Support NeoGAF

[LosDaddie]

I find it pretty hard to believe that one day American consumers simply woke up and decided not to bother with all the Japanese franchises they've been playing since the 8-bit era. .

What specific mega-popular JPN franchises have Americans abandoned? And how did those specific franchises get so popular back then without the marketing push games have today?

Nintendo is still popular here. Capcom seems to be still doing alright. FF games still sell alright. Gran Turismo still sells gangbusters, right?

What I see is Western devs/pubs creating games for Western audiences, and having success. Marketing certainly plays a role in that success, but providing a product those markets want plays an even bigger role. The niche JPN games you enjoy would find the marketing budget if the publishers felt it was worth the investment.

There are plenty of JPN games that are dominating the market right now. Look at all the Mario and Resident Evil games, among other titles. If we're talking JRPGs, that's because like everything else, it works in a cycle like the fight genre. Give it a few years and we may see a return to huge popularity. I don't think it's right to count them out for good, especially when people are still really excited for good amount of other JRPGs like Xenoblade, The Last Story, Tales of Xillia, and Persona 5.

What other titles?

Nintendo & Capcom seem to be the only JPN devs that can create games with global appeal.

 

[HylianTom]

Yeah, I agree with the poster above who replied to this quote. Opinion =/= fact. Of course you'll point out people that reinforce your opinion. It's the same reason someone would like a journalist that gives a game they like a good score, but rag on those that give it a poor score. If we listened to all of the analysts and took their opinion as gold, Michael Pachter would have shrines dedicated to him for his ability to predict the future. lol. It's like the whole NINTENDO IS DOOOOOOOMED forecast a majority of analysts gave when, hey, they're doing just fine right now with the 3DS.

Yeah.. citing the opinion of gaming "journalists" on Nintendo's financial viability seems very iffy to me. Gaming journalists, by and large, seem eager to write the obituary for the one gaming-centered console maker that's left. Hysterical.

Watch any of the major gaming news websites (1up, IGN, GameSpot, etc) or watch G4 during or after E3, especially when they have a roundtable discussion regarding the three companies' futures. They'll discuss Microsoft and Sony's plans pretty calmly without eye-rolling or derision, but when they get to Nintendo, there's almost a "dammit.. why are they still around?" tone.. and you can practically hear the non-Nintendo section editors beating-off to the idea of having Zelda and Mario on the next Microsoft machine.

(And Sony fans might wanna worry more about their own compay's viability, given the rate at which the Sony boat is taking-on red ink. $2 billion per quarter? Hmm.)

 

[BrownieVonTurdmeisterIII]

Tell me about SMG1.

I'm (finally) currently playing the game. I have 104 stars as of last night, and getting ready to take on Bowser tonight. Is it worth it to get the other 15 stars for whatever special surpise you get afterwards? (I don't plan on ever re-playing the game...at least not for a few years...too many other backlog games.)

It's worth it, absolutely. Not necessarily for the special surprise, but more so because it's an excuse to get more value out of the game. More fantastic level design ftmfw!

 

[Karuto]

Nintendo & Capcom seem to be the only JPN devs that can create games with global appeal.

If we're talking just in 2011, there was Dark Souls, Catherine, Ico and Shadow of the Colossus HD (topped the sales charts across all platforms for its first week of release), Sonic Generations, and a few others outside of Nintendo and Capcom. This year, you have games like Dragon's Dogma, Persona 4 Ultimate, Resident Evil 6, Lollipop Chainsaw, Ni no Kuni, Kingdom Hearts 3D, Tales of Graces f, Dead or Alive 5, Ninja Gaiden 3, Silent Hill Downpour, Xenoblade, Last Story, and possibly Last Guardian, Metal Gear Rising, Final Fantasy Type-0. I think it's a pretty good year for Japanese-made games. It's all about lining up those development schedules, and 2012 appears to be the year a lot of Japanese developers are ready to release their game in America.

Aside from that, it's just plain silly to write off Nintendo and Capcom if there games are doing better than most American publishers. I am sure if we lived in Japan we'd wonder if American publishers had any sway on us.

 

[Super Smash Bro]

Yeah.. citing the opinion of gaming "journalists" on Nintendo's financial viability seems very iffy to me. Gaming journalists, by and large, seem eager to write the obituary for the one gaming-centered console maker that's left. Hysterical.

Watch any of the major gaming news websites (1up, IGN, GameSpot, etc) or watch G4 during or after E3, especially when they have a roundtable discussion regarding the three companies' futures. They'll discuss Microsoft and Sony's plans pretty calmly without eye-rolling or derision, but when they get to Nintendo, there's almost a "dammit.. why are they still around?" tone.. and you can practically hear the non-Nintendo section editors beating-off to the idea of having Zelda and Mario on the next Microsoft machine.

(And Sony fans might wanna worry more about their own compay's viability, given the rate at which the Sony boat is taking-on red ink. $2 billion per quarter? Hmm.)

I'd love to know if Nintendo gets ragged on as hard in the Japanese press. The death of Nintendo would essentially be the death of Japanese games (sales wise) so I've always attributed it to that.

 

[BrownieVonTurdmeisterIII]

That's controversial like evolution is in mississippi.

Truth.

Not sure if this is a redeeming statement or even more damning than my original, but I've gotta say that Yoshi's Island is the second best Mario game.

