system_error Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 That restart of a cycle you mean sounds great but I think Nintendo had different reasons for the Revolution. Who needs a simplified controller, shorter games, gameplay which doesn't need much explanation? The answer is a different market. A market which is not dominated by Sony nor Microsoft. Nintendo right now crosses a border and puts much effort into reaching the casual gamers or to speak more clearly a totally different peer group. If that goes too far Nintendo will alienate their "fanbase". I don't want to sound pessimistic but if I don't see 2 times the games the 360 had at launch at the Revolution launch for the same price (or less) than this generation plus strong third party support I am going to question Nintendos way. Because then the easy all access gaming, lower development costs and the whole blue ocean strategy are not more than hot air once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 That restart of a cycle you mean sounds great but I think Nintendo had different reasons for the Revolution. Who needs a simplified controller, shorter games, gameplay which doesn't need much explanation? The answer is a different market. A market which is not dominated by Sony nor Microsoft. Nintendo right now crosses a border and puts much effort into reaching the casual gamers or to speak more clearly a totally different peer group. If that goes too far Nintendo will alienate their "fanbase". I think the DS is a very good indication of what Nintendo are aiming at. You're worried that games might become too simple or too simplified. If you've played enough games on the DS, then you will know that Nintendo isn't trying to alienate their fanbase. They're trying to do something different, while simultaneously catering for their fanbase and casual gamers at the same time. If you look at sales figures for the DS, especially in Japan, then i think this arguments holds some substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
system_error Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I think the DS is a very good indication of what Nintendo are aiming at.You're worried that games might become too simple or too simplified. If you've played enough games on the DS, then you will know that Nintendo isn't trying to alienate their fanbase. They're trying to do something different, while simultaneously catering for their fanbase and casual gamers at the same time. If you look at sales figures for the DS, especially in Japan, then i think this arguments holds some substance. Of course is the DS an indicator of Nintendos future plans but it is also very limited. A handheld gains more from games which are simple in the way of gameplay, handling but a home console doesn't really needs that because I doubt that many will only play for 15 minutes at home - at least I would not. Right now the DS lineup is quite good with many great titles ahead I hope the Revolution will have similar support especially from Nintendo. It is a question on how Nintendo will divide its resources. DS + Revolution means a lot of work if you don't have strong support from third party publishers for both consoles. So I fear that instead of developing very time consuming games like Zelda Nintendo might concentrate on cheaper and easier games for casual gamers. The money they make with that would be more due to smaller development costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Of course is the DS an indicator of Nintendos future plans but it is also very limited. A handheld gains more from games which are simple in the way of gameplay, handling but a home console doesn't really needs that because I doubt that many will only play for 15 minutes at home - at least I would not. Right now the DS lineup is quite good with many great titles ahead I hope the Revolution will have similar support especially from Nintendo. It is a question on how Nintendo will divide its resources. DS + Revolution means a lot of work if you don't have strong support from third party publishers for both consoles. So I fear that instead of developing very time consuming games like Zelda Nintendo might concentrate on cheaper and easier games for casual gamers. The money they make with that would be more due to smaller development costs. You are right, and i think other gamers hold the same fear that you do (when you say that they might just produce cheaper games due to time constraints.) Although, it is not as if Nintendo puts 100% of all their resources into one game at a time. Otherwise, we'd only have 2 or so Nintendo own brand games ever generation. They clearly can work on many different projects at one time. The only franchises that i can see being a problem are Zelda, and possibly the mario franchise. Also, Nintendo have handed over some games in the past to let others take care of. Rare with donkey kong, namco with starfox, and sega with F zero. This helps quite a bit because it means Nintendo themselves have more time to spend on their bigger titles, ie mario and zelda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovance Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Of course is the DS an indicator of Nintendos future plans but it is also very limited. A handheld gains more from games which are simple in the way of gameplay, handling but a home console doesn't really needs that because I doubt that many will only play for 15 minutes at home - at least I would not. Right now the DS lineup is quite good with many great titles ahead I hope the Revolution will have similar support especially from Nintendo. It is a question on how Nintendo will divide its resources. DS + Revolution means a lot of work if you don't have strong support from third party publishers for both consoles. So I fear that instead of developing very time consuming games like Zelda Nintendo might concentrate on cheaper and easier games for casual gamers. The money they make with that would be more due to smaller development costs. Im not saying your wrong but your opinion is from the viewpoint of a current gamer. But to non gamers and gamers that have perhaps got tired of their once favourite passtime you have to realize that the prospect of a game that takes 20 - 40 hours to complete is intimidating But a game that is easy to get into, and doesnt threaten to eat a good chunk of your life and is most importantly, fun to play will be far more appealing to them - well thats the idea. But those games arent really aimed at you, amd third parties will likely (hopefully) bring traditional content to rev so there should content to satisfy all users - in theory for now anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovance Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Exellent