Support NeoGAF

[scotcheggz]

PusherT, for the love of all that is holy, read up on Nintendo's history before mouthing off about it. This book would be a great start:

That's the second or third edition. If you want the first, it won't have that nice picture of Mario because Nintendo pulled out of the deal at the last second saying they didn't want to let the publisher use him.

Edit: Damn prices have skyrocketed. I really wish I hadn't lost my copy. My school library has it though so check yours.

Do you know of any other changes in the editions of these books? I'm quite interested to read it but no way am I paying £60-£160 for it...

I found the original edition on Amazon for £2.99 though, is it missing a lot of stuff from the later editions?

 

[bucklam66]

Probably they were feuding over money. That is just a guess.

 

[Dreamwriter]

I think it all started when square wanted to release ff2 and ff3 to foreign markets and nintendo basically said no.

Then Square wanted to bring ff5 to western markets but Nintendo said no westerners were to stupid to play complex rpgs so we got FFMQ instead.

I've never read any of that, where did you read it from? Especially FF5, I know that's not true, has nothing whatsoever to do with Nintendo. Square decided not to release FF5 in the US for three reasons - first off, graphically it wasn't really any better looking than FF4, while competing games at the time were better. Second, FF4 didn't sell as well in the US as Square wanted, and looking for a reason, they settled on the game being too complex (even in the easified US version), and FF5 was way more complicated than FF4. Third, Square had just opened up a US development office (thinking that Americans would make games Americans liked) and they were making games; Square didn't want to compete with themselves.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I've never read any of that, where did you read it from? Especially FF5, I know that's not true, has nothing whatsoever to do with Nintendo. Square decided not to release FF5 in the US for three reasons - first off, graphically it wasn't really any better looking than FF4, while competing games at the time were better. Second, FF4 didn't sell as well in the US as Square wanted, and looking for a reason, they settled on the game being too complex (even in the easified US version), and FF5 was way more complicated than FF4. Third, Square had just opened up a US development office (thinking that making Americans would make games Americans liked) and they were making games; Square didn't want to compete with themselves.

Fourth, Butz.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Nothing to do with jealousy. Most of the companies that sided with Sony went on to make some of the best games in their histories.

Can you tell us what are these "best games in their histories"? I sense you're saying that companies during the Nintendo days weren't good and only got better after siding Sony. If that's the case: :lol

I still can't believe the wounds are still so deep with Nintendo fans that they still are revising history to come to terms with why things went down the way they did. It's really time to stop lying to yourselves, it's gonna be OK!

Sony was "shamelessly opportunistic" and Square had some agenda that led to an "ultimately unsuccessful" partnership... I mean jesus fucking tapdancing christ.

It's no different from some people here saying "Nintendo was an evil tyrant, third-party enslaver and Sony was the messiah who show them the light and gave them paradise on Earth." :lol

 

[TheJollyCorner]

people still think FFVII was in development at ANY point in time on Nintendo hardware? Really?


It wasn't.

 

[ethelred]

Definitely disagree with you there. The N64 had more than enough blockbusters to warrant a purchase. [...] ...but for me N64 was still a must buy.

I can understand you putting the GameCube ahead of the N64 though. Just out of curiosity, where do you put Wii, SNES, and NES? (apologies if you already discussed that in this thread).

There were really only a handful of interesting, worthwhile games on the system for me. I get that some people see the appeal in local co-op FPS and sports and racing games, but those are not for me, and since they largely dominated what's considered worthwhile about the N64 (aside from cruddy 3D "platformers"), that's why the system ranks so low for me. I think both the N64 and the GameCube have probably the lowest quality output from Nintendo (aside from the Virtual Boy, again).

As for your question, I could probably give a very thorough and detailed breakdown of how I'd rank each Nintendo console and why, but this is probably not the precisely ideal place for it.

Oh so subtle :lol

What can I say? I don't think Mario 64 is a good game at all, and I've never had any desire to try its sequel, which is by all accounts equally as bland, uncreative, poorly controlling, and as iffy in the platforming department. I'm not trying to be subtle. I'll be very upfront about this, if you like. I do think Mario Galaxy is downright genius, and is the first 3D Mario game to capture the magic and brilliance and exquisite platforming of the 2D games.