 

[HylianTom]

I'd love to know if Nintendo gets ragged on as hard in the Japanese press. The death of Nintendo would essentially be the death of Japanese games (sales wise) so I've always attributed it to that.

Not sure. That'd be interesting to find-out. But surely it has to be an improvement over how they're regarded over here.

 

[djtiesto]

What specific mega-popular JPN franchises have Americans abandoned? And how did those specific franchises get so popular back then without the marketing push games have today?

Nintendo is still popular here. Capcom seems to be still doing alright. FF games still sell alright. Gran Turismo still sells gangbusters, right?

What I see is Western devs/pubs creating games for Western audiences, and having success. Marketing certainly plays a role in that success, but providing a product those markets want plays an even bigger role. The niche JPN games you enjoy would find the marketing budget if the publishers felt it was worth the investment.





What other titles?

Nintendo & Capcom seem to be the only JPN devs that can create games with global appeal.

You're probably a little too young to remember (generalizing based on your taste for dudebro schlock), but most people weren't very familiar with the FF series (or RPGs in general) before 7, which got an absolutely massive marketing push by Sony. Back in the 8-and-16 bit days, word-of-mouth and Nintendo Power drove a lot of sales.

And I don't understand how you say Nintendo and Capcom seem to be the only Japanese devs that can create games with global appeal, after also saying how both FF and Gran Turismo sell a lot too

 

[jmdajr]

I'm not falling for this. I won't be baited into talking bad about the ***

No ban for me.

 

[LosDaddie]

I think it's a pretty good year for Japanese-made games.

Right, and I never said to the contrary. There have been JPN games released in NA every year of this gen. 2012 is no different.

My point (that you responded to) was about dominating the Western market (in sales), which JPN games no longer do, especially compared to previous gens.

Aside from that, it's just plain silly to write off Nintendo and Capcom if there games are doing better than most American publishers..

And I never did such a thing.

You're probably a little too young to remember (generalizing based on your taste for dudebro schlock)

I'll be 32 this year. What about you? Also, :lol @ the lame dudebro term.

but most people weren't very familiar with the FF series (or RPGs in general) before 7, which got an absolutely massive marketing push by Sony. Back in the 8-and-16 bit days, word-of-mouth and Nintendo Power drove a lot of sales.

Still not answering my question about what franchises American gamers have abandoned. Again, what I see is Western devs/pubs creating games for Western audiences, and having success.

And I don't understand how you say Nintendo and Capcom seem to be the only Japanese devs that can create games with global appeal, after also saying how both FF and Gran Turismo sell a lot too

It's not difficult to understand. Nintendo & Capcom seem to be the only JPN devs to have any amount of success in Western markets this gen. But yeah, you have a few successful franchises from previous gen, like GT and FF, that have their fanbases who still buy their games. Those would be the exceptions, not the rule.

 

[HylianTom]

"Dudebro" is a good, succinct term. When someone uses it, everyone in the discussion gets the general idea of what is meant. If anyone has a better term to suggest, I'm all ears.

If a player is so thin-skinned over such a term, I'd recommend that they don't go on Live or any similar online gaming service - the many middle-schoolers that inhabit these places have filthy, vicious mouths, and they say far worse things than "dudebro."

 

[StuBurns]

I've seen all sorts of games be called dudebro, I don't know what games it actually means. Someone on the bombcast called RE6 Bro last week for example.

I thought it was the bromance from things like Gears and Army of Two, but seemingly it's not.

 

[Rahxephon91]

I don't like the term dudebro, because it's not used well. It's used by people who don't have arguments and want to label anything they think is Western and not full of art(come one you know thats what they are getting at) dudebro.

It's lame and at this point I don't even know what it means.

 

[HylianTom]

I've seen all sorts of games be called dudebro, I don't know what games it actually means. Someone on the bombcast called RE6 Bro last week for example.

I thought it was the bromance from things like Gears and Army of Two, but seemingly it's not.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dudebro game

dudebro game
Videogame, usually a shooter or a sports game, whose target audience is the 18-35 male gamer, or the so-called "dudebro audience". Dudebro games usually feature prominent violence, swearing or sex, overly serious tones and a pretense of epic storylines, and are usually rated M for Mature.

I'm not typing-out this definition every time I want to make reference to this crowd of gamers
(and disclaimer: I love a good number of "dudebro" games, so your generalization is B.S, Rahx.)

 

[StuBurns]

Videogame, usually a shooter or a sports game, whose target audience is the 18-35 male gamer, or the so-called "dudebro audience". Dudebro games usually feature prominent violence, swearing or sex, overly serious tones and a pretense of epic storylines, and are usually rated M for Mature.

That is practically every game that isn't made by Nintendo.

 

[Ricky_R]

dudebro game
Videogame, usually a shooter or a sports game, whose target audience is the 18-35 male gamer, or the so-called "dudebro audience". Dudebro games usually feature prominent violence, swearing or sex, overly serious tones and a pretense of epic storylines, and are usually rated M for Mature.

Duke Nukem Forever might as well be used as the universal example of that definition. Aside from the "overly serious" tone and storyline of course.

