Nintendo is right, but you're wrong

[Haver]

This is a pretty difficult task. I'm going to explain a philosophy to you guys, and it's going to save you two or so years of complaining and whining and just generally being wrong.

Firstly, I know where you guys are coming from. You've been brought up on NGC and internet forums, and you've compiled your own philosophy from their teachings. I wasn't so much brought up on internet forums, but I read NGC and NOM religiously. Greystation? Yeah, I dug that. I grew up believing that Nintendo was the holy fucking grail. A company that was almost charitable, that could do no wrong. Everything else, however, was dogshit. PlayStation was just FIFA and guns and death. That shit wasn't right. And to an extent it still isn't.

I'm still a big Nintendo fan. I wet myself regularly at the thought of Zelda. Donkey Konga is some sort of deity to me. Mario Kart is something I breathe. Nintendo are fucking awesome, and you're right to believe that. But they're not untouchable, they are not celestial and they make the very mistakes that you hold against other platforms.

So, our first issue: what games can I play on a console that isn't made by Nintendo? I mean, it's just FIFA and guns and shit, right?

Well, you're a bit wrong there. The PlayStation 2 has lots of fun games for gamers like yourself. We've got Final Fantasy (and I know you dig all that fantasy shit!), we've got all the Japanese RPGs there, we've got Kingdom Hearts (that's an RPG which has those loveable Disney goons front and centre!), we've got the Grand Theft Autos (if you get over the violence, that truth be told, is so unrealistic that it really doesn't feel that violent - you'll find a game that's wonderfully deep and involving and expansive. I know you dreamt as a kid that you'd one day play a game where you could do anything and go anywhere - Grand Theft Auto's your game), we've got Pro Evolution Soccer (it's the best footy game out there and probably the best multiplayer game out there right now - even if you're not into football), we've got Ico and Shadow of the Colossus (you know the way Ocarina of Time felt really epic and magical? Yeah, these guys’ gots that too) and there's loads and loads of other really enjoyable games on the system: Devil May Cry, Tekken, Time Crisis, Gran Turismo etc etc.

The PlayStation 2 isn’t just about 50 Cent: Bulletproof or True Crime or FIFA or other licensed crap. There's lots of stuff there for us. So by all means play your Nintendo but PlayStation has lots to offer too. I know it's hard to get over the image of the 30 year-old pikey who holds up the queue trading in stolen second-hand games, or the 18 year-old Chav who is actually really there solely for FIFA - but if you can, there's hours of top-draw gaming at your fingertips.

And the same goes for the Xbox. Xbox Live, for example, is probably the best thing to happen to gaming for a good five years. I know how much you want to play Smash Bros online with your voice-chat - and that's a reality right now on Xbox Live. There's a real sense of community, and it's really not that expensive either. It's only £40 or so a year. That's the cost of a GameCube game from those bastards at GAME! It's not that hard to set-up either. And I know this is pretty irrelevant bearing in mind that the Xbox 360 hits in three days, but there's lots and lots of great games to play on the Xbox. Again, it's not just about 50 Cent: Bulletproof or Juiced or whatever. There's Halo and Halo 2, which have the very same vibe and atmosphere that Metroid Prime does so well - and Halo 2 is an absolutely dream online. This is what Metroid Prime Online should be like! And there's KOTOR (that's a Star Wars RPG) and Fable (again, that fantasy shit that you love!) and Outrun 2 (arcadey Sega racer with beautiful blue skies) and Jade Empire and Project Gotham and as you say - a lot of PC conversions. Which is a good thing! I, for one, don't have a very good PC. So I can play Doom 3, Morrowind, Half-Life 2 and loads and loads of others without forking out for the latest ATI or whatever. And going back to Xbox Live, most games have some sort of online mode. So there's plenty of longevity. You've got your hardcore online titles, too: Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six etc etc. As with the PlayStation 2, there's lots of fun to be had here.

Yes, it's big! But not really. It's hardly noticeable. It's not really a factor once you've sat down and started playing Lego Star Wars or Far Cry or Conker.

So I hope we've established that there's lots of fun games to play. I know that games consoles cost a lot of money, and I'm not asking that you go out and buy a Xbox 360 or a PlayStation 2. What I'm asking for is an appreciation; an understanding.

But I guess for that to happen, I'm going to have to tackle the second big issue: graphics over gameplay. I think this issue becomes most prominent when the next-gen arrives; it was there when the GameCube launched and it's here now that the Revolution is on the horizon. I'm going to establish a concept: graphics are gameplay. Graphics are fundamental. Video games are visual entertainment. You can't have 'gameplay' - whatever that is, it is such a loose description of something I can't define - and not 'graphics'. Graphics can make an experience. Graphics made The Wind Waker. Graphics made Metroid Prime. Graphics made Killer 7. Graphics made Ocarina of Time. None of those games would have been anything without their visuals. It's because aesthetics are crucial to establishing an atmosphere. And an atmosphere is crucial. Every game you play is an experience. And an atmosphere is a crucial element of any experience. So what I'm trying to say is, there's no one ANYWHERE with a philosophy of graphics over gameplay. Because it cannot exist.