This is a horrible idea that would have resulted in most of my favourite games this gen never being made.

Think about it. Console output from EA would basically be Fifa, Madden, and Need for Speed every year. No Dead Space, no Dragon Age or Mass Effect, No Boom Blox, etc. Same goes for every other company out there. There would be no experimentation.

Don't take it too seriously. Effect is only suggesting that all publishers be limited to three games a year because Nintendo is, quite literally, going to release just three games for the Wii all year, and he'd like everyone else's gaming experience to be as hobbled as his is going to be.

people still think FFVII was in development at ANY point in time on Nintendo hardware? Really?


It wasn't.

It was, actually.

 

[Dreamwriter]

people still think FFVII was in development at ANY point in time on Nintendo hardware? Really?


It wasn't.

Depends on what you consider FFVII. The demo shown at Nintendo's press conference was Square's first experiments at what a Final Fantasy game would look like on the N64 - had they not left the platform, those experiments would have grown into Final Fantasy VII, that was the intent at the time. So I would definitely say that FFVII was in development for the system. And I'd even be willing to bet that some of the N64 code from that demo did indeed make it into the PSX FFVII.

 

[TheJollyCorner]

It was, actually.

you aren't talking about the SIGGRAPH footage from '95, are you?

 

[ethelred]

you aren't talking about the SIGGRAPH footage from '95, are you?

Yoshinori Kitase: "Our first plans were interrupted, since we had to help out with Chrono Trigger, which had turned into a huge project. But as soon as we had done what we could with that game, we started over from the beginning with FFVII. And back then we were fully focused on the disk system that was going to be released for the Nintendo 64 (the 64DD). We never actually received a working prototype, but we did everything according to the planned specifications. [...] We actually began work from the ground up on three separate occasions. First directly after FFVI, then again after Chrono Trigger, and finally when we decided that CD-ROM technology was going to be a necessity and that it would therefore be released on the PlayStation."

 

[TheJollyCorner]

I talked to Kitase about that in '99 @ the Hilton Hawaiian Village.


He was eating shrooms and watching Quantum Leap marathons at the time. There's no truth to that.

Spoiler

or maybe I was eating shrooms and watching too much Bacula?

 

[cartman414]

Naw, read the thread. Howard Lincoln was a traitor, Sony whored themselves out, carts are superior to other medias, Nintendo was a fluffy sheep who were back stabbed by the wolves that were 3rd party developers. Let's not put your actual facts into play here. I mean, what are you going to say next? That Nintendo pulling the plug on the SNES CD screwing Sony spawned the Playstation? Not in the mythical world of this thread.

Sony split from Nintendo before Nintendo pulled the plug on the CD-ROM project.

 

[Gomu Gomu]

It's gonna be interesting to see Nintendo slowly turn into that asshole again, I mean it's already starting.

How come?

 

[dslgunstar]

Can you tell us what are these "best games in their histories"? I sense you're saying that companies during the Nintendo days weren't good and only got better after siding Sony. If that's the case: :lol

No, I never said that. Game companies were great on Nintendo too, but alot of them took full advantage of Sony's mature direction, hands-off approach to content, and willingness to help advertise.

Konami: Metal Gear Solid franchise, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
Namco: Tekken franchise, Soul Blade, Ridge Racer franchise, Ace Combat franchise
Capcom: Resident Evil franchise
Square: Final Fantasy 7-9, Vagrant Story, Xenogears, FFTactics, Tobal, Einhander


There are others, and Im not extrapolating any relationships started with the PSX that paid dividends with great games on the PS2, but I trust you get the gist.

Sony split from Nintendo before Nintendo pulled the plug on the CD-ROM project.

100% incorrect. Nintendo dropped Sony in a very public fashion at one of the pre-E3 industry shows in favor of Phillips (hence the horrid Zelda games on the CDi), and Sony was just as shocked to hear it as everyone else.

 

[timetokill]

What can I say? I don't think Mario 64 is a good game at all, and I've never had any desire to try its sequel, which is by all accounts equally as bland, uncreative, poorly controlling, and as iffy in the platforming department. I'm not trying to be subtle. I'll be very upfront about this, if you like. I do think Mario Galaxy is downright genius, and is the first 3D Mario game to capture the magic and brilliance and exquisite platforming of the 2D games.

