Nintendo is right, but you're wrong

[Haver]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Throw your fucking fist up.

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

 

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

[ViPeR]

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

 

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

 

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

[dabookerman]

i personally judge a console when i play it, i see something then i judge, yesterday i felt i had rights to judge where the psp was eading...thats right, sony seemsto of given up on games as 80% of the umds u could buy for the psp were movies. and a shit load of em aswell, and i certainly wont spend £290 on something that crashes all the time thank you very much (refers to the xbox 360) thats my two sense

[DCK]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Cheapshot]

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

 

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

[DCK]

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

[Cheapshot]

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

 

Uh-huh, pretty much.

[system_error]

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

 

So far only Nintendo made me think like that. I want Animal Crossing, Mario, Zelda, ... but I can live without GTA, Halo, ...

Right now I am going to get a Revolution and probably a PS3.

[Mundi]

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

[DCK]

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

[Mundi]

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

 

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

[Pestneb]

to the point about the controller, I actually did get annoyed with the controller this generation. it works, but it was lacking. and yeah, I felt that before the DS was suggested/announced.

I don't mind the current controller, but I don't like the form. tbh I don't think the revolution controller has gone far enough, but its a step in the right direction. the ds was a small step, the revolution is a slightly more confident step, I'm looking forward to the third and fourth steps. I don't like the contraints of current controllers, even when I was playing on the nes/snes a large part of me wanted a more interactive experience than the one provided by a controller, something more natural.

now the revolution controller is being released hopefully that will be provided. it might flop, if it does I won't care, I just won't play games anymore (I've already stopped playing as much, from several hours a week to probably a couple of hours in the last 6 months)

 

graphics wise, the increase in graphics needs to slow down, and it is. we've reached a point at which microsoft appears to believe we will hit the limits of 480i screens by the end of this console generation (Hence the HD drive). that says to me that next generation a change will NEED to be made, as graphics will have peaked (ie full 1080p)

Sound will most likely easily peak this coming gen (360,PS3,rev).

so with output exhausted it leaves input only. Nintendo have pre empted that.

[Hero-of-Time]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

END RANT

[Bowser57]

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

 

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

[The3rdChildren]

There's too much text in this thread.

[Innovance]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Haver]

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

 

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

 

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

 

dabookerman: That's a good strategy.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Guy: smells.

 

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

[Jamba]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Haver]

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

[CooInTheZoo]

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

[dabookerman]

to me graphics should go into the category of presentation of a game. just like any product, if it looks aesthetically good it goes down to the presentation. hence graphics. altho i am all for advanced physics, ai, animation etc etc...

 

i mean cmon. whats the point of having photo realistic graphics if the animation sucks (looks at fifa on xbox360)

 

if a game can use the massive engine from lotr on next gen, i will be very very impressed:)

[Mr. Bananagrabber]

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

[Haver]

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

 

Although I do.

 

Only joking!

[Hero-of-Time]

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Well wrote I totally agree.

[Haver]

Can we really speak for developers?

 

What about bigger worlds? What about better AI?