Games can be absolutely fantastic without pretty visuals, but equally, Games can be absolutely fantastic as a result of pretty visuals.

Now, the argument here rests with the progression of visuals as opposed to innovation. That is what I've inferred. Now, before the Nintendo DS came along, or before the Revolution came along, did you honestly want to do away with the standard controller? It's not something that really crossed my mind. Having a Nintendo DS, I can say that new control methods are fucking awesome. And yes, the Nintendo DS doesn't have the best visuals in the world, yet still has brilliant games. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an effort to create better visuals. Nintendo are offering something with the Revolution, and I want a piece. But there are certainly alternatives. The better the graphics, the better the experience, the better the gameplay. The Xbox 360 or the PS3 can offer that experience. Ocarina of Time, running on a PS3, would be a better experience than it was on the N64. It's simply more stimulating.

Nintendo have taken a path and it's going to be a really fun path. But don't jump on others for not following them. They're doing you a favour. They're offering something else. There's certainly going to be great games for the PS3 and Xbox 360, and enhanced visuals will in turn enhance the experience offered by those games. Remember too, that their power isn't only used for visuals - but bigger worlds and more enemies on screen.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: don't limit yourself with stupid philosophies. There is no 'graphics over gameplay'. There are brilliant, brilliant games on other platforms. Don't pull the sequel argument - look at Mario. In addition, look at Katamari and locoroco. Look at EyeToy and Xbox Live. Innovation comes in many forms.

I will join you online with the Revolution, but when I do, I hope that there is not discussion of PlayStation 2 and its demographic or its games. I hope there is no mention of 'XCocks'.

Throw your fucking fist up.
(This hasn't been thought out, I have written it in half an hour, it is a cold, wintry morning and I won't edit it. So have fun, and discuss nicely. I'll try and respond to your discussions.)

(It also means that I can include things I meant to include in this post, but forgot.)

[ViPeR]

Well i'd have to agree with you on the part of not dissing other consoles, I have owned and still own the consoles of this gen and have tasted pretty much what each has to offer. They're all different and unique in thier own right, however it is down to personal preference and just because you don't like the games on another platform doesn't make it bad. It's the old 'your opinion doesn't equal fact' argument.

The fact that I sold my PS2 was not because it had bad games, it just let me down on the technical side way too often and I couldn't be doing with its tempermental attitude anymore. I would have liked to have played some of the games it had to offer but it was not to be. I believe unless you're super rich you can only really afford one or two consoles and their games in one gen. For me it was the GC and Xbox.

As for the old graphics over gameplay argument, sure graphics help make a better experience. However the game has to actually be good in the first place otherwise it's just a pretty piece of shit (True Crime anyone?). I define gameplay as the factors, which contribute to the overall experience. I suppose graphics would be considered part of the gameplay, along with sound, controls, presentation etc. Graphics, for me, aren't a defining factor in a purchase though and never will be. I do agree though, there is no definate graphics over gameplay argument. People seem to use it as an excuse to pass off shit games with good graphics and vice versa. I mean you never get people saying "I bought Hitman 2 because the orchestrial score rules!". As far as they're concerned it's much easier to compare how something plays to how it looks, which is wrong. They should both be considered as they are both a part of the gameplay.

[DCK]

It seems to me that some here created the wrong impression on you.

I don't consider myself a fanboy. I disagree with it seems everybody here about HDTV, I despise Mario Party and Nintendo's attitude towards gamers sometimes and I honestly looked forward to playing the Xbox 360.

There are loads of games on other consoles that I love - Pro Evolution Soccer, Halo, Jade Empire, Gran Turismo and most PS2 RPGs - I wish I had them all. I don't have them all, I simply don't have the money for it. I've grown up with Nintendo, and with Metroid, Zelda and all Nintendo franchises which I'll still have over others game anyday (just a matter of taste I developed), so I decided that the Cube was the right choice for me. I don't consider the other consoles bad at all - I just think the Cube is better.

When it comes to graphics, you're right, but not completely. I realize that Metroid Prime 2 and Resident Evil 4 wouldn't be half the games they are without their visuals. However, etter experience creates better gameplay, true, but better graphics is better experience is too simple. Experience isn't just graphics, it's the way in which the game's atmosphere is brought too you - that is more than just polygon count and texture resolution. If the world you're jumping around in is a coherent, living world, (like when you see little butterflies flying to the sun in Beyond Good & Evil and schools of fish swimming around in MP2) it means much more to me than that PGR 3's cars a made out of 60 000 polygons. By your reasoning, any developer with loads of money to invest in graphics automatically makes great games because the graphics create such a fantastic experience. Making a game is more than making the graphics, it's making worlds that the player wants to explore. Graphics help with that, they are required maybe, but there is much more good design required to make it work. Any home console made in the last 10 years is able to make such an experience, so to me the point in improving graphics becomes less important every generation.

Of course I wouldn't say that if there was no change Nintendo is trying to make. But the DS and the Revolution have changed my opinion, and now I've spent quite some time playing the Xbox 360 I can say definetely that I think Nintendo's way is better.