 

[Karuto]

Outside of Nintendo and Capcom, no other Japanese publishers have dominated any entire generation, not even Squaresoft or Square Enix, because none have gone to be the size of those two. In fact, I think you're holding these publishers to a standard that they've yet to get to. There are just some games that have penetrated our side of the market. I think it's rather unfair to criticize publishers for not appealing to us, because look where that's gotten us (*looks at Quantum Theory*). None of the Persona or Final Fantasy games have really dominated the market, but they're certainly well loved. This is especially true when you still have millions of people in America still buying yearly releases like Call of Duty and Madden, with their numbers seemingly growing.

When games like that dominate the market, I don't think anything Japanese publishers outside of Nintendo and Capcom will be able to gain mass appeal who have these long-in-the-tooth franchises under their belts. It's just completely different cultures with completely different tastes for the majority of gamers. That's why Square Enix absorbed all those Western developers. If you look in Japan, on the other hand, the top publishers are companies like Square Enix, Namco, Konami, Sega, and Level 5. Just a different thing over there.

EDIT: I consider the term "dudebro" to mean games directly aimed at men at that mentioned 18-35 range. And this is the song I hear when I see that term: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oECIKVaz5rc. I can see why someone would think RE6 looks dudebro, because it seems to be like Quintin Terantino meets Paul W. S. Anderson or something.

 

[Tain]

That is practically every game that isn't made by Nintendo.

It's a very stupid term.

 

[Karuto]

That is practically every game that isn't made by Nintendo.

Cute, but false.

 

[StuBurns]

Cute, but false.

It was clearly a joke, but if you remove the 'usually' statements, so what they always are, you get this:

Videogame, whose target audience is the 18-35 male gamer, or the so-called "dudebro audience".

Practically everything would be either 'dudebro' or 'casual' in that moronic, overly simplified world.

 

[solarus]

Not sure if controversial, but the half life 2 episodes were much better than half life 2 itself, which i felt dragged on at times. Episode 2 was fucking awesome.

 

[Karuto]

Not sure if controversial, but the half life 2 episodes were much better than half life 2 itself, which i felt dragged on at times. Episode 2 was fucking awesome.

Agreed. Half-Life 2 was very poorly paced in the middle (though the beginning and end were great). Episode 1 was more of that, while Episode 2 in my view was legendary.

It was clearly a joke

lol, I'm sorry. I have dealt with many different individuals on this forum, and I was so tired after my workout, that I clearly misread what you were getting at. I think the term can be applied in certain respects, but that definition on UrbanDictionary is garbage.

 

[spirity]

I always assumed dudebro meant military shooter, ala CoD and Gears.

Until a Gaffer called Skyrim a dudebro game, then I got confused as fuck.

 

[LosDaddie]

I don't like the term dudebro, because it's not used well. It's used by people who don't have arguments and want to label anything they think is Western and not full of art(come one you know thats what they are getting at) dudebro.

It's lame and at this point I don't even know what it means.

It was clearly a joke, but if you remove the 'usually' statements, so what they always are, you get this:

Videogame, whose target audience is the 18-35 male gamer, or the so-called "dudebro audience".

Practically everything would be either 'dudebro' or 'casual' in that moronic, overly simplified world.

Nailed it.

. It's just completely different cultures with completely different tastes for the majority of gamers.

Correct. This has been my point here. This void left by JPN devs/pubs this gen has been picked up by Western devs/pubs, to great success this gen.

 

[Karuto]

Correct. This has been my point here. This void left by JPN devs/pubs this gen has been picked up by Western devs/pubs, to great success this gen.

...and yet you completely ignored my point that there was no void to begin with because other than publishers like Nintendo and Capcom, no other Japanese publisher has been at the top of a generation, unless you count Sega during the Genesis days. Not even Square Enix. All Square Enix do was dominate a genre, but that's hardly the whole market which in the West was never dominated by RPGs at any point. I think you have this grand illusion or something about what things have been and what they are now. You seemed to skim over the exact thing you quoted, in that we are a different culture that has evolved into something which I consider unfortunate, that we need Japanese studios to pander to us in the worst possible way as if that will somehow make us buy more of their games. This is why I said that a lot of Western publishers successful here are lower on the list over there because they have completely different tastes. Doesn't avoid the fact that the best selling games even this generation are made by Japanese companies, though.

 

[TaroYamada]

Anyway, I still don't see how Sony is the worst thing that happened to the industry no matter their tactics. If you think selling at a loss really harmed anybody in the gaming industry then I can understand your annoyance, if you hate those practices, but saying they are the worst thing is too far-fetched IMO.

Is it? I don't think so, the only thing you named that you considered worse was a focus on casual gaming, which I disagree with by the way but regardless, you consider it worse and you seem to suggest that Nintendo was pushed to move into casual gaming to survive because they were unable to keep up with Sony and Microsoft through traditional means. I maintain that had those companies played fairly -- as in not sold for a loss -- Nintendo likely wouldn't have been pushed to that precipice and maybe even Sega would still be in the manufacturing business, though that's admittedly less likely.

Fortunately for them, and for many of us, they offered a pretty cool affordable console with a nice variety of games. Sega had the brand strength to keep up, but they couldn't and I don't think the blame is on anybody, but themselves. Nintendo ended up doing just fine, only that they ended up catering the casual market first and their long time fans second. That could be one of the worst things that has ever happened to the gaming industry, but that's another "tiresome" topic.
...
I think catering to the casual market is far worse than Sony and MS joining the consoles gaming industry. That's just me though.

