Support NeoGAF

[border]

If you don't like Breaking Benjamin or Hoobastank, try going down to your local independent record store and looking for something different. Meet other like-minded people who will help point you in the right direction. The existence of 'soulless' mainstream entertainment does not negate the presence of other, better, alternatives. They exist in tandem, and always will.

Except that outlets for independent game producers are running thin, and production costs are shooting sky-high. It doesn't cost that much to shoot a movie on digital video or record a few album tracks....but when game budgets are going into the millions and publishers are consolidating there is less room for things that are out-of-the-ordinary.

There is also very little concerted effort to reach out to "underground" or "independent" creators, unlike in the film and music industries. Microsoft gave us a lot of big talk about their Incubator program that would encourage slicked-back amateur developers.....they shitcanned that effort after about 5 minutes. Not to mentioned they severed ties with at least 2 developers that had more independent, less-marketable visions (Schafer and Lorne Lanning). Eidos tried to bring lesser known stuff over to the states with that Fly Games labelled, but it's on the way out and they'll be swallowed up by a bigger publisher sooner or later anyway.

There is no Miramax for the game industry, so I don't think it is fair to say that things will end up just like they have for the film industry.

 

[Gaia Theory]

No one is willing to fund creative projects. The same thing is happening to games. Open your eyes.

My eyes are open, and while it might seem that creative projects aren't being funded - you have to realize that even bad games contain creativity. In fact, some of the worst games made have some of the most creative ideas in them. Sometimes creativity doesn't lead to a good game, and sometimes creativity leads to a loss of sales (Wind Waker).

Sure, big publishers are less likely to take risks (EA), but sometimes big publishers are the only reason that risks can be taken (edit:Namco -Katamari Damacy, edit:Ubisoft -Beyond Good and Evil). Sometimes 'smaller' or 'independent' games need to get made off the backs of mainstream successes.

Of course, there are still plenty of independent game studios. Many of them are housed under a larger publishers umbrella. Many of the largest publishers in the industry, remain small internally. Sounds like a paradox, but it's true. How many dev teams do the largest publishers have? Many.

That said, there are, of course, many independent studios that are all by their lonesome. Treasure is a very good example. They make the games they want, many of them falling into genres that have become niche as the game industry evolves (shooters), but they also sign contracts to make games that might have bigger appeal with larger publishers (Wario World, Gradius V). Treasure isn't alone with this business model. But lists aren't important here.

So while it may seem that publishers aren't willing to fund creativity, it all depends on how you view creativity. Even popcorn movies have creativity. I think it's a false statement to say that game publishers aren't willing to risk funding creative ventures. I believe that they do this all the time - it's just that we all have our own tastes, and maybe it seems that our tastes get under-represented once in awhile.

 

[AstroLad]

the reason why there's a lot of concentration on "GTA" games and "FPS" games is simple.

Yes, because there's no good "GTA" or "FPS" games on GC. Seriously, at this point this is nothing more than a fanboy diatribe thread that will probably be locked eventually. One of those arguments where the author starts at the conclusion- "Nintendo is so much better than everyone"- and then proceeds to fill in reasons why, very few having any connection to reality whatsoever.

 

[Amir0x]

I totally love Nintendo, but the industry is not going to cry out in pain if the big "N" never becomes the market leader in consoles again. We have so many fantastic games on PS2 and Xbox as it is that I'm not really worried about a lack of superb titles. If the "direction" of the industry is to continually overwhelm me with a backlog of phenomenal titles then it's the right direction to me. Granted, we have fantastic games on Gamecube too. But if Gamecube disappeared and never existed, there'd still be such a heaping pile of great games to play that you'd never need another option other than PS2 or Xbox or both.

 

[Mama Smurf]

The bottom line is that if anyone here is happy with Hollywood and MTV -- they have another thing coming. Sure there is good indy artists and indy films, but that is a huge problem. No one is willing to fund creative projects. The same thing is happening to games. Open your eyes.

Look, you might be rich as FUCK, I don't know, but for most of us, we can't afford to watch that many movies or buy that many games or CDs a year. It doesn't matter if there are 10,000 shit CDs released a year, as long as there's 20 good ones then I'm happy.

 

[bionic77]

I totally love Nintendo, but the industry is not going to cry out in pain if the big "N" never becomes the market leader in consoles again. We have so many fantastic games on PS2 and Xbox as it is that I'm not really worried about a lack of superb titles. If the "direction" of the industry is to continually overwhelm me with a backlog of phenomenal titles then it's the right direction to me. Granted, we have fantastic games on Gamecube too. But if Gamecube disappeared and never existed, there'd still be such a heaping pile of great games to play that you'd never need another option other than PS2 or Xbox or both.