It seems to me you think there are lots of people here who think the other consoles are rubbish, and there are some who think that way. Most of us here appreciate other games and other ideas though, but just think Nintendo is better. That's what you get when you go to a Nintendo forum.

[Cheapshot]

Why are you assuming that people here don't know of what you're trying to point out already?

None of us here are that fucking naive anymore, sheesh.

[DCK]

He's actually talking to some annoying fanboys that pop up sometimes. But he's totally missing the point as he makes it sound like he's talking to everyone here and those fanboys would never read more than three lines of his post.

[Cheapshot]

He's actually talking to some annoying fanboys that pop up sometimes. But he's totally missing the point as he makes it sound like he's talking to everyone here and those fanboys would never read more than three lines of his post.

Uh-huh, pretty much.

[system_error]

I am a FANBOY and I read it and on many points he is right. Of course every console offers unique advantages especially in the variety of games. I would be cool to finally say a racing game like Gran Turismo on a Nintendo console but I doubt it will happen. Same goes for some JRPGs which will be most likely exclusive for the PS3 and also GTA: Next City. If I think I miss many great games if I don't have a certain console I buy it.

So far only Nintendo made me think like that. I want Animal Crossing, Mario, Zelda, ... but I can live without GTA, Halo, ...
Right now I am going to get a Revolution and probably a PS3.

[Mundi]

I rarely see anyone acting like youre pointing out and the part abput graphics sounds like an excuse to take graphics over gameplay by saying graphics is gameplay, i would like to point out that graphics don´t make fun quests just more realistic and graphics won´t make better game experience (talking,funny conversations,fun events happeining in games) graphics make the game look prettier so people like it more, I´m not saying ignore graphics, i know make better athomsphere in the games and make things look cool but graphics and gameplay are things that should be used together not replace each other

[DCK]

I think Haver is overreacting on the fact that he likes the Xbox 360 more than the rest of us here, and he blames it on us not being open minded. That's not true, the Xbox 360 just isn't convincing enough for me and most others on this forum.

[Mundi]

I think Haver is overreacting on the fact that he likes the Xbox 360 more than the rest of us here, and he blames it on us not being open minded. That's not true, the Xbox 360 just isn't convincing enough for me and most others on this forum.

ahhh so it´s the your-just-narrowminded-because-you-don´t-like-my-console mind trick :p

[Pestneb]

to the point about the controller, I actually did get annoyed with the controller this generation. it works, but it was lacking. and yeah, I felt that before the DS was suggested/announced.
I don't mind the current controller, but I don't like the form. tbh I don't think the revolution controller has gone far enough, but its a step in the right direction. the ds was a small step, the revolution is a slightly more confident step, I'm looking forward to the third and fourth steps. I don't like the contraints of current controllers, even when I was playing on the nes/snes a large part of me wanted a more interactive experience than the one provided by a controller, something more natural.
now the revolution controller is being released hopefully that will be provided. it might flop, if it does I won't care, I just won't play games anymore (I've already stopped playing as much, from several hours a week to probably a couple of hours in the last 6 months)

graphics wise, the increase in graphics needs to slow down, and it is. we've reached a point at which microsoft appears to believe we will hit the limits of 480i screens by the end of this console generation (Hence the HD drive). that says to me that next generation a change will NEED to be made, as graphics will have peaked (ie full 1080p)
Sound will most likely easily peak this coming gen (360,PS3,rev).
so with output exhausted it leaves input only. Nintendo have pre empted that.

[Hero-of-Time]

I think Haver is overreacting on the fact that he likes the Xbox 360 more than the rest of us here, and he blames it on us not being open minded. That's not true, the Xbox 360 just isn't convincing enough for me and most others on this forum.

Exactly. Myself and others have often talked about how the graphics of this gen are pretty much sweet enough already when developers put their mind to it. Im not ready for an upgrade just yet if its just for graphics and thats where the Revolution comes in for me.

I will admit im a massive Nintendo fan and have followed them since the NES days. Now when the GBA came out i bought one straight away but not an SP as it did nothing spectacular that my old GBA couldnt. The DS then came along and I snapped it up. Not just because of the graphics but because it added something new to a gaming experience. The same that the Revo is doing to the console world( hopefully ).

Im not completely biased as I do own a PS2 and still have a PSONE. I didnt buy the PSP because it was too expensive for a handheld and all it is is a handheld machine that has good graphics but still no amazing games. Sure when decent games come out i may invest but until then the DS has it all. The decent graphics, awesome games and unique style of gameplay which is why I think that it is starting to take off so well all over the world.

Point is that I have been playing games for years now like i siad earlier i started back in the NES days and it has come to a point where prettier graphics for a higher price just doesnt cut it for me anymore. Im looking for something that will give me a great experience but not just in the visual department.

END RANT

[Bowser57]

ahhh so it´s the your-just-narrowminded-because-you-don´t-like-my-console mind trick :p

But... I'm pretty sure his console of the moment is the DS.

[The3rdChildren]

There's too much text in this thread.

