I'd hesitate in saying that any system has more original games then any other system.
In all honesty, none of the systems have particularly original games, most are just sequels of popular franchises with minimal changes to the graphics/gameplay or story.
No, you just don't like it when I dislike your opinions. I respect your right to an opinion, you not respecting my right to an opinion on other opinions just cements your hypocricy.
I never said they didn't. I said Mario is single handedly responsible for the modern platformer. It revolutionised games. Nintendo, like it or not, revolutionised gaming. The light gun, the platformer, the stealth game (Metal Gear originally).
Well, there's no denying that the original NES was THE console when it came to originality, but what I was disputing was that that originality somehow carried over to GC, which a lot of people seem to think.
I agree. Nintendo definetly was the "original" in many aspects. However, just because Nintendo started out original with the NES (which yes, revolutionized gaming) doesn't mean that they've stayed original.
Gamecube hasn't done much more than PS2 and Xbox have done in that department. Like I said earlier, each console has its share of original titles.
If we're being technical, the characters that Nintendo keep 're-hashing' (although they're still doing it a hell of a lot better than anyone else in my opinion) are the ones who have right to be. Sony fans say "They can't beat the innovative God of War" which to me was just another hack and slash platformer. It more or less wouldn't have existed were it not for Mario laying the way.
That's true. Nintendo seems to be the only company that can rehash their characters in so many games and still make them good. How many Mario games have come out? And how many are good? Just about all of them.
I see what you mean by Mario laying the way, but I still can't think "If it weren't for Mario or Nintendo, games wouldn't be the way they are." Because the way I think about things, if Mario or Nintendo didn't exist, some other company would have come along and done the same thing.
I don't even think it's possible to compare the originality of games. I don't it's fair to say, "Oh, well this game is more original than that game." like some people tend to do. I think there's a clear line: a game is either original or not original. Sure, some original games are going to borrow elements from other popular games, but that doesn't make them un-original. Hell, if games didn't take features from other good games, not one would improve.
I'm not sure, though, how long Nintendo can keep a competing with Sony and Microsoft. Their constant re-releasing of certain characters has begun to get old, even though, like I said, they are still good games. The gaming community as a whole doesn't recognize this, I think, as it shows with Gamecube's sales.
That frightens me, because I think of Nintendo, even if they aren't competing closely in sales, they are always raising the bar in innovation (i.e. the Revolution controller). And this forces other companies to raise the bar in innovation as well.
I'm not saying that no other company could have done it, I'm saying Nintendo did. Nintendo developed a way of escaping, a form of fun escapism.
Some random gamesmaker one day thought "Hey! Wouldn't it be good if we just made games more like real life?!" Which defeats the purpose. Nintendo have never been kiddy, nor did they get kiddy. They just realise what the point of making games is; to have fun and have escapism. I've got nothing against games that are more 'real' than Mario, Marioparty, Metroid or something, but I never get as bored with games that are designed for fun as I do with games designed to make you go "WOW! I can ride a bicycle!"
There's a big misconception about realism, you see.
Realism is great if it adds to the gaming experience, it's not great JUST because it's realistic. Deus Ex has realism that ADDS to the game. Halo has realism in that you can just carry two guns, where's the fun there? People go "OH IT'S SO REAL!" So? It's not fun is it? You've got a medium in which to bring your imagination to life, why worry about "Hmm, she couldn't do that if it were real." IT'S NOT REAL. In a world where 'real' gets more ugly every day, people should be doing more things like Nintendo in allowing an escape from it all.
There will come a time when GTA's etc, won't be fun. Because the world outside will actually be exactly the same. You won't be escaping, you'll be playing what you can live. You can't go fight Bowser with a giant hammer can you? You can only do that in games and THAT will always be more fun that ejaculating over the fact that you can enter buildings or ride a bicycle.
Nintendo GET it. They always have and they always will, gamers who play games for reasons that they were created, will always get this. Fanboys who will buy a new PS2 because it has a scratch-your-ass, cook an egg processor, won't.
Please. Hypocrisy? I respect the opinions of those who respect mine. But you on the other hand seem to take great pleasure in the degradation of other opinions than your own.
You see EVERYONE who debates with you should have the right say what you said to me, to you. It makes me laugh that you deem yourself so morally righteous that you don't even acknowledge such an obvious and fatal flaw.
Alpha. Look in the mirror. Read your quote aloud. And just how much of a hypocrite and cynic you truly are.
Yeah, I agree. Realism is only good if it adds to the game experience, not just because it's there.
However, there are very, very few games that are realistic. GTA? I wouldn't call it realistic. A normal day for me doesn't involve body armor, prostitutes, and hitting police men over the head with a golf club (Okay, so that may be kind of true...)
I see what you mean with too much realism, too. Nintendo will never be in danger of that.
It all comes down to what kind of game you like. Gran Turismo? Not my kind of thing. Burnout Revenge? Hellz yes.
However, just because something is quote unquote "realistic", a game, doesn't mean it can't be an escape. Like I said, Gran Turismo is recognized as realistic by most gamers, and some people love that, because, yeah, the game may be realistic, but how often do you get to drive a race car at speeds of excess 100 mph?
That's what I mean about "realistic." To me, a realistic game would be where you got up in the morning (probably still tired), went to school, didn't like school, went to work, didn't like work. Oh, yeah, and you might want to throw in getting fired somewhere there.
That would betaking it too far. It will never happen, and it hasn't happened. GTA isn't "realistic" to me. Not even Gran Turismo, in that sense.
Nintendo will always create the games they are good at making. It seems very few companies make the games like Nintendo does, so I think it is important that Nintendo stay in the game, just for a bit of variety.
Well let's respect the fact that your first paragraph is an assumption, not-so cleverly laid out at the start of your post to give you some kind of false base.
Then let's realise that the second paragraph is also you assuming that I deem myself something that I do not. Not too good at this are you? Everyone has the right to say whatever they want to me. People, eg: you, don't like it when I say whatever I like right back at them. We're all entitled to opinion, if mine is an opinion on yours, deal with it.
Let's also realise that your last part is another assumption, wrong to boot.
it can be argued that Nintendo suffered in the last 2 console "wars" because many of their top executives have quite a strict ethical code that prevented many of the more violent games that fueled the massive rise in the games industry...so they concentrated on what they do better than anyone...simple fun and unoffensive games like mario, zelda, super monkey ball etc
its only very recently that nintendo have allowed games like resident evil
i think they suffered more from bad marketing during the ps2, n64, dreamcast era than having bad games
KMC Community Forums
Oct 16th, 2005 10:32 PM