I love Nintendo games too and I could care less if they are the industry leader. This just smacks of sour grapes by someone who only has a Gamecube.

I don't buy into this bullshit that the industry would be so much better if Nintendo were in charge. Nintendo seemed to be OK with the violence and gore when MK2 was selling a truckload on the SNES.......

 

[Amir0x]

Look, you might be rich as FUCK, I don't know, but for most of us, we can't afford to watch that many movies or buy that many games or CDs a year. It doesn't matter if there are 10,000 shit CDs released a year, as long as there's 20 good ones then I'm happy.

This is the center of it.

When Nintendo was at the head of the industry the EXACT SAME THING held true. There was way, way more shit than good and yet there was still more than enough games to hold us over. PS2 is like this. PSX was like this. SNES/Genesis was like this. NES was like this. PS3 will be like this.

If the "direction" of the industry is to continue overwhelming us with a backlog of incredible titles than it's a fine direction indeed.

I love Nintendo games too and I could care less if they are the industry leader. This just smacks of sour grapes by someone who only has a Gamecube.

I don't buy into this bullshit that the industry would be so much better if Nintendo were in charge. Nintendo seemed to be OK with the violence and gore when MK2 was selling a truckload on the SNES.......

Are you directing this toward me? Because I agree with your statement. When Nintendo was the head, not much was different. Some would even argue that from a development standpoint things were actually much, much worse. And since the amount of quality games we receive is equal with any of the Nintendo systems or even surpassing those, any amount of "we need Nintendo to be the head for the industry to be saved" is pure fanboyish fanaticism.

 

[Scrow]

This is the center of it.

When Nintendo was at the head of the industry the EXACT SAME THING held true. There was way, way more shit than good and yet there was still more than enough games to hold us over. PS2 is like this. PSX was like this. SNES/Genesis was like this. NES was like this. PS3 will be like this.

If the "direction" of the industry is to continue overwhelming us with a backlog of incredible titles than it's a fine direction indeed.

IAWTP

Also, it feels like I'm seeing a PSP orgasm in your avatar

 

[Odnetnin]

I totally love Nintendo, but the industry is not going to cry out in pain if the big "N" never becomes the market leader in consoles again. We have so many fantastic games on PS2 and Xbox as it is that I'm not really worried about a lack of superb titles. If the "direction" of the industry is to continually overwhelm me with a backlog of phenomenal titles then it's the right direction to me. Granted, we have fantastic games on Gamecube too. But if Gamecube disappeared and never existed, there'd still be such a heaping pile of great games to play that you'd never need another option other than PS2 or Xbox or both.

you didn't love them enough to stomache Mario Party. I swear you play up the Nintendo is good angle in your posts to troll them.

Fission Mailed.

 

[bionic77]

This is the center of it.

When Nintendo was at the head of the industry the EXACT SAME THING held true. There was way, way more shit than good and yet there was still more than enough games to hold us over. PS2 is like this. PSX was like this. SNES/Genesis was like this. NES was like this. PS3 will be like this.

If the "direction" of the industry is to continue overwhelming us with a backlog of incredible titles than it's a fine direction indeed.



Are you directing this toward me? Because I agree with your statement. When Nintendo was the head, not much was different. Some would even argue that from a development standpoint things were actually much, much worse. And since the amount of quality games we receive is equal with any of the Nintendo systems or even surpassing those, any amount of "we need Nintendo to be the head for the industry to be saved" is pure fanboyish fanaticism.

:lol

I agreed with what you said. I was directing that at Samus in an undoubtedly futile attempt to show him the errors of his ways.

 

[DSN2K]

missAran = female Gah

 

[Amir0x]

you didn't love them enough to stomache Mario Party. I swear you play up the Nintendo is good angle in your posts to troll them.

Fission Mailed.

I'm sorry, uh, liking a game just because it comes from a company you like is the DEFINITION of blind fanboyish fanaticism.

 

[SolidSnakex]

you didn't love them enough to stomache Mario Party. I swear you play up the Nintendo is good angle in your posts to troll them.

Fission Mailed.

He can be a Nintendo fanboy without loving every single game they've ever made.