[Innovance]

DCK i have to say given your sentiments about graphics i dont understand how you are so pro HD. There was an article at IGN (when they were campaigning for HD) and julian suttin of factor 5 said all the things you want out of graphics are much easier to achieve using a lower resolution and are more believable due to the lower resolution (flaws are not as easily seen) and what dont you like about their attitude towards gamers? (just out of curiosity)

To the creator of this topic i think for the most part your preaching to the wrong people, but i can only speak for myself. The graphics over gameplay is both a complicated and simple argument. Many will sight better visuals as better immersion and i will simply reply that were people not immersed in the game when they were playing snake on their nokias?? Graphics are important but next gen graphics arent so important that they should overshadow gameplay.

Then we move onto HD. HD is only truly beneficial when you are using larger screens where 480i looks poor, so why do we need to enforce the jump when we havent mastered 480i or p?? Why do we need to enforce the jump when we can barely keep up graphically with PCs and they are designed at much higher resolutions??

My point is you need to view the arguments that people put across. If they are saying HD penetration then they are simply blind fanboys. Sorry. If you truly understand nintendos apparent philosophies most of their decision makes sense. They are driven by both profit and delivering the quality products and software to consumers. They dont always do that but that is what drives their decisions.

Last thing is i enjoy playing games, whatever system as long as they are fun and entertaining then i will play. Brand loyalty to the point that you deny yourself other quality titles is silly in my opinion. But at the same time somewhere along the line nintendo became my favorite software company so i decided i would purchase their consoles. But if i had the money i would have a PS2 and Xbox and a top of the line PC to experience all games, but as it stands i cant even afford to play the great titles on GC.

[Haver]

I know that some of you already have a balanced outlook, and yes, it is an open letter of sorts to those who're blinded by certain things. So don't take it personally. It is certainly not fueled by any 360-bias, in fact, I totally forgot about its existence until I started writing about Xbox games. If you read it through, the Xbox 360 stuff reads like it was tacked on, and it really was. I'm enthusiastic about the Xbox 360, but equally enthusiastic about the Revolution and the PS3. As Bowser57 points out, I'm gay for my DS right now.

I guess this diatribe is really directed at the sort of person who would think that my post was a cleverly disguised Xbox 360 fanboyism.

Viper: Totally agree. It's all about balance; a harmony of stimulating visuals and what I would call gameplay mechanics. Games like Super Mario Bros and Wario Ware are magnificent without the visuals that Xbox 360 and PS3 can offer, but there's an overwhelming majority of modern games that can benefit from that capacity. And yes, when it comes down to genuine technical faults then that's really not on. As we've seen the Xbox 360, however isolated the incidents may be.

dabookerman: That's a good strategy.

DCK: I agree. There has to be harmony. Without the 'gameplay', pretty visuals are useless. But equally, games with well-produced 'gameplay' can be stifled by a lack of atmosphere or a lack of immersion. Visuals, as well as audio, I feel, are key to that sense of immersion. After all, it's about losing yourself. The Xbox 360 and PS3 can offer both fantastic visuals and fantastic 'gameplay'. So there's always that option there. The Revolution is very exciting, as is the DS, but I feel that we shouldn't confine ourselves to its ideals.

Mundi: Absolutely. Graphics are gameplay - they are an aspect of a cohesive unit. One should not replace the other. And regards to discussion that would concern 'graphics over gameplay' - it is pretty much the subtext of every thread on this board. Not every thread, but a majority. My message would be enjoy yourself, get hyped about Nintendo games and consoles but don't drag yourselves down by getting on at other platforms or companies or philosophies.

DCK: As mentioned a bit further up, the Xbox 360 wasn't really something I was thinking about when I typed this out. However, a lot of the Xbox 360-shunning on this board has brought up the whole Innovation vs. Graphical progression and Graphics vs. Gameplay arguments. Even if it is not explicit. Let it be known that I don't plan on picking up a 360 until sometime next year. It is not something that is vital, I feel. The launch has been something of a disappointment for me.

Hero-of-Time: There's always going to be an effort to progress graphically. That's human instinct, to improve things that already exist. Technology improved rapidly in the 90s. We jumped from 2D to poor 3D to better 3D. The changes aren't going to be as obvious as we get closer to graphical perfection. But that's pretty much the nature of technology. It sounds like you have a problem with capitalism. As I said, Nintendo are offering one thing. Other platforms are offering something else.

Guy: smells.

Innovance: Where are these mythical games in which graphics overshadow gameplay? Are you talking about True Crime or whatever? They're piss poor games to start with. They got the graphics part right and the 'gameplay' bit wrong. I doubt that it was a conscious decision.

[Jamba]

Hmmm... i'll try and keep this short.

Good games rule, no matter who makes them or what console they are on. However some games have certain demographics of genres which people use to choose their consoles also. I know I do.

I like graphics as much as the next gamer (everyone does in honesty). However there are many things I value more, like design and design effort/input. Best example I can think of is World of Warcraft. It is a beautiful game and is my favourite MMO, however when released, reviewers pointed out that it wasn't going to kill your GPU. But WoW is a very graphics heavy game. It is insanely stylised and tremendously atmospheric. But this is all down to the design; I could spend hours just looking at the game cos it's a masterpiece!