post. I think to some extent you are right. I think that this time there appears to be a huge insistance from Nintendo that things such as the developer tools are going to be really easy to use (Nintendo often stress that as an extension to the GameCube philosophy). I entirely agree that the side-stepping of the "stats war" has much less to do with ideology and more to do with necessity. Realistically, Nintendo had to innovate to still be a part of the home console market. I dont think nintendo had to innovate to continue to be a part of the market, the 'innovation' came as need/want to expand their market potential beyond its current limits However, I think the marked difference from the GameCube is that Nintendo are making no intention to "stay in the game" of the home console arena. Whereas before, any talk of a lack of 3rd party support would have been argued away, and the GameCube would have been portrayed as a viable platform alongside Xbox and PS2, the Revolution is being carefully positioned as "completely different" from the other two. It's that which is the difference between GC and Revolution, and in my opinion why Revolution is not a GC2. Sure, it borrows a lot from the existing GC base and tech, but in terms of its positioning as a machine, its a real departure for Nintendo. I have to disagree, the home console arena is exactly where they are trying to stay, and in theory they have the market all to themselves. They are positioning it the same way they positioned GC as a (almost) pure game machine. The difference is their targeted userbase. They are trying to look beyond current gamers, seeking to create their own userbase (market) of new and old gamers, while co-existing within their competitors userbases of current gamers (secondary console) and still catering to their core fans as well. Pretty ambitious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xanikseo Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Having really good high quality graphical 3D games are all enjoyable because they increase the three-dimensional perspective of games. Having a 3D game controller does just that... So why bother with better graphics when it's good enough already? What we need is another way of viewing and controlling games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Revo for sure....If it was in the same league as the other two then I'd only be getting it and hoping for improvements to my favourite game franchises; with the Rev I can play games differently, and all different type of games differently, giving a whole different experience. I also agreee with the post above completely. I get sucked into games already, and have done since the Playstaion. Sure, a graphical enhancement is good, but a new ENJOYABLE way of playing is better....We'll just have to see how more enjoyable it is, if more enjoyable at all.....but i trust Tendo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pestneb Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Something I was thinking about - alienation of the userbase. and you know what, I think thats what the last generations have done. not from the company, but from society. look at the stereotype here - think of your stereotypical gamer. despite what some say Sony did, gaming isn't really cool. its fun, and more acceptable, but because it is still confined in the publics mind (mainly younger males, and often socially inept ones at that) it means that its not a topic that can really be openly discussed in the same way as say films or music. With bringing a wider demographic in (ie females and older people) games may become actual mainstream, rather than the more pseudo mainstream we have now. that, imo is a true revolution. think, if you ask someone about films/music, you don't ask them if they watch films, or listen to music, you ask what types they enjoy. you assume they listen to music, and watch films. I don't know about you guys, but I tend to assume the majority of people I speak to don't play videogames regularly enough to have developed tastes, and thats even within the younger socially inept male demographic segment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xanikseo Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Yeah that is pretty true I have to say . But this is as revolutionary as you can get in this generation of game consoles ... Man, I wish massive companies dare more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Yeah...I hate it when people ask me what type of music i liek....I just like diff stuff that sounds good, and i dont really go out of my way to listen to it THAT much either!! Videogames are and art and a sport damn it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkjak Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I heard, when the Revo and Nintendo DS were first announced, that they weren't the replacers of the GC and GBA, but a completely different kind of product. There was talk that the actual replacer of the GBA would be released in 2007, and have power between the Dreamcast and Gamecube (aka PS2)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I heard, when the Revo and Nintendo DS were first announced, that they weren't the replacers of the GC and GBA, but a completely different kind of product. There was talk that the actual replacer of the GBA would be released in 2007, and have power between the Dreamcast and Gamecube (aka PS2)...Yeah the DS is seperate from the Gameboy consoles.Nintendo have always seen the DS as a third pillar, that developers can create truely unique games for that couldn't be done on any other system! A GBA 2 would be a further evolution of the GBA and is likely to have (as you say) Dreamcast-Gamecube graphics, and perhaps MP3, video support etc... It would be a competitor for the PSP; only it would be able to beat it in terms of everything because it would be a further 2 years or so on! The Rev is the next-gen successor to the Gamecube though! We aren't gonna see the Rev and the Gamecube 2! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarka Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Even though it's nice to campare the DS with the Rev, there are some big differences. For on thing Nintendo already had a grapehold on the handheld market before the DS and PSP came along. They don't have one on home consoles. Secondly, and more cheerfully, the DS has no where near as good graphics as the PSP, while with the Revo, it won't be that noticbale on normal TV's. Personally, I think the DS shouldn't be the main argument when saying the Rev will suceed. We'll have to wait and see what happens, the Rev is a much bigger change than the DS, but people may be used to change after the DS... who knows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts