Seriously, Nintendo is not THAT Important

[Michael-5]

lucidium said:

Your all out denial of the undeniable advancements made by Microsoft and Sony on their consoles only further underlines your agenda on the matter.

Take for example the following points:

Xbox (classic) ethernet port:
Your rubuttal was to claim dreamcast had it first - It did not, it had a modem, when this was pointed out, you backpedaled to "well it was still internet lol!", the ethernet port on the original xbox could be used for internet, or connecting to a local network to share files and on some titles have internet-free multi-console multiplayer, that's a huge difference between a slow dialup system.

Dial up was slow because Dreamcast released in the 90's. Being the first to introduce a new port as standard is not innovative, it's just leading edge.

Also Gamecube released before the XB1 and it had System Link. XB was just the first to make it popular with Halo 1.

PS2 being the first console to allow game updates/patches:
Again your claim was dreamcast was first, I pointed out that this wasn't the case and detailed exactly why, yet you somehow came back at me with the ludicrous notion that actually yes, game data and patches could indeed be downloaded and installed to the whopping space available on the.. 128KB of storage.. take away the 28KB reserved for system use and you have 100KB, even on a 56K dialup modem of the time, 100KB would be filled within 50 seconds.

Later in the Dreamcasts life Sega released a 4x memory card.

Game patches were server side and had to be downloaded every time the game was run, direct to the dreamcasts RAM, of all of these games only two actually did any sort of patching and those were phantasy star online and quake 3 arena, both server side, both updating only the core network executable and server configuration files on access with the former, phantasy star online, also allowing up to 1mb of custom patches for regional and festive events while the service was operational.

So, to be blunt, you're wrong, but rather than accept that you defended your stance on it without actually having any real knowledge on the matter, which begs the question, why even defend it at all if you don't actually know?

Your giving way too much credit to advances in technology, this has absolutely nothing to do with innovation. Next You'll say X360 was innovative because it was the first HD console.

Michael-5 said:

Nintendo is innovative, you yourself have agreed with many of my points, no sense arguing over details.

Yes, they are

In the end, you agree with me, so what are you arguing about?

Advances in Technology =/= Inovative. It's how you use it. I'll admit XBL and achievements were innovative on MS's part, that's why I listed those as the 2 innovations by Microsoft compared to Nintendo's 10+. As for Sony, I really can't think of any, and the stuff you mentioned are only really advances in tech.

The Wii-mote was innovative, maybe it wasn't the first motion controller, but it was the first successful and properly done one. Same with the 3DS, it might not have been the first, but it was the first proper one. In this regard I would also credit MS for Kinect because it's significantly different from the Wii. However had it not been for Nintendo, MS would likely not have made this system.