The bolded comments imply that you believe both were reactions to Sony entering the industry as they are both written in regards to how those companies handled Sony entering the industry, the last comment is what I referenced above about you considering it (casual gaming) worse.

I find Sony personally to be one of the best things to happen to the industry, strictly from a technological standpoint. I mean, they made people seriously look at CDs for a change instead of cartridges (yes, I know other consoles tried CDs, but the software wasn't there like on the PS1).

The switch to CD was inevitable and was already set in motion before the PS1 came around; FM Towns Marty, Sega CD, Saturn, 3DO, Neo Geo CD and TurboGrafx CD. Sony doesn't get the credit.

Then with the PS2, you have DVDs leading the charge when the Dreamcast was still on CDs

Dreamcast actually used a proprietary format called GD-ROM which Sega developed in conjunction with Yamaha.

Now, you have BluRay technology, which, say what you want, presents another leap forward in technology that is set to overtake DVDs as a standard if the rumors of Microsoft putting those in the next Xbox are true. The fact you can have uncompressed video and sound on this large discs is pretty fascinating, and Sony aren't so self-centered as to make it some sort of proprietary technology like Nintendo is doing with the WiiU.

BluRay is a proprietary format actually, for Sony, Sony is part of the BDA.

 

[Ricky_R]

Is it? I don't think so, the only thing you named that you considered worse was a focus on casual gaming, which I disagree with by the way but regardless, you consider it worse and you seem to suggest that Nintendo was pushed to move into casual gaming to survive because they were unable to keep up with Sony and Microsoft through traditional means. I maintain that had those companies played fairly -- as in not sold for a loss -- Nintendo likely wouldn't have been pushed to that precipice and maybe even Sega would still be in the manufacturing business, though that's admittedly less likely.



The bolded comments imply that you believe both were reactions to Sony entering the industry, the last comment is what I referenced above about you considering it worse.

I don't even think Nintendo going casual is the worst thing ever (I was trying to make a point back then), but I do consider it worse simply by the fact that now we have two companies out of three catering strongly to the casual market with less and less commitment to invest on new and exciting IP's. (outside of third parties).

Anyway, we've come to the point where it will be useless to keep arguing since we will not see eye to eye on this. You're sure Sony and MS are the worst thing that have ever happened to the gaming industry, for whatever reasons, and I think that's absurd.

Agree to disagree, yet again.

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

Yeah.. citing the opinion of gaming "journalists" on Nintendo's financial viability seems very iffy to me. Gaming journalists, by and large, seem eager to write the obituary for the one gaming-centered console maker that's left. Hysterical.

Watch any of the major gaming news websites (1up, IGN, GameSpot, etc) or watch G4 during or after E3, especially when they have a roundtable discussion regarding the three companies' futures. They'll discuss Microsoft and Sony's plans pretty calmly without eye-rolling or derision, but when they get to Nintendo, there's almost a "dammit.. why are they still around?" tone.. and you can practically hear the non-Nintendo section editors beating-off to the idea of having Zelda and Mario on the next Microsoft machine.

(And Sony fans might wanna worry more about their own compay's viability, given the rate at which the Sony boat is taking-on red ink. $2 billion per quarter? Hmm.)

Yes, but why is that? You're 100% right, every talking head out there, from Sessler to Webb to Keighley to Douchebag Blair Herter seems to have an inherent derision of Nintendo. But why is that? Is it trying to appeal to their readers? Is it based on the fact that Nintendo infamously has a disdain for the media just as much as the media's disdain for them? What makes Journalists, analysts and Nintendo mix like oil, water, and spunk?

 

[Karuto]

The switch to CD was inevitable and was already set in motion before the PS1 came around; FM Towns Marty, Sega CD, Saturn, 3DO, Neo Geo CD and TurboGrafx CD. Sony doesn't get the credit.

Do you guys actually read what you quote anymore? lol! I typed, "(yes, I know other consoles tried CDs, but the software wasn't there like on the PS1)." I never once said Sony invented the technology. I said that they made people seriously look at this technology from a gaming standpoint. I understand that BluRay is proprietary (and so is CD and DVD), but they are a format that can be used obviously in both games and movies. In the case of the WiiU, you're talking about a proprietary disc that isn't any better than a single-layer BluRay, and can only be used on the WiiU. Of course, I don't really need to bring this up, because when the PS3 launched, the 360 was still using DVDs and the Wii used what was basically also DVDs but in their own format. Sony paid dearly for that, but when you see the adoption rate and, I'll bring up the rumor again, Microsoft is considering putting a BluRay drive in their next console, when it comes to the impact they have had with the BluRay drive in the gaming arena, it's been a very important one. Of course, another rumor has been floating is that Nintendo will be using the BluRay format for the WiiU and may announce it at E3, but hey, that's a few months off.

You also listed a bunch of consoles that failed because they lacked, once again, the software. The Sega CD bombed, the Saturn bombed, the 3DO bombed, the Neo Geo CD and TurboGrafx CD bombed. None of them did any favors for the format. Sony stepped in and showed that this technology could actually be used in video games successfully, and the fact that Nintendo made a pass on it and kept with cartridges showed how little faith there was in it until Sony showed them how it was done. You can't deny history here.