To each their own, of course. I still go back and play Mario 64 every now and then (usually when I am visiting my parents or something for the holidays).

My only real issue with your comment there is I don't understand the poorly-controlling comment at all -- the game controls like a dream if you ask me, and it seems obvious that it was their main focus in development. It's the only part I would say is just wrong. :lol

I agree on Sunshine not being all that great, but again I don't think it was the controls at all. The "acapella" levels in Sunshine were awesome, and the best part of the game. And a lot of that comes down to reducing a lot of the extraneous stuff and just making it about the controls only.

But anyway, I didn't really mean to come to a discussion on it, I just thought it was funny that you seemingly went out of your way to throw a jab at Mario 64.

 

[hyduK]

No, I never said that. Game companies were great on Nintendo too, but alot of them took full advantage of Sony's mature direction, hands-off approach to content, and willingness to help advertise.

Konami: Metal Gear Solid franchise, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
Namco: Tekken franchise, Soul Blade, Ridge Racer franchise, Ace Combat franchise
Capcom: Resident Evil franchise
Square: Final Fantasy 7-9, Vagrant Story, Xenogears, FFTactics, Tobal, Einhander


There are others, and Im not extrapolating any relationships started with the PSX that paid dividends with great games on the PS2, but I trust you get the gist.

I'd take Squares NES + SNES collection over the PS1/PS2 collection any day. Same with Capcom.

 

[dslgunstar]

I'd take Squares NES + SNES collection over the PS1/PS2 collection any day. Same with Capcom.

Whatever, different people have different tastes. The fact is there's an argument to be made for the PSX output for a lot of these companies as some of their best, and certainly some of their most creative. TONS of new IPs originated on the PSX, lots of content that developers couldnt or wouldnt bring to Nintendo platforms.

 

[Firestorm]

Do you know of any other changes in the editions of these books? I'm quite interested to read it but no way am I paying £60-£160 for it...

I found the original edition on Amazon for £2.99 though, is it missing a lot of stuff from the later editions?

I don't think there's anything different aside from the extra (useless) chapters by Andy Eddy.

 

[cartman414]

No, I never said that. Game companies were great on Nintendo too, but alot of them took full advantage of Sony's mature direction, hands-off approach to content, and willingness to help advertise.

Konami: Metal Gear Solid franchise, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
Namco: Tekken franchise, Soul Blade, Ridge Racer franchise, Ace Combat franchise
Capcom: Resident Evil franchise
Square: Final Fantasy 7-9, Vagrant Story, Xenogears, FFTactics, Tobal, Einhander


There are others, and Im not extrapolating any relationships started with the PSX that paid dividends with great games on the PS2, but I trust you get the gist.



100% incorrect. Nintendo dropped Sony in a very public fashion at one of the pre-E3 industry shows in favor of Phillips (hence the horrid Zelda games on the CDi), and Sony was just as shocked to hear it as everyone else.

I'm talking about afterwards, when Sony and Nintendo working together for the second and final time. And the first time Nintendo dropped Sony was in response to finding out that the contract they signed for the SNES sound chip was written so that all royalties from CD-ROM games would go to Sony. Nintendo had asked Sony to let them out, but Sony refused.

 

[jett]

Nobody could tell him shit. Its his way or the high way. Square and Namco should have sucked up and bend over. It seem Nintendo and Yamauchi hold grudges

holy revisionist history batman

 

[Firestorm]

I'm talking about afterwards, when Sony and Nintendo working together for the second and final time. And the first time Nintendo dropped Sony was in response to finding out that the contract they signed for the SNES sound chip was written so that all royalties from CD-ROM games would go to Sony. Nintendo had asked Sony to let them out, but Sony refused.

You're telling me Nintendo signed a contract without reading it?

 

[Deleted member 284]

More people need to read Kobun's post, Game Over and Power Up! (can I get a referral fee on that last one Chris?) to get a clearer picture of what happened.

 

[cartman414]

You're telling me Nintendo signed a contract without reading it?

Either that, or the ramifications hadn't yet struck them.

 

[jett]

I'm talking about afterwards, when Sony and Nintendo working together for the second and final time. And the first time Nintendo dropped Sony was in response to finding out that the contract they signed for the SNES sound chip was written so that all royalties from CD-ROM games would go to Sony. Nintendo had asked Sony to let them out, but Sony refused.

