By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Should Nintendo launch in 2011-12 starting the next gen with monster power?

 

Should Nintendo launch in 2011-12 starting the next gen with monster power?

Launch in 2011- early 12 ... 115 63.89%
 
Launch in 2011, just larg... 42 23.33%
 
Re-release current Wii in 2011, just with HD 23 12.78%
 
Total:180
scottie on 30 March 2010
jarrod said:

scottie said:
Sorry to get off topic, but with so many people being wrong about the same thing I have to

The next Nintendo home console will NOT use Blu Ray.

Nes - proprietry storage format
Snes - proprietry storage format
N64- proprietry storage format
GC - proprietry storage format
Wii - proprietry storage format

Gameboy - Proprietry storage format

GBA - Proprietry storage format

DS - Proprietry storage format
Wii2 - a competitor's storage format



What the hell kind of pattern recognition is that?

Blu-ray isn't "a competitor's storage format", it's owned by a consortium of companies (just like DVD, which GC/Wii's disc format is based off of).  And Sony isn't even the top rights holder, Matsushita is (who also developed GC/Wii's disc format).  Pretty easy to see where this is going...

Sony also held a stake in Matrix Semiconductor, who's 3DM is the format used for DS cards.  That didn't keep Nintendo from also investing in the company and using the format (which is now owned by SanDisk)...

Crap, I forgot handhelds. Your points are irrelevant

 

GC/Wii does not use DVD. They use a proprietry format based off DVD. I did not say that Nintendo wouldn't use a proprietry format based off Blu-Ray, so there was no point you raising that point.

 

As for your bizarre claims about the DS. The DS game card technology is owned by Nintendo, and manufactured on their behalf by Macronix. Perhaps you should cite your sources in order that I may more thouroghly point out how incorrect they are



Around the Network
axt113 on 30 March 2010
Khuutra said:
axt113 said:
Khuutra said:

The langugage you use is too broad and non-specific; you mean to say that more consumers played New Supr Mario Bros. Wii than played Super Mario Galaxy, which means that they appealed to different value metrics. This does not make the former better than the later; it simply means that it has a wider appeal. There's a difference.

You can mak hypotheses all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't possible to know, and no measure of flat-out denials will change the fact that it's not possible to know. I tend to think a 2-D Mario probably would have sold better, yes, but pretending that it's a sure thing is the very height of fallacy.

More, saying that 3-D Mario never had the ability to move hardware is itself fallacious; it's a pretty sure bet that if a non-packaged game sells to 33% of the userbase (ala Mario 64) then it probably moved some hardware.

My primary point is that trying to draw an absolute correlation between appeal and quality is fallacious to the point of being ludicrous.

Only in semantics, appeal is a view of quality, I don't go to watch certain types of films because most I consider to be snoozefests (English patient was one of the most painful experiences of my life), that to me is a view of quality, consumers are the same way, if they consider something unappealing, to them its not quality, just because you disagree, means very little, because why is your opinion any more worthy than another's.

No its not, its extrapolation, we know how well they sold before and after, we can easily extrapolate how it would have performed back during the N64 era.

Actually, that we can show to be false, by showing whether other 3D Marios have had hardware pushing power, and they haven't (I'm not talking about being able to move a few consoles the week of its launch, I'm talking about sustaining momentum, like NSMB Wii is doing for the Wii).

 I disagree, people find things they like to be appealing, if they don't like it, they don't view it as quality (the old saying "I may not know art, but I know what I like")

It's kind of surreal having to adapt the "metacritic doesn't equate to quality" argument to fit someone who insists that widespread appeal is an indicator of quality. I may have done it once with Avinash_Tyagi but I cannot be sure.

Now, you bring up an excelelnt point here, and I want to acknowledge that in more than one way:

just because you disagree, means very little, because why is your opinion any more worthy than another's.
This is very true, but the implication is not limited to the discussion we're having now: what it means, when taen to its logical conclusion (not so much a logical extreme) is that there is no absolute metric of quality to which everyone can agree - even if a majority agree, that is not a signifier of quality, nor has it ever been in any of the art forms (I can have a discussion with you about the critical history of popular literature if you like).