As far as the GD-ROM is concerned, as I understand it is mostly based on CD technology, which is why you could burn a game to a CD-R and play it on your Dreamcast without any other special things. That still showed that SEGA didn't want to invest in DVDs because they were worried about costs when Sony went ahead and did it anyway with the PS2, taking the risk that paid off immensely in the end. No other company did that before they did in that regard when it came to gaming.

Is it based on the fact that Nintendo infamously has a disdain for the media just as much as the media's disdain for them?

Didn't realize perception = fact. I have talked to many people working for Nintendo as part of my work as a journalist, and I don't remember them ever talking about this "disdain" you speak of. If we're talking about choice words, the media has as much for them about Sony and Microsoft as they do Nintendo because of a writer's deep-seated bias to a certain company or another's blind rage that, hey, how dare Nintendo not be HD? GRRRRR! If your "talking heads" are only those that appear on G4, you need to take a step back and look around more. Whoever has been calling out the doom of Nintendo should probably be fired, especially those that are talking about Nintendo like it was some failure, as if it hasn't sold nearly 100 million Wii consoles and 160 million DSs and their drop in sales only puts it among the average Xbox 360 sale numbers, or that the 3DS is selling pretty damn well right well. Just because you work for a giant media site doesn't make your opinion any more important than anyone else's. It's the same reason you shouldn't think one person's view on a game should equal your own.

Nintendo's the least likely company to drop out of the gaming console business, and I would expect them to be the ones to make the one-console-to-rule-them-all if that ever comes to pass. No, I'd expect Sony and Microsoft to drop out much sooner, though neither have a reason to at this point. For Microsoft, Windows is helping them pump money into it. For Sony, it's one of the only sectors that's giving them the much-needed cash.

 

[TaroYamada]

Do you guys actually read what you quote anymore? lol! I typed, "(yes, I know other consoles tried CDs, but the software wasn't there like on the PS1)." I never once said Sony invented the technology. I said that they made people seriously look at this technology from a gaming standpoint.

People were already looking at it seriously, that was my point. I read what you said and I entirely disagree with it, nobody was looking at CD and thinking to themselves 'Oh, optical media is going nowhere'.

You also listed a bunch of consoles that failed because they lacked, once again, the software. The Sega CD bombed, the Saturn bombed, the 3DO bombed, the Neo Geo CD and TurboGrafx CD bombed. None of them did any favors for the format. Sony stepped in and showed that this technology could actually be used in video games successfully

Sega CD was fairly successful in terms of market penetration for an add on actually, selling 6 million units, and Sega Saturn was very successful in Japan. Both had fairly good libraries too, certainly in the case of the Saturn there is a very good library there if you are willing to import, and Sega CD while lacking quantity had some very high quality titles available.

and the fact that Nintendo made a pass on it and kept with cartridges showed how little faith there was in it until Sony showed them how it was done. You can't deny history here.

No. I'll deny "history" here. I don't think you should try to use Nintendo as a means of demonstrating how little faith there is in a certain 'new' technology, have you not noticed how much this company clings to the past? Online gaming has certainly been proven by now and I'd argue it was proven in the sixth generation, so there is no question of faith in it; Yet to this day we are still using friend codes, in 2012. Without a cohesive online network that begins to rival the offerings from their competitors. Then there's HD output with Wii, was those unproven? Despite a year of 360 being on the market, and Sony also migrating towards it? Not to mention years of higher resolutions being available on the PC platform? Or the smattering of sixth generations games that supported higher resolutions? What about handheld blacklighting? Or using the 1.4 GB Gamecube Optical Disc despite their competitors using larger formats, the same thing is happening moving forward from Wii to Wii U and it's optical format as you mentioned.

Essentially, what I am trying to say is you shouldn't try to use Nintendo as an example to say 'Oh, nobody believed in this technology, Nintendo's attitude is proof'. It's just not true, they have always been stuck in the past. Nintendo's stance is the least representative of mainstream opinion on new technologies in this industry.

As far as the GD-ROM is concerned, as I understand it is mostly based on CD technology, which is why you could burn a game to a CD-R and play it on your Dreamcast without any other special things. That still showed that SEGA didn't want to invest in DVDs because they were worried about costs when Sony went ahead and did it anyway with the PS2, taking the risk that paid off immensely in the end. No other company did that before they did in that regard when it came to gaming.

GD-ROM is similar to CD-ROM, but not the same. The reason Dreamcast could read CD-R was because it could read CD's in general, not because it could read GD-ROM. I'll give you DVD I guess, but yet again I think the momentum towards DVD was inevitable because regardless of PS2 I feel that format would have been used in the Xbox.

 

[NFreak]

You also listed a bunch of consoles that failed because they lacked, once again, the software. The Sega CD bombed, the Saturn bombed, the 3DO bombed, the Neo Geo CD and TurboGrafx CD bombed. None of them did any favors for the format. Sony stepped in and showed that this technology could actually be used in video games successfully, and the fact that Nintendo made a pass on it and kept with cartridges showed how little faith there was in it until Sony showed them how it was done. You can't deny history here.