 

[Mama Smurf]

I love Nintendo games too and I could care less if they are the industry leader. This just smacks of sour grapes by someone who only has a Gamecube.

http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=32865

 

[VALIS]

When I was growing up, the casual gamer didn't exist. A small percentage of the population played the games. And in that regard, I was a casual. There were no "hardcore" gamers because the industry wasn't big enough. It was a big-business, huge-money thing that it is now. Times have changed. And that's bad.

Please, just stop. You couldn't possibly be further off the mark if you tried. You're probably having a "problem" with video games right now because you have absolutely no understanding of the industry or it's history and believe what a bunch of teenagers on vg messageboards say about casuals and hardcores and that complete fantasy BS. Right now is pretty damn similar to the 16-bit era, the 8-bit era and the Atari/Intellivision/Coleco era in terms of popularity, creativity, consumer demographics and whatever else you want to come up with. You have the problem, not the industry. It has it's own faults for sure, but these (sequalitis and bandwagonism, for instance) are nothing new. Hell, they've been there since THE BEGINNING.

This stuff about "hardcore" and "casual" gamers I constantly read about is just so much crap. The proportion of so called casual gamers has been more or less the same through every single era. Besides, without these casual game buyers this industry likely wouldn't be profitable enough to survive like it has. It still costs about the same to buy a game as it did 30 years ago despite the cost and number of employees to produce the game having multiplied many times over since then. That's pretty nice.

Another thing, it's very amusing that these self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers" are usually anything but. To me, a "hardcore" would have a thorough understanding and appreciation of whatever they're hardcore for. But when it comes to game messageboards, the self-appointed hardcores usually have appreciation of little and an understanding of even less. To have a great appreciation of a less popular niche of an industry doesn't make you an expert or an arbiter of taste on the whole thing!

I'm so tired of hearing this crap already. All of you who think like this, please, no one is begging you stay in gaming. Go find another hobby. People around my age (32) grew up worshipping Atari. You know what happened when Atari more or less died and Nintendo took over? NOTHING! No one cared! No one sat around bitching about the loss of Atari when there were great games on the NES to be played. There are still just as many great games to be played now as there were then. The problem is you, not video games.

 

[Amir0x]

He can be a Nintendo fanboy without loving every single game they've ever made.

You don't have to defend me. Any sane person knows what you said here is true.

Pikmin 2 is still my 2004 GOTY

 

[bionic77]

http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=32865

:lol

But i could care less!

 

[Doom_Bringer]

Please, just stop. You couldn't possibly be further off the mark if you tried. You're probably having a "problem" with video games right now because you have absolutely no understanding of the industry or it's history and believe what a bunch of teenagers on vg messageboards say about casuals and hardcores and that complete fantasy BS. Right now is pretty damn similar to the 16-bit era, the 8-bit era and the Atari/Intellivision/Coleco era in terms of popularity, creativity, consumer demographics and whatever else you want to come up with. You have the problem, not the industry. It has it's own faults for sure, but these (sequalitis and bandwagonism, for instance) are nothing new. Hell, they've been there since THE BEGINNING.

This stuff about "hardcore" and "casual" gamers I constantly read about is just so much crap. The proportion of so called casual gamers has been more or less the same through every single era. Besides, without these casual game buyers this industry likely wouldn't be profitable enough to survive like it has. It still costs about the same to buy a game as it did 30 years ago despite the cost and number of employees to produce the game having multiplied many times over since then. That's pretty nice.

Another thing, it's very amusing that these self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers" are usually anything but. To me, a "hardcore" would have a thorough understanding and appreciation of whatever they're hardcore for. But when it comes to game messageboards, the self-appointed hardcores usually have appreciation of little and an understanding of even less. To have a great appreciation of a less popular niche of an industry doesn't make you an expert or an arbiter of taste on the whole thing!

I'm so tired of hearing this crap already. All of you who think like this, please, no one is begging you stay in gaming. Go find another hobby. People around my age (32) grew up worshipping Atari. You know what happened when Atari more or less died and Nintendo took over? NOTHING! No one cared! No one sat around bitching about the loss of Atari when there were great games on the NES to be played. There are still just as many great games to be played now as there were then. The problem is you, not video games.

Good post!

 

[Mama Smurf]

:lol

But i could care less!

Don't you try and wiggle out of this!

The "Open your eyes" comment is the best thing about this thread.

 

[missAran]

Let me reiterate, because this bears reiteration. Videogames used to be a relatively small industry. Developers could make games that they wanted to make, and there was a population, a small one, that would be them. Now that it has expanded and turned into the huge money-maker it is, the times are changing. Discuss the fact that there are indy developers still making some great stuff, discuss the fact that there are great games still; that's fine. But the mere fact that you need to make these exceptions proves my point. Exceptions always define the rule. So the minute someone tells me there are independant developers that still make solid stuff is the minute he's proven my point.