Yeah...what?

 

[sonicmj1]

If Kobun, grandjedi, and a bunch of people here are anything to go by, the picture begins to sort itself out.

Nintendo was very restrictive in the NES/SNES days. They charged high royalties, and they made life difficult in terms of giving publishers control over carts. Squaresoft apparently had a number of clashes with Nintendo on various issues in the SNES days, and they felt like they weren't being fairly treated. They were already feeling sour about the N64 after Nintendo pulled out of making CDs, so when Sony rolled around and offered them a better deal, they didn't waste any time.

Square was very unhappy with Nintendo, though, and they were riding high on finally being independent from that console manufacturer. According to Kohler's quote, they badmouthed Nintendo in the press, and according to others here, they helped convince some other developers (Enix most notably) to join the Sony camp. Yamauchi didn't like Square much anyways, so he didn't mind losing them, but the other stuff pushed things too far, and he was never one to take an insult lying down. Thus, Square was shut out of Nintendo properties until they started falling apart in 2002 and they had to humble themselves and ask forgiveness if they wanted to make GBA and Gamecube games.

Square probably didn't need to burn the bridges they did after agreeing to develop for the Playstation, but their decision to leave Nintendo behind was certainly logical. Nintendo's third-party practices were very difficult for the publishers, who had to buy expensive carts from Nintendo and eat big losses if they didn't sell out. Not only that, but CDs were cheaper, and held much more data, making for a much easier developing environment. It's not a coincidence that pretty much every third party stopped making exclusive games for Nintendo's console as soon as viable alternative platforms presented themselves.

Anyone who sees the Nintendo of this period as some poor wronged company betrayed by jealous third-parties has to be completely delusional. There was no reason for those companies to work in a less business-friendly environment when other alternatives were readily available.

 

[Christine]

I don't think that either Nintendo or Sony ever approached their "partnership" in good faith. Nintendo was attempting to delay and distract Sony from entering the console market, and conducted secret negotiations with Philips in order to betray Sony publicly at CES '89 - Sony was attempting to outmaneuver Nintendo to facilitate their entry into the console market (or failing that, take ownership of software licensing on Nintendo's platforms) and conducted secret negotiations with third-party publishers in order to eat Nintendo's lunch when they launched independently.

The partnership was a mutually agreeable masquerade to cover an intense competition for the future of the industry. Neither company was pulling any punches, but Sony ended up winning that round - both tactically and in the court of public opinion.

Now, I don't think the old perception of "Nintendo backstabbed Sony, the bastards" tells the whole story - but, as several people have mentioned, some of the revisionist history attempting to whitewash Nintendo's part in all this is ludicrously delusional.

 

[cartman414]

I don't think that either Nintendo or Sony ever approached their "partnership" in good faith. Nintendo was attempting to delay and distract Sony from entering the console market, and conducted secret negotiations with Philips in order to betray Sony publicly at CES '89 - Sony was attempting to outmaneuver Nintendo to facilitate their entry into the console market (or failing that, take ownership of software licensing on Nintendo's platforms) and conducted secret negotiations with third-party publishers in order to eat Nintendo's lunch when they launched independently.

The partnership was a mutually agreeable masquerade to cover an intense competition for the future of the industry. Neither company was pulling any punches, but Sony ended up winning that round - both tactically and in the court of public opinion.

Now, I don't think the old perception of "Nintendo backstabbed Sony, the bastards" tells the whole story - but, as several people have mentioned, some of the revisionist history attempting to whitewash Nintendo's part in all this is ludicrously delusional.

All true, except that Nintendo's public backstabbing was a response to Sony's attempt to yoink all CD-ROM royalties with the contract signed in 1988.

 

[Freshmaker]

I'd take Squares NES + SNES collection over the PS1/PS2 collection any day. Same with Capcom.

Vagrant Story, Parasite Eve, Bushido Blade, Tobal 2, Final Fantasy Tactics etc...

All for three FF games, Rad racer, Secret of Mana, and Chrono Trigger? :lol

 

[dslgunstar]

I dont think a contract had actually been signed. I think Sony presented a contract that included ridiculous terms as far as royalties and ownership, but I dont think any party signed anything. They were still bargaining.