Many competing MMOs have much more realistic graphic and are technically very GPU heavy. StarWars Galaxies and Everquest II for instance. They aren't anywhere near as nice to look at. Sure some of the water effects are a bit pretty now and again but it just bites in comparison.

Personally I don't think that we need more power right now because we will just get more light sources, more polys and more enemies on screen. If designers and artists don't pull they god-damn finger out they can make better looking games, without anymore power.

It's what I call cheap game creation and it makes my skin crawl!!!!! This was originally the reason why I didn't get a PS2 btw, cos I just saw too many awful PSX games.

[Haver]

Actually, you've reminded me to emphasise how technological progression is just as valuable as innovation. Imagine Ocarina of Time, with a world ten times larger, with ten times more NPCs. Graphics are only one element of technological progression.

[CooInTheZoo]

Haver that was a really clever well written piece, totally agree.

[Mr. Bananagrabber]

I agree entirely Haver. However, I dont like the fact that you think you are the fucking dogs bollocks and everyone else on Revo Europe is a Nintendo whore.

[Haver]

As I said, it's an open letter. It applies to who it applies to. And I would submit that not everyone who has an opinion and has the confidence to put that into words thinks of themself as the 'dogs bollocks'.

Although I do.

Only joking!

[Hero-of-Time]

Hmmm... i'll try and keep this short.

Good games rule, no matter who makes them or what console they are on. However some games have certain demographics of genres which people use to choose their consoles also.

Personally I don't think that we need more power right now because we will just get more light sources, more polys and more enemies on screen. If designers and artists pull they god-damn finger out they can make better looking games, without anymore power.



Well wrote I totally agree.

[Haver]

Can we really speak for developers?

What about bigger worlds? What about better AI?

[Hero-of-Time]

I do agree with certain aspects that you have mention Haver. Things like better AI do make for a better experience but im a bit unsure about the bigger worlds.

Take Banjo Tooie for example. The first was great it was compact but the 2nd was too big for its own good and it was a hassle to play. If used in the correct way it could make things better but thats the same with everything I suppose.

Good first post by the way Haver very insightful and worth discussing.

[Jamba]

Yeah I'm feeling the better AI, better physics and also most importantly more complicated game engines. But to justify my point earlier, I just don't think that cranking up the GPU power is going to make anything better.

Actually, just to throw a spanner in the works, there is quite a good arguement to say that if developers aren't constrained by limitted hardware they will get lazy and just make messy code, badly designed characters etc. I find the end of a generation quite interesting really because devs are working really hard and cranking out some really impressive games considering the hardware.

From what I remember, this is one of the ways that the console industry gives the PC industry a foot-up as it is often constrained console developers that manage to find new ways of squeezing hardware.

[McMad]

Good post, a bit on the long side for my likings. Though as a few have said before me this doesn't really belong on these forums, you should go tell it to the Nintendo fanboys on NOE forums that bum anything that is branded 'Nintendo'. Too bad those wankers will not read anything unless it is about how good Nintendo are or how the PSP rocks (so they can reply and flame the poster). Bastards.

[Zero Seven]

before the Nintendo DS came along, or before the Revolution came along, did you honestly want to do away with the standard controller?

When I was known as HellKnight on C-E, before the revs controls where revealed, i was already saying on the forums (if anyone can remember) that I was hoping they change the control scheme for the Rev (wasnt expecting a dream come true, just a change that is differnt enough to feel fresh as opposed to how todays controllers are because to be honest, I dont think any analog controller has been great for me except the N64 controller or the DC controller. After that i just got bored of them and no i didnt have any problems with duel analog controls at all nor did i have problem with aiming in any FPS (obviously did at the start of getting used to duel analogs), I just didnt like it and felt it was boring. Also in other topics on the rev topic "Nintendo is Right" i also express my Opinion about how i was going off games because personally i felt it got old and wanted a new way to play my games so the answer is Yes I did want to do away with the current controls.

however I completely agree with you on the fact that the Xbox 360 and PS3 will have great games and what you said about the original xbox, being able to play Doom 3 and such i also agree with you there, i own an xbox and have a terrible PC, thats why i bought Doom 3 and i only own an xbox and gamecube so i can only express my opinion on how the xbox is a really fantastic system as is the GC, i adored my GC before i got my xbox and i still do but the xbox is in a tie with my GC for what was my fav console.

I just wanted something new after awhile.

[King_Mushroom]

I'm alowed to give them a god-like status because in my opinion they make better games than there compeditors. End of story.

But really the one reason a truely rank Nintendo number one is Zelda.

[masaki86]

You've been brought up on NGC

No. I, and many here have been brought up over the course of 6 generations of gaming systems:

Pre-Nes, Nes/Master System, Mega Drive/SNES, SS/PSXN64, DC/PS2/Xbox/Gamecube, Xbox360/PS3/Rev .