Look at Hollywood, look at MTV. Mainstream movies and music are putrid, and the futher an industry gets pushed into the mainstream the more it will be plagued by this. It has been proven time and again. Anyone who think I'm pretentious because I'm describing what is happening to videogames is a fool. YOU are pretentious for thinking that the game industry wont' suffer the fate of Hollywood and music.

 

[border]

Exceptions always define the rule.

"The exception that proves the rule" is one of the most retarded logical fallacies. Rules must somehow account for their exceptions, otherwise they are invalid.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Let me reiterate, because this bears reiteration. Videogames used to be a relatively small industry.

It certainly wasn't anytime Nintendo was the leader of it.

Look at Hollywood, look at MTV. Mainstream movies and music are putrid, and the futher an industry gets pushed into the mainstream the more it will be plagued by this.

Since you're so against mainstream stuff, why do you even like Nintendo? They're one of the most popular videogame companies around and their games are consistant high sellers. You should only be playing Treasure and Irem games if you're so hard up on the indie developers.

 

[VALIS]

Let me reiterate, because this bears reiteration. Videogames used to be a relatively small industry. Developers could make games that they wanted to make, and there was a population, a small one, that would be them. Now that it has expanded and turned into the huge money-maker it is, the times are changing.

This bears reiteration, too: YOU'RE WRONG. You have your own personalized view of video game history which is incorrect. We're not debating an opinion here, your assertions that video games used to be a "relatively small industry" and "developers could make games they wanted to make" (WTF does that mean, anyway?) are completely and entirely incorrect.

There are several good books out there, go read about the histories of Atari and Nintendo and then tell me how video games weren't as big or popular then as they are now.

 

[dog$]

Videogames used to be a relatively small industry.

And then the Magnavox Odyssey came out. Too small? Well, the Atari 2600 definitely wasn't obscure. Take your pick.

Developers could make games that they wanted to make, and there was a population, a small one, that would be them.

....what?

 

[bionic77]

One day when Sony is not the dominant force in the industry, I will laugh when someone whose first console was the PSX will complain about how shitty the industry has become.

 

[Shaheed79]

Wow who changed the topic name? Thats f*cked up. :lol

 

[Blame!]

MissAran we've gotten the point already...you're an idiot. Enough!

 

[Mama Smurf]

Let me reiterate, because this bears reiteration. Videogames used to be a relatively small industry. Developers could make games that they wanted to make, and there was a population, a small one, that would be them. Now that it has expanded and turned into the huge money-maker it is, the times are changing. Discuss the fact that there are indy developers still making some great stuff, discuss the fact that there are great games still; that's fine. But the mere fact that you need to make these exceptions proves my point. Exceptions always define the rule. So the minute someone tells me there are independant developers that still make solid stuff is the minute he's proven my point.

I ask you again...what does it matter?

Even if you were right, which you're not, and there used to be a greater percentage of great games, it doesn't make a difference. Say 100 games were released one year on the NES, and 20 were good. 20% of games were good. Now let's say 500 games were released last year, and still 20 were good. That's only 4%. But so fucking what, when you still only get to play 20 good games either way? You're not being forced to buy crap, other people buying crap doesn't mean you can't buy the good ones.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Like Sega, Nintendo won't be missed if they were to go. Yeah, some fans like me would weep at the loss of Miyamoto games, but overall, they've been pretty irrelevant in the console market for years. It would be interesting to see how they stack up against EA and the like. My guess is not too well. While they still have some very powerful IPs, they are absolutely pathetic at releasing games. They'd need to reorganize internally to ramp up gape productions schedules to compete in the 3rd party market. The way it is, Nintendo's enjoying the lack of competition. If they were thrown into the same pool as the rest of the sharks, they might not fare so well. PEACE.

EDIT: And the way the industry is going has been that way for years. So nothing you can do about it. Consolidation has as much to do with changing gamer tastes as it does with business practices. If the market wasn't so cozy for sports franchises, EA wouldn't be that rich and wouldn't be swallowing the competition whole.

 

[TheDiave]

I'm not saying I agree with all of MissAran's comments, but a handful, I do buy into. I miss the days when video games were just a "nerd" thing. The days when you didn't have boobs making up imaginary releases -- "do you have Halo on PS2? My friend said he got it here." -- and trash like GTA didn't outsell masterpieces like Super Mario 64. Maybe I'm just getting old, perhaps jaded, or just outgrowing gaming in general, but I don't like where the industry is headed either.