I'm not trying to get mixed up into this debate here but I do want to say that your facts are somewhat off. Nintendo was never really hesitant on the idea of using optical media as far as the actual technology goes. The reason Nintendo even used cartridges during the 32/64 bit era was almost entirely because of piracy issues, and it's been like that for a while now. Nintendo used 8 cm discs for the Gamecube mainly as an anti-piracy measure as well. They were almost forced to switch to the DVD format during this generation with the Wii, and there has been much more piracy on the system. This could also be attributed to other things such as the console being easy to soft-mod, but many people can easily burn and run pirated games from DVD's on their Wii's. This leads me to believe the reason they have chosen their own proprietary format fort the Wii U is once again because of piracy reasons and not because they do not see the potential of something like Blu-Rays.

 

[Empyrean Heaven]

Didn't realize perception = fact. I have talked to many people working for Nintendo as part of my work as a journalist, and I don't remember them ever talking about this "disdain" you speak of. If we're talking about choice words, the media has as much for them about Sony and Microsoft as they do Nintendo because of a writer's deep-seated bias to a certain company or another's blind rage that, hey, how dare Nintendo not be HD? GRRRRR! If your "talking heads" are only those that appear on G4, you need to take a step back and look around more. Whoever has been calling out the doom of Nintendo should probably be fired, especially those that are talking about Nintendo like it was some failure, as if it hasn't sold nearly 100 million Wii consoles and 160 million DSs and their drop in sales only puts it among the average Xbox 360 sale numbers, or that the 3DS is selling pretty damn well right well. Just because you work for a giant media site doesn't make your opinion any more important than anyone else's. It's the same reason you shouldn't think one person's view on a game should equal your own.

Nintendo's the least likely company to drop out of the gaming console business, and I would expect them to be the ones to make the one-console-to-rule-them-all if that ever comes to pass. No, I'd expect Sony and Microsoft to drop out much sooner, though neither have a reason to at this point. For Microsoft, Windows is helping them pump money into it. For Sony, it's one of the only sectors that's giving them the much-needed cash.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I used to write about games too, and there was always a long-standing bias among my co-workers against working with Nintendo...Golin-Harris was a pain to get review copies out of...getting a response out of anyone in the company was like pulling teeth, etc etc.

Then again, if talking about Nintendo's doom and gloom should get someone a pink slip, I'd think a lot of writers would be fired about now.Here's one right here.

 

[DarkPanda]

JRPGs, as a genre, are just plain better than western RPGs. On the extreme end, I'd rather play FFXIII than Skyrim (Yes, I've completed both).

Real RPGs have turn-based battles.

3rd person is superior to 1st person 100% of the time.

"Immersion" is a meaningless buzzword. As if I could ever forget that I'm playing a game when I'm sitting in front of my TV holding a controller. Gameplay should be first and foremost in develpers' minds, not realism.

Microsoft is the worst thing to happen to the console gaming industry sinc the '83 crash. Paid online, dudebro focus, incresing the importance of moneyhatting, encouraging western pc developers to move to consoles...the industry would have been better off if the XBox had never existed.

 

[Minion101]

As a PC gamer there are certain games I like better at 30 fps. I limit my framerate on Mass Effect 2 PC to 30fps. I don't like how it looks at 60fps.

 

[Correctomundo]

Real RPGs have turn-based battles.

Why?

 

[DiscoPower]

Snowbound is the best Halo map.

 

[TaroYamada]

As a PC gamer there are certain games I like better at 30 fps. I limit my framerate on Mass Effect 2 PC to 30fps. I don't like how it looks at 60fps.

PC Gamers seem to dislike my stance on console ports; Chiefly I am entirely ok with console ports being bare bones as long as it's glitch free and reliable, and I can set resolution, v-sync, and anti-aliasing options.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Hmm. My "controversial" gaming opinion is that the "controversial" gaming opinions stated by others in this thread seem pretty reasonable to me.

Am I doing it wrong?

 

[Karuto]

People were already looking at it seriously, that was my point. I read what you said and I entirely disagree with it, nobody was looking at CD and thinking to themselves 'Oh, optical media is going nowhere'.

It certainly wasn't making any ground, and Sega CD had a major issue in that you needed to first buy a Sega Genesis and then buy a Sega Genesis, which meant spending nearly $200 for the Genesis and an additional $300 for the Sega CD if you wanted to try it out (as opposed to the PS1's $300 price point). Plus the technology wasn't there at the time so even on CD the games lacked a lot of color depth and horsepower (you just have to look at the horrible FMVs for proof).

I am certainly not saying the Sega CD or Saturn didn't have good games, but both consoles were practically invisible to the market at large. I think you're one of the best people I have met who have defending the Sega CD, though. Outside of Lunar and Sonic CD, there were no games that were any good, unless you enjoy masochism, so I wouldn't really call them "very high quality games" by any stretch.

For the Sega Saturn, sure, you had a handful of great games like NiGHTs, Panzer Dragoon Saga, Albert Odyssey, Dragon Force, and Burning Rangers, games I still play to this day, but those were niche titles that weren't system sellers on the scale of what Nintendo and Sony were putting out, so it ultimately failed. There's a difference between personal favorite and the opinion of the market at large, and it was obvious what people thought was the much stronger platform right out of the gate.

In the PS1's case, you had games that really showed off the 3D graphical technology like Battle Arena Toshinden, Rayman, Ridge Racer, Wipeout, Jumping Flash, and other really good games for the time with Rayman, Wipeout, and Ridge Racer still being huge sellers to this day. That's the difference here.