We have seen the rise and fall of many companies and we have seen one thing stand out. Nintendo are always a safe bet when looking for innovation. Nintendo are always a safe bet for clean wholesome fun. We don't care if it is kiddy;

We play games for entertainment. We don't ignore games because of what some may think is questionable content. San Andreas is a PS2 game; it is brilliant. it is something you will never find on a nintendo console, and it has sold millions because of its gameplay brilliance. Sure, some may have bought it just because 'it is teh violance' but the fact is, gamers don't ignore good games.

You seem to be painting everyone in this forum with the same brush. Just because their are some fags(no offence) that act extremely fanboyish, does not mean we are all like it.

I for one couldn't give a rats ass about nintendo's joypad at this moment. All I'm looking for is that trademark nintendo game quality, and I'll be all over it like a rash. However, I will also be gaming like satan on my PS3/Xbox360. I assume many others will do so as well.

Try not to group everyone together as fanboys mate; you could end up pissing some people off.

[Innovance]

Innovance: Where are these mythical games in which graphics overshadow gameplay? Are you talking about True Crime or whatever? They're piss poor games to start with. They got the graphics part right and the 'gameplay' bit wrong. I doubt that it was a conscious decision.

Nah my point is more aimed towards the marketing strategies of console manufacturers and even their design strategies. Even nintendo has been guilty of this, anyone remember more powerful than the computers that sent man to the moon??

Microsoft have stated that the intended use of the 3 core CPU is 2 cores for graphics and 1 core for the gameplay stuff, while it would appear the only game sony had in mind while designing their console was "HD: Streaming/decoding 12 simultaneous broadcasts"

When you read initial hardware analysis' of these consoles the main point that kept creeping up is they are great for graphics but the other parts of the game (ai, physics gamelogic) are going to be difficult for developers.

That to me is pushing graphics over gameplay

[Shyguy]

Well im a nintendo fanboy and i tbh, liked this article it was a nice read and something different but still hurt my heart down there :P but you seem to have got nice responses. now try do one of these articles in a sony/M$ forum and see where u get

Mario For President :D

[Jamba]

Way to go Shyguy. The fella just asked you to stop being such a hapless biggot of a fanboy. You big up his thread and then instantly return to the type of behaviour which he is complaining about.

But then again Mario would make a better Pres than Bush.

[Haver]

As I said, it's an open letter to the kind of poster who would would claim that my original post was a carefully disguised attempt at shunning the Revolution and getting all fanboy about the Xbox 360. Don't take it personally, but read through the threads on this board and you'll find that a lot of what I've said applies. Maybe not to you, but to a lot of posters. And I was referring to NGC the magazine - you can replace those letters with any fanboy-breeding single-format mag out there.

I'm not sure to say to whoever didn't like today's controllers. Maybe try playing football at school or something?

King-Mushroom: That's an unfortunate opinion. You're missing out on games that equal and better the many brilliant games that Nintendo churn out.

masaki: Yes, Nintendo are all those things. But the other platforms offer fun and original and innovative games, too. You seem to recognise that, but others often don't.

Innovance: Technology always becomes a prominent issue in and around the transition from generation to generation. That'll cool down in a while and then it'll be up to game developers to make use of that technology.

Shyguy: Thank you. I'm sure Mr. Mario would sign the Kyoto agreement, especially after that nasty business on Delphino Island.

[Innovance]

Yeh but why does that focus have to be on how powerful the technology is. I remeber a developer saying how he was happy the first time round with xbox because microsoft actually went to developers and asked them what they wanted but he couldnt understand how they then went and ended up with the design they had for 360.

The thing is the technology race is really quite bad for the industry, especially in the way that sony and ms went about it. While there are some people who say yeh they'd end up doing multi-core, multi-threading eventually. You have to ask given the general lack of knowledge and the they'll eventually find a way sentiments floating around, how does that benefit the industry, how does that benefit creativity and innovation, how does it benefit risk taking?

They focused on graphical power to the point where developers now have to come up with ways to draw out the next gen power for things like AI and Physics. But this isnt something that developers should be having to do yet, simply because it is already expensive enough to create games as it is so why make it harder and more expensive??

Its a real shame that developers dont stand up for themselves, if they all untied they'd have a lot more power than the hardware manufacturers, and they'd be able to change the industry from the inside out. But the way things are going the industry will once again be changed from the outside in.

Sorry if my post is a lil offtopic.

[DCK]

DCK i have to say given your sentiments about graphics i dont understand how you are so pro HD. There was an article at IGN (when they were campaigning for HD) and julian suttin of factor 5 said all the things you want out of graphics are much easier to achieve using a lower resolution and are more believable due to the lower resolution (flaws are not as easily seen) and what dont you like about their attitude towards gamers? (just out of curiosity)

I sometimes don't like Nintendo's attitude that they know what gamers want and what not, like when they dropped HD, like when they announced that people get scared of too many buttons on a controller, like online is not the future and like the failed GBA <> Cube connectivity. But that's beside the point.