You know what? Back in the day, console advocacy didn't have the same malicious undertones it does nowadays. If you don't believe me, then why does GAF have a rule about trolling and derailing topics?

Unless something absolutely mind-boggling comes out of the next generation, beyond prettier visuals, this may be the last gen I play games.

 

[Mama Smurf]

Like Sega, Nintendo won't be missed if they were to go. Yeah, some fans like me would weep at the loss of Miyamoto games, but overall, they've been pretty irrelevant in the console market for years. It would be interesting to see how they stack up against EA and the like. My guess is not too well. While they still have some very powerful IPs, they are absolutely pathetic at releasing games. They'd need to reorganize internally to ramp up gape productions schedules to compete in the 3rd party market. The way it is, Nintendo's enjoying the lack of competition. If they were thrown into the same pool as the rest of the sharks, they might not fare so well. PEACE.

I don't really agree with that. You don't have to release 30 games a year to compete as a third party.

Nintendo would be a BIG third party. Their IPs are bigger than Sega's, their games sell better...they'd be huge. MS and Sony would kill to get Mario, Pokemon and Zelda on their systems exclusively, and those are only the very biggest IPs.

 

[Drinky Crow]

I'm not saying I agree with all of MissAran's comments, but a handful, I do buy into. I miss the days when video games were just a "nerd" thing. The days when you didn't have boobs making up imaginary releases -- "do you have Halo on PS2? My friend said he got it here."

It's kinda hard to invent scenarios like that when there's only one major platform -- the NES. That said, I remember several USENET threads about the FF series coming to Genesis roundabout the time the market had split between Sega and Nintendo. The crap yer complaining about is the result of increased hardware competition, not the decline of Nintendo's popularity with the average gamer.

You can, of course, address the issue of "Halo on PS2!" remarks by participating in the ALLIED GAMER FRONT FOR A ONE CONSOLE FUTURE. BUY A PS2!

-- and trash like GTA didn't outsell masterpieces like Super Mario 64. Maybe I'm just getting old, perhaps jaded, or just outgrowing gaming in general, but I don't like where the industry is headed either.

The development of 3D graphics has allowed for FAR more diversity in the creation of gaming content. It has NOTHING to do with Nintendo's prominence or lack thereof. 3D is hugely compelling for both content creators and audiences, like it or not.

You know what? Back in the day, console advocacy didn't have the same malicious undertones it does nowadays. If you don't believe me, then why does GAF have a rule about trolling and derailing topics?

Bullshit squared. USENET SNES/Genny flame wars were as nasty or nastier than anything EVER posted to this forum. I should know; I was in countless numbers of 'em.

Unless something absolutely mind-boggling comes out of the next generation, beyond prettier visuals, this may be the last gen I play games.

Don't let the anisotropic-filtered, spline-rendered door hit you on the ass on your way out.

 

[Amir0x]

I'm not saying I agree with all of MissAran's comments, but a handful, I do buy into. I miss the days when video games were just a "nerd" thing. The days when you didn't have boobs making up imaginary releases -- "do you have Halo on PS2? My friend said he got it here."

I don't know if you're implying that gaming was better when it was a "nerd" thing, even though I don't think you could ever call it a nerd thing after NES came to town, but this statement seems almost as misguided as MissAran's.

and trash like GTA didn't outsell masterpieces like Super Mario 64.

Subjective what! GTA:VC/SA is fantastic. Some would call it a "masterpiece" in many ways. I would agree with those people. I would also call Super Mario 64 a masterpiece. Ideally, though, it shouldn't matter how many millions more one sells over another. You're a gamer, and these games are going to be made regardless. Opinions will always differ on which deserves to sell more, but at the end of the day you still have both to play. You buy the one you want, and everyone is happy.

Maybe I'm just getting old, perhaps jaded, or just outgrowing gaming in general, but I don't like where the industry is headed either.

Yup.

You know what? Back in the day, console advocacy didn't have the same malicious undertones it does nowadays. If you don't believe me, then why does GAF have a rule about trolling and derailing topics?

"Back in the day", if the day equals NES and SNES, the internet was not as big! In fact, it hardly existed at all in the NES days! "Back in the day", if the day equals NES and SNES, the undertones were STILL malicious. The difference is that during the NES era the competition was weak so that there couldn't be much in the way of 'camps.' As soon as competition came, in the form of SNES vs. GENESIS, the undertones were their in heaps. It never changed. What changed is your involvement in discussing such things, since I'm sure you use the internet more now than you did back in 1994. See Drinky's USENET example.

