By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bouzane on 28 July 2008
Edit Thread
HappySqurriel said:
bouzane said:
Kenology said:
Bodhesatva said:

In terms of variety and "hardcore" gamer appeal, Sony wins, though. Over Microsoft obviously (their first party is Halo and Gears of War), but over Nintendo too, I think.

No.

I don't know how you measure "'hardcore' gamer appeal" but I think Nintendo has the biggest variety of internal games by genre.

Action/Adventure, ARPG, SRPG, JRPG, 3D-platformer, Racing, Racing Sim, Fighting, 2D-platformer, puzzle, Strategy, Shooters, etc.

Nintendo has hardcore franchises that covers virtually any and every genre. Some people may really love Sony and that's fine, but no other 1st party developer has the talent and skill of Nintendo's in-house development teams - nor as consistent an output of undisputeable quality.

 

Last time I checked Nintendo dumped out many sub-par titles like Mario Kart 64, Luigi's Mansion, Mario Party 8, Battalion Wars and Kirby Air Ride to name a few. Nintendo is hardly immune from producing mediocre games. Besides, Sony has more than 80 game franchises including God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, Patapon, Loco Roco and Syphon Filter. Now-a-days Nintendo seems content with producing little more than sequels and casual games, I don't know many core gamers that are satisfied with that.

 

With the exception of Mario Party 8 you choose a lot of bad titles to prove your point ...

Many people (including myself) still consider Mario Kart 64 to be the defining game in the series, Battalion Wars and Kirby's Air Ride were excellent executions of what Nintendo was attempting to produce (Battalion Wars being a "Battlefield RTS game" and Kirby's Air Ride was Miyamoto's idea for a 1 button racing game), and Luigi's Mansion was an interesting take on an existing genre (Survival Horror) that was poorly received mainly because people wanted a "Real" Mario game.

To be blunt, if you actually played several of these games you would realize that they are far better than most games with similar review scores because a lot of reviewers don't have a clue what they're doing; simply because a game focuses on Realtime strategy elements over shooter elements doesn't make the game worse (as an example).

 

I don't share your opinion and that means that I did not play the games that I listed? I hate to burst your bubble but I have in fact played these titles. I don't blame reviewers for the low scores, I blame the second rate games. Mario Kart 64 has wide tracks making most of the game far too easy, Luigi's Mansion and Battalion Wars were average at best and Kirby's Air Ride was horrible, one of the worst games I have ever played. I remember when my friend brought over Air Ride and all it resulted in was confusion and disappointment, even if I did understand the sections between the racing segments I would hardly care. I think many critics are far too easy on Nintendo, some of the critical acclaim simply puzzles me.