I'm not saying HD is the keypoint next gen. I couldn't disagree more. I'm so pro HD because I feel that HD enriches experience more than it makes graphics better. Polygon count and texture resolution don't matter much and keep on mattering less and less in the future. The resolution boosts actually creates clearer, more detailed worlds, without ugly strips of pixels that anti-aliasing couldn't smear out. We need HD to notice the difference between previous gen and next gen - I feel we're at a point where this fifty-year-old 640x480 doesn't do the graphics and the game experience justice any more. I agree with Haver that visuals can create, or even are required, to create a good experience. If Nintendo misses out on this one, they're missing a chance to make Metroid Prime and The Legend of Zelda better than they could be in 480p, and that'd be such a shame.

But let's not make this a pointless HD discussion again.

Haver, I understand what you mean. Fanboy emotions sometimes run high and it sometimes seems that there are ritual bonfires of burning PS2s in our backyard - but things aren't always what they seem.

@ Innovance: Yeah, it's true Microsoft and Sony are pushing their consoles off the gaming target and that's why the Revolution can be small and cheap.
It's mainly matter of prestige I think MS and Sony had in mind when designing their consoles, saying they have extremely powerful CPUs (and they do in theory) and that graphics are going to be amazing (but what more could they say?). The step to multicore was inevitable, it couldn't be put off to the next next generation, and it's pretty certain that the Revolution will be at least dual core. But Microsoft and Sony exaggerated, and now the architectures are very difficult, with many flaws just so they could say their consoles are (or seem to be) so powerful. It does well in marketing, it doesn't do that well in performance.

[Innovance]

Ill try to avoid a HD argument with you but i will say if your playing games on a huge screen tv then you do need HD but ED should be ok. If i remember correctly you said you had a pretty big tv but no HD, thats why your seeing what your seeing the image size is too big for the distance you are from the TV. The truth is the only reason were going HD is so that they can sell us bigger screen TVs with a decent image quality.

Anyway about your other point you are misinterpretting how nintendo reads the market coupled with media BS. The media (even supposedly pro N sites) are the ones who say nintendo said online wasnt important. When nintendo actually said they didnt feel that a suitable (profitable) model (they didnt want consumers to pay like live) was available at the time...

Sometimes ya need to look at what nintendo actauly say as opposed to what they supposedly said.

Its sorta like right now nintendo say that the console will be weaker (compared to PS3) but the graphics will be on par. Yet people quote nintendo saying. The graphics will be worse they already admitted it will be weaker, even the gaming sites who wrote down exactly what nintendo said say this.

[Edjamakated]

The first post had me thinking one word:



What?!

[Haver]

Well, I was writing for a 12+ demographic. So it's not entirely your fault.

[Kurtle Squad]

Can we really speak for developers?

What about bigger worlds? What about better AI?

Definately agree...They bragged about the Halo 2 AI, and yet, I wasn't much better than most games.

[Edjamakated]

Well, I was writing for a 12+ demographic. So it's not entirely your fault.

Ok....and that is relevant how?

[Haver]

I would imagine that anyone over the age of 12 would be able to understand my post, and as such, I came to the conclusion that you must be 11 or younger.

[Jamba]

I have to make a point about what I said earlier.

I don't think it's really devs faults that they don't maximise their potential and the potential of the machines. I think this is far more to do with the money grabbing publishers who often treat their devs like slaves. It's hard ot be creative or to live up to your own standards when you are being hounded by your backers.

[Edjamakated]

haha....well sorry to bust your bubble, but your logic is flawed.

Presuming my age off of one word is absurb. Maybe I should of followed it up, like so:

What?!

Where did this post come from?

Why are you telling us this?

What is your point?

Games are fun?

You seem to be out to prove a point that doesn't need to be proven. We already know. Your preaching to the followers here.

[Haver]

We have been through this.

[Edjamakated]

I'm sure you have, because your post begs the questions.

You don't have to answer them of course, nor do I want you to. I was just out to prove your statement regarding my age false, which I've done.

Now let by-gons be by-gons (I have no idea how to spell that).

[Konfucius]

So I finally found time to reply to this thread too.
First of all I wonder if you (Haver) intended to indirectly comment on my article or just wrote this in general to wake up all the fanboys.

Whether or not I'd like to clarify a little thing first, I used to be a Nintendo fanboy myself for some time but now I only favour Nintendo because I realized that other consoles also produce great games and that you don't need to have a radically new control method to create inventive and exciting games, but the longer a certain control method is present the more different things are invented and so the possibility of new things to be invented becomes less and less.
I wrote my article because I was disappointed what I saw graphics wise of the X-360, I didn't expect to see just some pretty nice lighting effects but much more polygons, natural movement, lots of little details but I didn't see anything of that and this together with the fact that the games looked and played very generic led me to the conclusion that beefed up graphics alone aren't improving the experience really for me next gen.
Edit: However I'm not saying that all of the graphics heavy games are bad, I'd rather play a game with nice graphics than ugly ones but it's not most important to me and I'm sure X-360 has some pretty nice games too like PGR3 I just saw a bad selection my fear however is that better graphics often just mean enhanced lighting, bigger draw distance, more shadows...