If you're suggesting that you'd rather there not be competition so that people couldn't be malicious to each other, then I don't know what to say to such logic.

Unless something absolutely mind-boggling comes out of the next generation, beyond prettier visuals, this may be the last gen I play games.

This is what it's all about. You go ahead and do that, and the rest of will continue to enjoy the plethora of good games. But between you and me, you're not going to stop. You probably wouldn't be talking at GAF about how much you 'dislike the direction of the industry' and your preferences in games if you had any intention of stopping.

The development of 3D graphics has allowed for FAR more diversity in the creation of gaming content. It has NOTHING to do with Nintendo's prominence or lack thereof. 3D is hugely compelling for both content creators and audiences, like it or not.

Also, this is truth.

 

[AstroLad]

The GTA hate from "NINTENDO=#1" fans reminds me of the Half-Life 2 hate from X-Boxers, or any completely console-preference based hatred of a big game.

Oh, and:

 

[Foobar]

It always has been. When you were growing up -- and I don't care if you try to refute this, because it'll just be a fucking lie -- with Mario, you were a casual fan. Nintendo's games used to cater to casual fans.

...

There was no casual/mainstream gamer back in those days, games were for kids or the hardcore gamer, no one else, there was nothing truely for grown-ups until the late-90's in terms of Mature content. Point to any game you want, they were all still niche at the time.

By the time many of us were in college, we still wanted to play video games and the market changed with that, which meant the audience broadend, yet kids still continued to play games as well. As the content matured, more adults started to play and kids conversly wanted to play the games adults were playing because they (as kids always do) want to feel more grown-up. Which leaves us with where Nintendo is today.

Does Nintendo market themselves as a kiddie-game company? Hell no, they make games that they want to appeal to everyone. But that's where the competition's marketing steps in with projecting an image. Sony and MS try to define Nintendo as something childish and their stuff as more mature. As such, they draw from other things percieved as "mature" like mainstream music and film, which has more casual appeal.

Games used to just be games, now they're seen as "entertainment." Many people no longer play for the High Score or challenge, but story or "fun." The hardcore gamer is usually happy if an RPG has challenge or replay value, but the causal gamer fusses because they want to see it all the first time with minimal effort. The hardcore gamer can hop into Metroid Prime 2 with little to fuss about, but the causual FPS player will piss and moan that it doesn't control like Halo and Samus doesn't talk.

Hell, look at how much people complain about voice acting in games now, everyone's a fucking Ebert and Roper now about acting in games. Forget gameplay and challenge, whether or not a hero sounds manly and affirms an image the player likes is make-or-break now. Apparently, PoP wasn't great by itself, The Prince had to become and angsty, selfish prick with a growling voice and a Godsmack soundtrack to drive up sales.

This market is ruled by the casual now, it was never this way back then.

 

[Pimpwerx]

I don't really agree with that. You don't have to release 30 games a year to compete as a third party.

Nintendo would be a BIG third party. Their IPs are bigger than Sega's, their games sell better...they'd be huge. MS and Sony would kill to get Mario, Pokemon and Zelda on their systems exclusively, and those are only the very biggest IPs.

Yeah, Nintendo would be a big third party. But could they compete with EA? EA's becoming huge and just on software. Without hardware, Nintendo might not match up very well. But I guess they don't have to be #1 to be strong. PEACE.

 

[Mama Smurf]

Well Nintendo are the number 2 publisher in the world with just GC sales. Who knows what they could do with a 100% userbase to sell to.

EA are pretty hard to beat though, I expect Nintendo would just hang around the number 2 spot, no lower than 5 anyway.

 

[VALIS]

Oh, and:

Yep. I was going to mention earlier how I remember commercials on TV in prime time telling me the Intellivision was more sophisticated than the Atari, or that "Genesis does what Nintendon't." Or how yesterday I saw Pac-Man scratch off lottery tickets at a 7-11, a character/icon the majority of the population hasn't heard from in over 20 years.

And video games have just gained mass market awareness this generation? Yeah, okay.

 

[KiNeSiS]

Maybe this is because I'm a huge Nintendo fan. Maybe it's because I have some distorted fantasy about how the 2D market worked because of my age. Maybe I'm just way off and too cynical, in general. But if not, this is worth considering.

