Give Us Back The Old Nintendo (Nowgamer article)

[LordTheNightKnight]

KylieDog said:

LordTheNightKnight said:

Viper1 said:

KylieDog said:

theRepublic said:

Doobie_wop said:

I don't know about you, but when I buy a new console I expect a lot of new experiences and I don't believe Nintendo have delivered in that regard. 

I have seen this several times in this thread, and it is just bullshit.  Nintendo has brought the most new, fresh ideas to gaming this generation.  No one else is even close.

Take away motion controls and they've done nothing of the sort, where is the game that defined how 3D platform games would be played for years after?  Where is the invention of something like Zeldas Z-targeting that would be copied for years?  

Well, this is a rather odd statement.  You take away the innovation itself and then demand where the innovation is.  More ironic still is that the competition is doing everything they can to copy Nintendo move for 'move' and 'kinect' with this new segment of the industry.

I know. It's a total BS argument. It's like saying a bomb isn't dangerous. Take out the explosives, and what is there.

 

These motion controls did not exist years ago, back then Nintendo made new innovitive game content.  That is what the OP article and people who agree with it want, so your attemting to change his argument is if anything acknowledging it is right.

 

Nintendo is just making old games, sticking on motion controls (literally in some GC port cases) and calling it new.  It isn't new though, they are the same game types we have played for years now.  Nintendo used to be about new content, now they just relying on motion controls to do that which many people do not care about, I didn't buy a Wii for motion controls, I bought it for those great new Nintendo games...only they haven't appeared.

Wait, you did not state that directly before. So you can't call on us for confusing your comments if you don't state the points directly.

New content and innovation are distinct things. They can overlap, but you have to clarify which is which.

Oh, and if the article is about content, it sure doesn't seem like it. So either there is something we missed, in which case don't blame us still, or you'r just inferring there is.