Now, Nintendo could have made a meeting or just called Sony up and said 'This isnt going to work for us, good luck in your future endeavors' but Yamauchi and company couldnt resist the chance to embarrass someone.

And then they got embarrassed a few years later when Sony wiped the floor with them for two straight generations. So what goes around, comes around.

You could argue its Sony's turn this generation.

 

[jett]

Vagrant Story, Parasite Eve, Bushido Blade, Tobal 2, Final Fantasy Tactics etc...

All for three FF games, Rad racer, Secret of Mana, and Chrono Trigger? :lol

Don't forget King's Knight! Now that shit is HAWT.

 

[cartman414]

I dont think a contract had actually been signed. I think Sony presented a contract that included ridiculous terms as far as royalties and ownership, but I dont think any party signed anything. They were still bargaining.

Now, Nintendo could have made a meeting or just called Sony up and said 'This isnt going to work for us, good luck in your future endeavors' but Yamauchi and company couldnt resist the chance to embarrass someone.

And then they got embarrassed a few years later when Sony wiped the floor with them for two straight generations. So what goes around, comes around.

You could argue its Sony's turn this generation.

Except that it was already part of the contract that Nintendo had signed with Sony for the SNES sound chip.

 

[Fox the Sly]

This thread is awesome.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

No, I never said that. Game companies were great on Nintendo too, but alot of them took full advantage of Sony's mature direction, hands-off approach to content, and willingness to help advertise.

Konami: Metal Gear Solid franchise, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
Namco: Tekken franchise, Soul Blade, Ridge Racer franchise, Ace Combat franchise
Capcom: Resident Evil franchise
Square: Final Fantasy 7-9, Vagrant Story, Xenogears, FFTactics, Tobal, Einhander


There are others, and Im not extrapolating any relationships started with the PSX that paid dividends with great games on the PS2, but I trust you get the gist.

I got your message, but you didn't wrote in the most understandable way. It let the impression you're saying that NES/SNES catalog was inferior to the PSX/PS2 when you said "Most of the companies that sided with Sony went on to make some of the best games in their histories", which is debatable.

I agree that some of these games were unable to be on Nintendo platform back in the days, but just because they're mature directed doesn't mean they're better quality-wise than the NES/SNES catalog.

Overall, you're right. If PlayStation failed, most of these franchises would never see the light.

Vagrant Story, Parasite Eve, Bushido Blade, Tobal 2, Final Fantasy Tactics etc...

All for three FF games, Rad racer, Secret of Mana, and Chrono Trigger?

Add Live A Live, Treasure Hunter G, Bahamut Lagoon, Rudra no Hihou, Front Mission, Romancing Saga, Seiken Densetsu 3 and Super Mario RPG to that list.

 

[AniHawk]

Overall, you're right. If PlayStation failed, most of these franchises would never see the light.

Yet nothing of value would be lost.

Except RE4.

And MGS3.

And Metroidvania.

But that's about it.

...we probably wouldn't have had Skies of Arcadia without FFVII shitting things up first either.

But really, that's it.

 

[bernardobri]

Yet nothing of value would be lost.

Except RE4.

And MGS3.

And Metroidvania.

But that's about it.

...we probably wouldn't have had Skies of Arcadia without FFVII shitting things up first either.

But really, that's it.

Must... Resist... Tag quoting...

In any case, this thread has got me pumped about the Game Over book. I'll check it out around Amazon & Ebay.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Yamauchi and his family had a pretty antagonistic relationship stemming from the fact his father left him and his mother when he was very young. Apparently his father, near the end of his life, came to see Yamauchi and his family but Yamauchi didn't want to talk to him. His father died shortly thereafter of a stroke.

That's not nearly as interesting as I thought it would be.

At least this thread has been quite entertaining.

 

[MattyGrovesOrMe]

At least we know that, two games generations from now, Square will release Dragon Quest 12 exclusively to media center TVs produced by a Japanese consortium of Sony, Sharp, Toshiba, Samsung and Panasonic, which will come equiped with a download-only PS5 software platform standard, and feature an exclusive license to play download-only Nintendo games, with optional Wii3 remote compatability... and the random battles in DQ12 will piss off westerners, who find comfort in playing Call of Halo 3: Spartan Warfare on their Appcrosoft iBox tablets (inbetween crashes of Windows 9: OS Puma).