One of the reasons that I love Nintendo is because I genuinely think its games are awesome. I think it knows how to make games better than anyone else. While the company has made some great games this generation, some of the best I've ever played, there's a shallow feeling in them. Something that I've never experienced before. I'm playing the game, enjoying them, and saying to myself, "this is awesome... but..."

I feel as though Nintendo feels that there is a problem, it's trying to change it. It's pushing new DS hardware, something that's only been toyed with otherwise. It's pushing an entire "Revolution" next generation, but in the end I feel like it's screwing itself. If DS is Nintendo's vision, count me out.

Maybe, Nintendo will prove me wrong; but as it looks, I don't think it'll happen. DS is weak. The innovation of the Revolution, while we know nothing about it, seems to be another gimmick.

So while Nintendo realizes there's a problem, Sony and Microsoft don't know of it and don't care. Honestly, if Nintendo screws up, I don't want to 'switch camps.' Why? Because I think the other camps suck. I don't want to sit around playing generic FPSes, GTA games, and games that are driven by mindless violence and sexual content. If this what people are buying, if this is what is selling and what a "good" company does -- count me out.

As much as I criticize Nintendo, the other options are miserable and completely naive to the videogame industry and what it's supposed to be. In the end, I want Nintendo to succeed, not because I care about its financial state, but because I think the growth of the industry and the joy that it brings will stop if Nintendo doesn't.

We can all agree that Nintendo isn't as good as it once was. I think we can call agree that it was MUCH better at one point, I'm not denying that. What I'm arguing is that, in spite of Nintendo's failure, does that make Sony and Microsoft right? Are they leading the industry in the right direction? I don't believe so.

I'm the penguin in pink by the way, no need to point that out.

You seem to talk more about Nintendo than you play Nintendo!

 

[SolidSnakex]

...

There was no casual/mainstream gamer back in those days, games were for kids or the hardcore gamer, no one else, there was nothing truely for grown-ups until the late-90's in terms of Mature content. Point to any game you want, they were all still niche at the time.

This market is ruled by the casual now, it was never this way back then.

Who do you think it was that made Mortal Kombat one of the biggest game series ever? Hardcore gamers? No it was casual gamers. You claim there wasn't any content for the older gamer until the late 90's, yet that came out in 92. Not just MK, but Street Fighter 2 was also a massive casual friendly game. College students started getting into it and that's why it became so big.

Does Nintendo market themselves as a kiddie-game company? Hell no, they make games that they want to appeal to everyone. But that's where the competition's marketing steps in with projecting an image. Sony and MS try to define Nintendo as something childish and their stuff as more mature. As such, they draw from other things percieved as "mature" like mainstream music and film, which has more casual appeal.

Sony and MS didn't even start this, it was Sega in the Genesis days. They started more actively trying to bring in those casual gamers that already existed and one way they achieved this was by painting Nintendo as a kids machine while painting the Genesis as the cool machine. This brought in more casuals to the market than there already were. The casual market has always been a huge part of gaming, its just continued to grow over time. It didn't suddenly appear in the PSone days, it'd been there already.

 

[Agent X]

There was no casual/mainstream gamer back in those days, games were for kids or the hardcore gamer, no one else, there was nothing truely for grown-ups until the late-90's in terms of Mature content. Point to any game you want, they were all still niche at the time.

Is that truly what you believe?

Does Nintendo market themselves as a kiddie-game company? Hell no, they make games that they want to appeal to everyone.

Ah, I see. When exactly did Nintendo start making games to "appeal to everyone"? When Donkey Kong came out in 1981, were they making that for everyone, or just for the kids and gaming geeks? What about when they introduced the Nintendo Entertainment System to the US in 1985?

But that's where the competition's marketing steps in with projecting an image. Sony and MS try to define Nintendo as something childish and their stuff as more mature.

Oh, please. Video game companies have been slinging mud at each other for decades. Look at the Intellivision ad right above your post for evidence of this. Mattel had several ads like that, then Atari fired back with anti-Intellivision ads. Later, Coleco jumped into the fray as well. Several years later, Sega and NEC brought out graphically advanced (at the time) 16-bit systems, and set their sights on Nintendo who was still selling comparatively primitive 8-bit hardware. That's just the way it is.

Games used to just be games, now they're seen as "entertainment." Many people no longer play for the High Score or challenge, but story or "fun."

This is ironic.

In the late 1980s, Atari was criticized because a large number of their games were derived from straightforward arcade fare, where the goal was usually to last as long as you could and rack up as many points as possible in the process. Meanwhile, Nintendo's games were often praised for their complex goals and involving storylines. The notion was that Atari was stuck in the past, while Nintendo was the wave of the future.

