sense, does it?

billf · Post by **billf** » Thu May 19, 2005 12:08 am

Sneaky Ninja is right. Although Nintendo didn't sell that many units, they still comparitively made a lot of money, more money per unit sold than MS, who actually lost money on every system sold and only recently started to make a profitt from the XBox Division in the last quarter of 2004. They, however, are still in the red, and there's no way I want Microsoft to stop making the XBox.

Mista · Post by **Mista** » Thu May 19, 2005 12:51 am

Exactly. A lot of people said Gamecube will be the death of Nintendo. Now they're saying that for the Revolution. But it's exactly as billf said. Nintendo makes more money on each console sold than their competition.

FireAza · Post by **FireAza** » Thu May 19, 2005 4:11 am

I sometimes get the feeling that Nintendo does the wacky things they do because they enjoy doing it, money be damned! And that's why I love them so dearly

Amanalphion · Post by **Amanalphion** » Thu May 19, 2005 10:32 am

As long as there are Zelda and Metroid games, I will continue to buy Nintendo systems.

Mista · Post by **Mista** » Thu May 19, 2005 12:31 pm

[quote="Amanalphion";p="497609"]As long as there are Zelda and Metroid games, I will continue to buy Nintendo systems.[/quote]

Which is why Nintendo is still making consoles.

Nekra · Post by **Nekra** » Thu May 19, 2005 12:36 pm

sadly though i cant think of a single genre defining Nintendo game. occasionally a third party comes out with something but mostly new ideas are tried out on the other platforms then ported to Nintendo. Simply put i dont like nintendo their entire marketing and design play seems intent on ignoring the 18 to 30 gamer braket, which in all fairness is the core gamer braket.

Mista · Post by **Mista** » Thu May 19, 2005 12:46 pm

That's what I like about Nintendo games. They don't make games in specific genres. Look at Metroid: "First Person Adventure game". No other game like it. Or Zelda: "Action RPG" What about Smash Brothers. You could call it a fighting game, but it's nothing like fighting games. Mario 64 basically defined the 3-D platformer, and didn't the original Mario define the 2-D platformer too?

Just because it's doesn't have blood and sex doesn't mean 18+ can't play it. Me and my friends are all either near 18 or over and we still have urges to play Smash Brothers.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Thu May 19, 2005 3:29 pm

And I'm 22 getting close to 23 and own a gamecube and plan to most likely buy a Revolution. But I know what you mean about the "18 to 30" bracket, Nekra. Not all people in that age group but the "typical" person that defines what is marketed to that group, same as the phrase "old people"... I think I recall saying in another thread that FOCUSING on marketing to that group is why I don't like the XBoxes...

... besides, it's not the "core gamer bracket", it's the "biggest buyer of games". Big difference.

Nekra · Post by **Nekra** » Thu May 19, 2005 9:12 pm

Strucking, same difference, and mista Genre defining doesn't mean sticking to one genre it meas coming up with a whole new way to play the games. You are more likely to find that bizarre game that comes up with a whole new game type on the PS or the Xbox then you are on the GC. Ok granted even greater chance on the PC but i personnally see the PC as the true Gamers first choice with the console being a occasional fun gimmick.

Mista · Post by **Mista** » Thu May 19, 2005 9:30 pm

What about the change from 2-D side scrolling Metroid to the new 3-D First Person adventure Metroid? Isn't that Genre defining? Before Zelda came out there wasn't any other adventure game with Z-Targeting. They came up with a whole new way to play the game, why change it if it works? It's not like this was way in the past, it was only a couple years ago. What's so Genre defining on the X-Box or the PC?

billf · Post by **billf** » Thu May 19, 2005 9:49 pm

Nintendo pretty much defined not only the 3D platformer game with the N64, but also the party game with Mario Party and Super Smash Bros.

Granted Mario 64 may look a lot different than Prince of Persia, but essentially they're both 3D platform games.

Nintendo was also the first system to successfully bring a first person shooter to a console with GoldenEye and Perfect Dark. Sure they weren't first party games, but they were exclusive to the N64.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Thu May 19, 2005 10:22 pm

Strucking, same difference

Nekra, start elaborating.

What about the change from 2-D side scrolling Metroid to the new 3-D First Person adventure Metroid? Isn't that Genre defining?

And probably killing a great kind of game on a "decked" (not portable) console forever ...

Mista · Post by **Mista** » Thu May 19, 2005 11:43 pm

It's not Nintendo's fault that all the other companies join in on a new fad...

Real Life Forums

Nintendo Revolution

Who is online