No. I'll deny "history" here. I don't think you should try to use Nintendo as a means of demonstrating how little faith there is in a certain 'new' technology, have you not noticed how much this company clings to the past? Online gaming has certainly been proven by now and I'd argue it was proven in the sixth generation, so there is no question of faith in it; Yet to this day we are still using friend codes, in 2012. Without a cohesive online network that begins to rival the offerings from their competitors. Then there's HD output with Wii, was those unproven? Despite a year of 360 being on the market, and Sony also migrating towards it? Not to mention years of higher resolutions being available on the PC platform? Or the smattering of sixth generations games that supported higher resolutions? What about handheld blacklighting? Or using the 1.4 GB Gamecube Optical Disc despite their competitors using larger formats, the same thing is happening moving forward from Wii to Wii U and it's optical format as you mentioned.

Essentially, what I am trying to say is you shouldn't try to use Nintendo as an example to say 'Oh, nobody believed in this technology, Nintendo's attitude is proof'. It's just not true, they have always been stuck in the past. Nintendo's stance is the least representative of mainstream opinion on new technologies in this industry.

That's the point I have been trying to make since the beginning of my conversation. This all started with someone saying that Sony and Microsoft were the worst things to happen to the industry, and my point was that both companies helped shape the industry to great effect and moved hardware and software substantially forward. That's why I brought up the whole point of Sony being a great help in optical technology for gaming platforms. But if we're talking about Nintendo attitude, to be perfectly clear, the Gamecube was stronger than the PS2 in terms of graphical horsepower. Sure, it wasn't moving the online market forward, but it wasn't really at a point at the time were having such an environment was a serious market advantage. But if we're talking way back in 1994 when the PS1 launched, the fact that all of these other CD consoles failed, of course Nintendo had very little faith in the platform and didn't think that the technology was there. The fact that Sony stood up and was willing to take the risk is important to note, and launched with a strong library of games that could have easily been on the N64 (although a couple were multiplatform, but looked better on the Ps1). Talk about the current state of events all you want, but when you look at the SNES vs. the Genesis, Nintendo led the charge in good-looking games in terms of the mainstream market (especially when it came to audio). No one at that time thought Nintendo had fallen behind in competition in any form. But then you had the PS1 come out and then the PS2, and you saw this clear void inbetween the two companies in terms of gaming technology. It was only with the Wii that you saw something clearly different, and that was only because of Nintendo's decision to use off-the-shelf technology so that they could have the price advantage.

GD-ROM is similar to CD-ROM, but not the same. The reason Dreamcast could read CD-R was because it could read CD's in general, not because it could read GD-ROM. I'll give you DVD I guess, but yet again I think the momentum towards DVD was inevitable because regardless of PS2 I feel that format would have been used in the Xbox.

The strong, almost confirmed rumor was that Microsoft was helping Sega make their next console to rival the PS2 using DVD technology, but it ultimately fell through and the Xbox ended up being released, similar to the Sony and Nintendo path with the PS1. That's why you saw a lot of big Sega names like Shenmue, Jet Set Radio, and Phantasy Star Online arriving on the Xbox and not the PS2. As far as the "reading CDs" are concerned, I can understand that it could read music CDs (I used to use mine for that), but the fact that it could actually play video games on CDs mean it wasn't very, very close to what a normal game CD would be anyway, so only very slight modifications were made.

 

[Wonko_C]

Mostly agreeing with this, however. I'm glad to hear that Ganondorf wasn't in

Spoiler

Skywards Sword.

As cool as he was in OoT, he shouldn't be in every mainline Zelda.

I don't know about that. Not having Ganon in a Zelda game is like a Castlevania without Dracula (which actually happened, several times), those villains are the tradition of the series and when it's a different one they always underwhelm compared to the main villain.

I didn't mind it that much in Aria or Dawn because Drac is still there even if it's just in another form, but Lords of Shadow was really disappointing. Especially when the last boss looked somewhat like the young version of Dracula from Legacy of Darkness only to find out it's actually

Spoiler

Satan.

 

[perfectnight]

Snowbound is the best Halo map.

Objectively wrong

 

[Super Smash Bro]

I think Steam is as harmful to the industry as mobile app stores.

"$60?! I'll get it on Steam for $5 in a couple weeks."

 

[LosDaddie]

...and yet you completely ignored my point....

I think you have this grand illusion or something about what things have been and what they are now.

:lol
Not at all. It's no secrect that JPN industry has less influence over the gaming scene than ever before. A major part of that is because their games have less global appeal. I mean, if you want, I can pull up some articles for you to read on this subject.

Doesn't avoid the fact that the best selling games even this generation are made by Japanese companies, though.

Right, and nearly all of them by Nintendo, who had the #1 selling console this gen. It kinda goes without saying.

dudebro focus, encouraging western pc developers to move to consoles....

:lol

 

[Karuto]

I think Steam is as harmful to the industry as mobile app stores.

"$60?! I'll get it on Steam for $5 in a couple weeks."