Now, in 2005, the tables have turned completely. Games on Nintendo systems are often portrayed as being simplistic and mired in the past, while games on Sony and Microsoft systems are generally regarded as more complex and trying to push gameplay concepts forward into the future.

Why is it that many of the people who wanted the industry to grow and advance 15-20 years ago are now asking that the industry stagnate and not move forward so quickly?

This market is ruled by the casual now, it was never this way back then.

:lol

 

[DDayton]

Eh. The only thing that ever bugs me is that sports games and "interactive movie"-like games seem to be commanding a large share of the market. I dislike both of those kinds of games, and would prefer if more and more other kinds of games sold.

Then again, I suppose everyone has a genre or two they hate, and would prefer if their favorite kinds of games dominated the market.

Edit:

In the late 1980s, Atari was criticized because a large number of their games were derived from straightforward arcade fare, where the goal was usually to last as long as you could and rack up as many points as possible in the process. Meanwhile, Nintendo's games were often praised for their complex goals and involving storylines. The notion was that Atari was stuck in the past, while Nintendo was the wave of the future.

Now, in 2005, the tables have turned completely. Games on Nintendo systems are often portrayed as being simplistic and mired in the past, while games on Sony and Microsoft systems are generally regarded as more complex and trying to push gameplay concepts forward into the future.

Hmm. This is interesting point, but I don't think the comparison is completely valid. I agree that many folks might say that "Nintendo games are simpler than PS2 games," but I don't think I can come up with many cases of this being true. I will say that Nintendo games. Defender was, argueably, a very complex game to CONTROL, but not all that complex as far as gameplay goes. I think that many folks are equating complexity of controls with complexity of gameplay.

Oh well. Time for more Alien Hominid!

 

[krypt0nian]

When I was growing up, the casual gamer didn't exist. A small percentage of the population played the games. And in that regard, I was a casual. There were no "hardcore" gamers because the industry wasn't big enough. It was a big-business, huge-money thing that it is now. Times have changed. And that's bad.

Bingo.....now casuals bring everyone down.

 

[MrAngryFace]

Ok, did anyone even see the map screen?

 

[Amir0x]

Bingo.....now casuals bring everyone down.

Damn those casuals! They're the evil spawn of Satan! Damn the industry for still consistently bringing as many, if not more, good games that we ever had before! Casuals ruined that too, somehow!

 

[Kcerrid 31]

Man, am I ever glad that I don't mind playing Nintendo games even if they have a "kiddie" look and I don't mind playing games like San Andreas even if they say "fuck" in the game.

I feel sorry for close-minded people in any camp, b/c that's partisanship at its worst, where you're sacrificing tons of fun for the sake of sticking to an ideology.

Good point. And to think, I would have missed out on KOTOR, the best console RPG this generation, had I kept that nostalgic mindset. Nintendites are gonna have to expand their minds a bit and realize that mature titles don't automatically mean it's "evil".

KOTOR gives you a choice to be good or bad throughout the course of the game, and that alone bumps it above the typical RPG's of the past 2 generations. It's compelling in ways that FF7 could never be, looking back now. Believe me guys, games ARE getting better, it's just that our nostalgic perceptions wouldn't allow us to imagine games like the KOTOR series until we actually tried them out.

I know, we all want to hold on to that bit of innocence while living in a sometimes dark adult world, but at some point you gotta grow up a bit. I have hopes for the next Zelda, but after KOTOR, I'm now looking foward to Jade more. That's what happens when you expand your mind a bit.

 

[Minotauro]

Popularity destroys markets and industries.

This is perhaps the dumbest statement I've ever run across on this forum. Seriously, do you even consider the points you're trying to make before hitting the submit button?

Boy, this thread is pathetic and sad.

 

[_Angelus_]

Damn, I still remember the days of Mortal Kombat 2,Donkey Kong Country,Super Mario Brothers 3,Sonic2, Street Fighter 2, and Zelda games released. Those games were bought up like mad. Don't try to tell me that these were bought by mostly the hardcore because they weren't. It was the complete opposite. For every good Zelda game that was eaten up-you'd see suspect software such as Pitfighter being bought up right along side it.

 

[shuri]

Gaming never "became" mainstream, it has always been mainstream. Stop this nonsense. In 10 years, today's kids and teens are going to be looking at MGS3 and Halo2 as "the good old days", "when games were about gameplay"

 

[pjberri]

missAran is the worst person ever.