Quantcast
How Nintendo has "ruined" gaming

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How Nintendo has "ruined" gaming

MontanaHatchet said:
Who are you trying to convince with this? Did you just feel like writing a nice little essay, or did you actually think you would change the mind of some detractors? Or did you just want some high fives from other Nintendo fans?

No, I really am curious why people bother writing things like this.

 

To annoy you.



Around the Network
Roma said:
Million said:
Wii owners will agree , 360/PS3 owners will disagree.

Good day sir.

 

If they agree ore not it is the truth



epic

 

 



 

Considering how the generic course of debate on "Nintendo Sucks" topics, it usually starts off with a "Nintendo sucks" rant, destroying games, and then the 80% of the users here jump on the poster calling them stupid.

It's just..... shocking the typical rant went the opposite way. It just..... never happens that way.... what ever will people do?!? O.O



Numbers: Checker Players > Halo Players

Checkers Age and replayability > Halo Age and replayability

Therefore, Checkers > Halo

So, Checkers is a better game than Halo.

Roma said:
famousringo said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Who are you trying to convince with this? Did you just feel like writing a nice little essay, or did you actually think you would change the mind of some detractors? Or did you just want some high fives from other Nintendo fans?

No, I really am curious why people bother writing things like this.

 

He's trying to share a perspective which few people on this site have, because not many of us were around for the second gen crash. Even though the rise of the NES coincided with my childhood, I sure wasn't paying attention to the impact of the NES on the broader market at the time, or how the "old guard" gamers reacted to the system. I was too busy trying to visit my friend's house because he had an NES.

Really? I didn’t know it was the second crash when was the first?

Second Generation Crash, as in the crash that occured during the second generation of video game consoles. Which included the Atari, the Odyssey, the Intellivison. He didn't mean a second actual crash.

 



Roma said:
famousringo said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Who are you trying to convince with this? Did you just feel like writing a nice little essay, or did you actually think you would change the mind of some detractors? Or did you just want some high fives from other Nintendo fans?

No, I really am curious why people bother writing things like this.

 

He's trying to share a perspective which few people on this site have, because not many of us were around for the second gen crash. Even though the rise of the NES coincided with my childhood, I sure wasn't paying attention to the impact of the NES on the broader market at the time, or how the "old guard" gamers reacted to the system. I was too busy trying to visit my friend's house because he had an NES.

Really? I didn’t know it was the second crash when was the first?

He said second gen crash.

 



Around the Network

What made you feel the need to argue in support of the wii? It seemed like this just came from nowhere....



"Dr. Tenma, according to you, lives are equal. That's why I live today. But you must have realised it by now...the only thing people are equal in is death"---Johann Liebert (MONSTER)

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"---Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler

HappySqurriel said:
endimion said:

yeah that's about it.... now, is that trend something that can last more than one gen, is the real question.... I'm not certain they created any brand loyalty with the casual scene.....those guys are not really brand loyal in the first place.... I'm not even sure they will be gaming loyal... see my point ???? I have nothing against nintendo... I'm just questionning what happened on the market this gen.... is it better to try to bring gaming to casuals... or to offer a multimedia box that do gaming too in the future ??? this gen the first solution worked, what about in 10 years ???

 

 

First off, "Casual" gamers have existed on every system since the NES and there has been a steady growth in their population through every generation; they are one of the main reasons why the industry sold 60 Million units with the NES, 80 Million with the SNES/Genesis (25% industry growth), 140 Million with the Playstation/N64/Saturn (50% industry growth), and 170 Million with the PS2/XBox/Gamecube/Dreamcast ...

Secondly, no group of gamers has demonstrated any form of brand loyalty so why should you hold that against casual gamers? As long as Nintendo provides them with the service they want at a price they're willing to pay they will choose to buy a Nintendo system rather than their competition ... What they want may change or (as Sony demonstrated) a company can start offering a service a customer doesn't want at a price they're not willing to pay.

we don't have the same definition of casual.... I'm talking about the trumendous amount of people that bought the console after having played Wii sport at a friends house.... and never bought another game..... not the casual gamer that is a gamer even if casual..... I'm talking about the entire invasion of non gamer that bought a Wii...

My point being that what they did this gen could be an anomaly in the system..... why everybody thinks motion control will be the future ??? in other word is the nintendo strategy this gen is renewable, either for themself or for others.... price didn't help them last gen....

 

when i'm saying casual it's when I talk about people that bought a Wii and the only other games they ever played was solitair and mine sweeper on their PC at the office....

 



oh sorry read it wrong. thanks :)



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(


endimion said:

I'm talking about the trumendous amount of people that bought the console after having played Wii sport at a friends house.... and never bought another game..... not the casual gamer that is a gamer even if casual..... I'm talking about the entire invasion of non gamer that bought a Wii...

...

when i'm saying casual it's when I talk about people that bought a Wii and the only other games they ever played was solitair and mine sweeper on their PC at the office....

 

 

Wow.  There's some misinformation.

How does your points stand up to how almost all reports lately show the attachment ratio of games to the Wii are higher than compeititor consoles?  (This means, per Wii console sold, more games are sold for Wii, by ratio terms, than other consoles).

I have never seen a Wii console where at least 5 other games are sitting on a shelf nearby.  Let alone the 15 sitting in the living room here.  I am actually surprised to go to another house and see 8-10 Wii titles as well.  I think this belief that Wii games don't sell is a misconception.



Numbers: Checker Players > Halo Players

Checkers Age and replayability > Halo Age and replayability

Therefore, Checkers > Halo

So, Checkers is a better game than Halo.

mike_intellivision said:

 

Now admittedly, today is a little bit different. There are actually other active console makers (which there really was not by that time. Atari was doing computers, Coleco went under, Mattel sold out, and Magnavox had gotten out). Nevertheless, the reaction to the Wii – and its success – is still the same. So contrary to what some may think – Nintendo did not and "ruin" gaming and is not "ruining" gaming. It is merely starting the next evolution in gaming.

Mike from Morgantown


 In fact ,dumbing down the games ,making a step back in graphics and sound(wich the NES didnt at all from the competing crew) ,offering a really poor online and diminishing the amount of inputs to control games to provide a simpler but for all publics experience is ruining gaming .At least for core and hardcore gamers.Senior citizens and soccer moms would think otherwise ,though.