I think Microsoft charging $30 for the standard edition Batman: Arkham Aslyum for the Xbox is harmful to the industry when you can get the Game of the Year version on Steam for $7 a lot of the time, or on Amazon for less than $20. With the economy the way it is and the used games market as much a hot button issue, they'll come around to Steam's pricing soon enough. I think Steam and the mobile marketplace are the healthiest things to happen to the industry, because it shows that there is high demand when games are priced lower. Hell, you just have to look at a demand curve to know that.

Not at all. It's not secrect that JPN industry has less influence over the gaming scene than ever before. A major part of that is because their games have less global appeal.

I don't think that is the case at all. The influence is the same as it always has been. Maybe they have less appeal to you, I don't know, but there are still games like Dark Souls . If you the articles you want to give out are opinion pieces, then I guess I should also believe that Nintendo is doomed, and I find their opinions flawed. Japanese developers still have some of the best selling games of the generation. You can maybe make a case for variety, but because of skyrocketing publishing costs of course it is much harder than ever before to make the decision to bring as many games over here as they used to. That doesn't mean they're creating some sort of void. Blame the mainstream consumer who would now rather buy a Call of Duty or Madden game more than a Japanese game. There are still plenty of those outside the mainstream who buy Japanese games like hotcakes. There are still games that do have that global appeal, but when it costs tens of millions of dollars to develop and market a game, you can't blame them for being as hesitant to market a game as much as they used to.

Right, and nearly all of them by Nintendo, who had the #1 selling console this gen. It kinda goes without saying.

Yeah, and that has almost always been the case. Nintendo and Capcom have always had some of the best selling games of the entire industry. It's the same as EA and Activision having some of the best selling games. Nintendo and Capcom were the ones who dominated the market last generation, so there wasn't this void. Being selective on who you want to include and who you don't want to include on this list makes for a very sloppy argument, and still doesn't discount the fact that you have games like Gran Turismo, Dark Souls, and Metal Gear Solid IV selling millions of units over here. However, once again in 2012, you have many high-profile Japanese-made games coming. It doesn't discount the fact that some of the best RPGs of the generation are games like Xenoblade and Last Story which have yet to arrive here. This gen isn't over for a long while.

 

[Nymerio]

Just out of curiosity, because I've heard quite a few people say steam is bad for the industry because of its prices: Have there been any complaints about low prices from publishers or developers?

 

[Derrick01]

I think Steam is as harmful to the industry as mobile app stores.

"$60?! I'll get it on Steam for $5 in a couple weeks."

Well first of all a big $50-$60 game doesn't reach $5 until months and months later, even the ones that bomb.

Second Steam gives them an opportunity to make up for their bombing. When's the last time you saw a big console game, that's less than 2 or 3 years old, selling for $10 new? You don't usually. When it drops that low on Steam they make more money than they were because more are jumping on the $10 price than they were at $40+. Sure they probably don't make as much as they want to but at that point they've already written off that game and they're happy to get somewhat of a cash bump.

I've never heard anyone complain about steam sales in the industry, it's been near unanimous praise. Even from EA.

 

[Karuto]

Just out of curiosity, because I've heard quite a few people say steam is bad for the industry because of its prices: Have there been any complaints about low prices from publishers or developers?

I think the fact that indie games have seen a boon this generation shows how much high in demand lower-priced titles are, and why more and more publishers are going the freemium route. People who think it is harmful to the industry have a very outdated perception of the market and aren't adapting to the times. It's the same people who think used games are harming the market when they're not looking at the big picture.

For the people that think Steam is harming the indie developer because of their low prices, I point you to this article: http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/02/i...-instead-of-xbox-live-for-commercial-success/

When a developer can't even set the price they want on the games that they sell, and it costs tens of thousands of dollars to even release a patch on XBL or PSN, not to mention the weeks it takes to go through certification aside from the other red tape, then I think it's the healthiest thing to happen to the industry. Not to mention how buried indie games are on XBL. Where XBL seems to smother the growth of the young developer, services like Steam only serve to offer exponential support.

 

[bengraven]

Wow, this thread is still alive? I figured someone would get butthurt and demand this thread get closed a long time ago.

 

[djtiesto]

Right, and I never said to the contrary. There have been JPN games released in NA every year of this gen. 2012 is no different.

My point (that you responded to) was about dominating the Western market (in sales), which JPN games no longer do, especially compared to previous gens.




And I never did such a thing.





I'll be 32 this year. What about you? Also, :lol @ the lame dudebro term.




Still not answering my question about what franchises American gamers have abandoned. Again, what I see is Western devs/pubs creating games for Western audiences, and having success.




It's not difficult to understand. Nintendo & Capcom seem to be the only JPN devs to have any amount of success in Western markets this gen. But yeah, you have a few successful franchises from previous gen, like GT and FF, that have their fanbases who still buy their games. Those would be the exceptions, not the rule.

I'm gonna be 30 this year, I thought you were younger. Though like others have said, I think you are expecting way too much out of niche Japanese console games. Japanese companies have had plenty of successes with new IPs, both critically and financially (especially on the handhelds which even you can't deny they totally dominate). Catherine, Demon's Souls, Bayonetta, Valkyria Chronicles. But here's some food for thought - a much greater number of western devs went bankrupt this gen than Japanese, usually the western devs who focused on big-budget extravaganzas.

 

[Odrion]

Wow, this thread is still alive? I figured someone would get butthurt and demand this thread get closed a long time ago.

It's kinda beautiful.