 

[AniHawk]

Game Over's pretty all right, though I think Sheff makes up shit in places. My favorite parts are about how much of an asshole Yamauchi was to pretty much everyone.

I liked The First Quarter better (renamed into the sleep-inducing Ultimate History of Video Games). It's a broader history, but it feels a little more personal. Game Over reads like a novel, where The First Quarter is more or less a collection of interviews and short history and anecdotes. It also lasts into 2001, with the death of Okawa and the Dreamcast and Sega, where Game Over goes as far as 1996 with the most recent edition, and only 1992 for the one I wound up getting.

 

[Oblivion]

Totally agreed with Segata. GC was the biggest disappointment from Nintendo.

What can I say? I don't think Mario 64 is a good game at all, and I've never had any desire to try its sequel, which is by all accounts equally as bland, uncreative, poorly controlling, and as iffy in the platforming department. I'm not trying to be subtle.

The fuck? :lol

Most of your other complaints are silly as well, but these in particular need special emphasis.

 

[ethelred]

The fuck? :lol

Most of your other complaints are silly as well, but these in particular need special emphasis.

Well, I don't feel they're very silly, and as there are millions of other gamers worldwide who feel the 3D Marios are inferior to their 2D counterparts, clearly I'm not alone. Mario 64 doesn't have the spark of creativity and inventive level design that its predecessors possessed, and its attempts at implementing 3D gameplay brought about amateurishly rough camera and analog controls. I know some people were utterly awed by the ability to wander aimlessly around boring 3D expanses and a useless hub world, but as far as I'm concerned the game is a pale shadow of the earlier installments.

Sorry you can't accept that other people don't think it's a good game! Me, I wouldn't ever trade it for the overflowing wealth of platforming riches on the SNES.

Totally agreed with Segata. GC was the biggest disappointment from Nintendo.

I believe Segata's view was that choosing between the N64 and the GCN is like choosing between which poop is the worst, so it's good that you agree and we're all on the same page here.

 

[Oblivion]

Well, I don't feel they're very silly, and as there are millions of other gamers worldwide who feel the 3D Marios are inferior to their 2D counterparts, clearly I'm not alone. Mario 64 doesn't have the spark of creativity and inventive level design that its predecessors possessed, and its attempts at implementing 3D gameplay brought about amateurishly rough camera and analog controls. I know some people were utterly awed by the ability to wander aimlessly around boring 3D expanses and a useless hub world, but as far as I'm concerned the game is a pale shadow of the earlier installments.

It's fine if you don't like it, I certainly won't hold that against you, but those particular complaints don't hold much water. There had never been a game like Mario 64 before, and for better or worse, it was unlike anything that came at the time. And camera, I'll give you, but dunno about the controls.

Regardless, I think you can distinguish such things even if you don't like it.

 

[Dreamwriter]

I'd take Squares NES + SNES collection over the PS1/PS2 collection any day. Same with Capcom.

Vagrant Story, Parasite Eve, Bushido Blade, Tobal 2, Final Fantasy Tactics etc...

All for three FF games, Rad racer, Secret of Mana, and Chrono Trigger? :lol

Let's not forget the older Square games! 3-D WorldRunner, Rad Racer II, Apple Town Story (consists of watching an animated little girl wander around her house and play with her cat!), and Tom Sawyer

 

[cvxfreak]

Super Mario 64 DS is still the best selling handheld Nintendo port because it's that damn good. Its sales rival Galaxy's.

Anyway, I'd argue that Square never truly returned to Nintendo home consoles. Their goal was always the GBA and then the DS. Their GC and Wii stuff has been nothing but fluff.

 

[Deku]

Super Mario 64 DS is still the best selling handheld Nintendo port because it's that damn good. Its sales rival Galaxy's.

Anyway, I'd argue that Square never truly returned to Nintendo home consoles. Their goal was always the GBA and then the DS. Their GC and Wii stuff has been nothing but fluff.

To be fair, their home console output this generation has been very week to date.

2010 will get good for sure. But I don't think there's any kind of bias against putting games on home consoles, Nintendo just doesn't think along the same lines as Square-Enix.

I've heard for example, they wanted to put FFXI on the Wii, it's perfectly capable of running the game and it would fit S-E's multiplatform MMO strategy, but that was impossible without the ability for an HDD, and selling a $99 FFXI pack years after the game's release on the PS2 probably wasn't viable either.

Stuff like that. We'll see where they really put DQX (I don't think it's on Wii anymore)./

 

[Angry Grimace]

A) Nintendo had some pretty severe censoring policies in the 1990s.
B) Nintendo wanted to stick with the "Safe" option of using ROM cartridges instead of disc-based media.

 

[cvxfreak]

To be fair, their home console output this generation has been very week to date.

2010 will get good for sure. But I don't think there's any kind of bias against putting games on home consoles, Nintendo just doesn't think along the same lines as Square-Enix.

I've heard for example, they wanted to put FFXI on the Wii, it's perfectly capable of running the game and it would fit S-E's multiplatform MMO strategy, but that was impossible without the ability for an HDD, and selling a $99 FFXI pack years after the game's release on the PS2 probably wasn't viable either.

Stuff like that. We'll see where they really put DQX (I don't think it's on Wii anymore)./

I think the so-called "Enix" side of things has made off better. Dragon Quest Swords did very well, while SE could barely even sell 50,000 copies of FFCCTCB in Japan.

I still think DQX is still on Wii myself. I think NSMB Wii is living proof of what a classic Famicom-era entry can do on the Wii if people's nostalgia is propped up enough. I fully expect SE to take a few hints from NSMB Wii's ad campaign when considering what to do with DQX.

 

[BocoDragon]

A) Nintendo had some pretty severe censoring policies in the 1990s.

I would say that era had recently passed, though... If you think about it, the Mortal Kombat 1 "sweat" fiasco really kicked Nintendo's ass and made them realize that if they continued to censor, then the competition would profit. And the ESRB rating system finally let them ease up and point to the ratings on the box for concerned parents.

By the time, say, Resident Evil became a Nintendo exclusive for the early 2000s... I think Nintendo was completely open to the idea of any risky content in their games. Gotta make that $$ somehow.

Still, you are correct that Nintendo's censoring ways would have still been perceived as the reality when FF7 went into production (94-95?), and in general Nintendo had a series of controlling policies of which censorship was merely one.

 

[Firestorm]

Game Over's pretty all right, though I think Sheff makes up shit in places. My favorite parts are about how much of an asshole Yamauchi was to pretty much everyone.

I liked The First Quarter better (renamed into the sleep-inducing Ultimate History of Video Games). It's a broader history, but it feels a little more personal. Game Over reads like a novel, where The First Quarter is more or less a collection of interviews and short history and anecdotes. It also lasts into 2001, with the death of Okawa and the Dreamcast and Sega, where Game Over goes as far as 1996 with the most recent edition, and only 1992 for the one I wound up getting.

I really found Ultimate History of Video Game to be a boring read. Did you mean that the new name was sleep-inducing or did the new version of the book just get written in a more boring way? Game Over was much more entertaining and like you said, written almost like a novel.

 

[cartman414]

Let's not forget the older Square games! 3-D WorldRunner, Rad Racer II, Apple Town Story (consists of watching an animated little girl wander around her house and play with her cat!), and Tom Sawyer

You're just referring to the NES/Famicom era, back when they had nothing of note outside the FF series. A little too convenient.

 

[BocoDragon]

It's funny how the two covers of Game Over portrayed a different image... the first was of a zombied kid staring at a glowing screen with the subtitle "How Nintendo Captured our Youth" or whatever. One day at a bookstore in 1994 I was begging my dad to buy me the new April EGM (it had the fucking Megaman X hadoken secret in it!!! WANTED IT SO BAD)... and my father, worried about the influence these games had over me, offered to buy me that book instead. Even back then I could tell he thought it was a polemic against videogame addiction or whatever :lol I should have taken him up on the offer, but not for the reason he thought.. that book was great for a game fan. Checked it out from a library soon after. Been looking for a copy for a decade and more.

The second was just Wing Cap Mario 64: Basically this edition's cover says, Nintendo is sooo awesome! My dad wouldn't have offered to buy me that. :lol