And now on to the (already much discussed) graphics vs gameplay argument, although I'm not quite sure if what I'm going to say is what you were complaining about. I think a game needs both, great graphics and great gameplay to be successful, however for me the most important factor is gameplay, sure I like nice graphics and read excitingly what's possible with new GPUs and such things, but if the gameplay fails it's often little fun to play the game while a game can still be entertaining if the graphics just do the job instead of looking great but offer very nice gameplay. I also think there should be a difference between graphics and atmosphere. I don't think that atmosphere is created by good graphics alone, good graphics can help to create a believeable atmosphere but ultimately the attention paid to details, a realistic feel and the feeling that you are in a living, breathing world are much more important than graphics alone.
Think of Doom³ - it was actually a graphics demo, I know a lot of people who played it one or two hours and were bored because it offered nothing new gameplay wise, standard weapons, your average zombie and lots of nice graphics...
On the other hand about a year ago I finally completed a Wing Commander style game from 1996 in "beautiful" voxel graphics called Schleichfahrt (Archimedian Dynasty). The controls worked very well with the keyboard although a joystick was recommended and it had an atmosphere I never felt in any other PC game (only Zelda an RE are on the same level) not even the ones that were out in 2004 and graphically far superior. It got two sequels Aquanox from I think 2001 and Aquanox 2 from 2003 and although they had much better graphics I'd choose the original without hesitation if I had to choose between them.

So my post is pretty unorganized but what I essentially try to say is that gameplay and atmosphere are the most important parts, graphics are like a little bonus, the icing on the cake.

[King_Mushroom]

As I said, it's an open letter to the kind of poster who would would claim that my original post was a carefully disguised attempt at shunning the Revolution and getting all fanboy about the Xbox 360. Don't take it personally, but read through the threads on this board and you'll find that a lot of what I've said applies. Maybe not to you, but to a lot of posters. And I was referring to NGC the magazine - you can replace those letters with any fanboy-breeding single-format mag out there.

I'm not sure to say to whoever didn't like today's controllers. Maybe try playing football at school or something?

King-Mushroom: That's an unfortunate opinion. You're missing out on games that equal and better the many brilliant games that Nintendo churn out.

masaki: Yes, Nintendo are all those things. But the other platforms offer fun and original and innovative games, too. You seem to recognise that, but others often don't.

Innovance: Technology always becomes a prominent issue in and around the transition from generation to generation. That'll cool down in a while and then it'll be up to game developers to make use of that technology.

Shyguy: Thank you. I'm sure Mr. Mario would sign the Kyoto agreement, especially after that nasty business on Delphino Island.


Its not unfortunate thankyou. I live in a flat and have access to every console, i have tried the others. I never said they have bad games, All i said is i am a Nintendo fan for a reason, not blind loyalty, the reason is i have more fun playing there games. How is that unfortunate?

[Haver]

It's pretty unfortunate.

[Edjamakated]

You went from making sense to deliberately picking fights...

are you lonely?

[Haver]

A bit.

You can answer all the silly questions from now on!

[DCK]

Quit attacking Haver for making a point, you sad person you. You're the one making this a fight.

[Edjamakated]

right.....believe what you like....

so ends this thread....

[Pestneb]

I think the issue here isn't fanboyism, but segregations within the gaming community.

1) graphics.
everyone here likes good graphics. I think the problem is the definition of good graphics.
graphics give a game an identity, a feel. there are in our medium limits. so graphics are measured by three standards. the first is how well it meets the machines limits. the second is how much the player likes the graphics, and the third is how well the graphics suit the nature of the game.
one is a less arguable factor, either a game pushes the machine its on (or pushes the boat out in terms of graphical excellence on that machine) or it doesn't.
The second point is subjective, purely on aesthetics, do they like the style used? and then the third point is does the style suit the feel of the game?

I've heard the phrase don't judge a book by its cover. the problem is the graphics of a game (much like a movie) are an integral part of the medium.
taking windwaker as an example. it wasn't kiddy, but it was cheerful. many gamers wanting a darker game didn't buy it. thats fair enough. gamers wanting a lighter tale could enjoy it. it was still a great game. The graphics suited the nature of the game, which was a plus, as a good game (graphically) should not just display competently, but also give a good idea of the atmosphere and general nature of the game.

graphically, non of the systems are vastly different. yes there are small differences, but not as big as the difference between a generation. all have games that push the hardware varying amounts, all have lazily coded games, and games that are coded with dedication.

platforms wise - PS2, Xbox or GC, makes no difference.
you get different controllers, but ultimately they are all the same. analogue sticks, buttons, triggers and d-pads. there's not really much in it if we're honest, and in the end it comes down to personal opinion. but if you had the nintendo PS2, and the sony gamecube, would it have changed your purchasing (assuming the games stayed with the company not the console name)
Personally I am of the opinion that if you enjoy games on just one platform you are lucky - I saved about £3/400 because I've only purchase a GC and not an xbox/ps2.

people with one console protect that console, perhaps because they are scared of it pulling a dreamcast, perhaps because the console appearing weak will make them appear weak.
mature people are happy with what ever console they have, and its just part of the maturing process getting over "fanboyism".
the problem is when fanboyism becomes elitism, which seems to take the form of those who claim the title of "hardcore gamer".
but hardcore gamers wasn't what this was aimed for. it was at fanboys.