Extrapolation implies that we have a given data set that can be used to make predictions; predictions for the past are not possible. Extrapolations of nonexistent data sets are likewise not possible.

I should hope we can show a fallacious statement to be false, and Super Mario 64's numbers go a long way toward that.

When I say "absolute correlation between appeal and quality", what I mean is that it is intellectually dishonest to say "lots of people like it, therefore it is better than something that fewer people enjoy". That's simply not the case. This brings in the assumption that there are universal value metrics to which games try to adhere, and that the closer one gets to this value perfection the better one's appeal will be, but that's not the case. It doesn't go so far as to allow for different experiences, or even similar experience interpreted through different iterations.

I mean, Modern Warfare 2 is far ahead of NSMBWii right now and keeping good pace to stay ahead of it for a long time - still selling consoles right now, even. You're not goign to say that as of now it's a better game than New Super Mario Bros. Wii, are you?

True, but majorities tend to have more impact on everything, I mean companies chase majorities, and majorities decide success in politics and even direct businesses.  We have new York times bestsellers, not best critics.

Actually that's not true, its called interpolation when you do it within known points "interpolation is a method of constructing new data points within the range of a discrete set of known data points"

Mario 64's numbers show that 3D Mario has never had the success of Super Mario, so we can show that to be true.

Most of our measures of what is worthwhile are based on amounts Khuutra, we base things on profits, on sales, on majorities, you can argue that there is some other value that is not measured by numbers, but what bearing does that have on anything that matters?

NSMB Wii will easily surpass MW2, it doesn't matter how fast something sells, in fact selling fast and then droppng off shows that it won't be a classic game, NSMB will both pass it, it'll sell for far longer, possibly even longer than the DS NSMB, that shows a truly great game

 

 



Rumors indicate that it is planning on following the first approach, sticking a new, motion-sensitive controller onto an existing console. Our perspective is that this is the worst of the three options.

-Clayton Christensen back in 2007 already knew Move would be a bad idea

axt113 on 30 March 2010
HappySqurriel said:
axt113 said:
HappySqurriel said:
Khuutra said:
axt113 said:

History proves you wrong, you keep saying that 2D Mario wouldn't sell as much, sorry, but if that were true, then you wouldn't have seen NSMB Wii blow by every 3D Mario in a matter of weeks.  Also trying to point to SMW 2, which wasn't a Super Mario game just proves the weakness of your argument.

No a good game is a good game, is a good game, and a 2D Super Mario game is better than a 3D Mario, and that's been proven over and over, Mario 64 was a flop when compared to Super Mario games, and it has nothing to do with the times, if it did, NSMB Wii wouldn't have sold as much, but it sold far more, because its a better game, not because of the times.  But obviously you just don't have a clue of how the market works.

Stop this.

Trying to draw an absolute correlation between sales and quality is just as disingenuous as trying to draw an absolute correlation between Metascore and quality. Neither of them makes allowance for divergent value metrics, and neither of them is actually useful as a way to pick out games to play.

We can't kow if a 2-D Mario would have outsold 64 at the same time because it didn't happen. Trends may suggest certain things, certainly but those same trends tend to ignore the fact that NSMBWii was coming off of a 15+ year period without a mainline 2-D Mario on consoles. More, he has a point in that 3-D was the huge pushing thing for the N64, and contributed a great deal to pushing Mario 64 as far as it went.

Analyses of sales trends can rarely be cut and dry, and they certainly cannot be to the degree that you present here.

Just to add to this, some advantages that a well done 2D game from a major franchise has today that it wouldn’t have had back in the day are distinctness in the market (how many well made and well known 2D platformers were released in 2009?) and a pent-up demand from older gamers looking for a retro-experience.

If you took the top 18 (to pick a number) 2D franchises from the NES and SNES era, put a significant effort into re-imagining the experience in 2D, and released a new version of each of these games on a 3 year cycle you would probably see strong sales for all of these games. If you start adding in twice as many lesser titles from that era of gaming, and several dozen clones and copies of games, odds are pretty good that only a couple of games would see any sales; and their sales would be significantly lower.

 

Mario games in that era were coming out when everyone else was making platformers as well, didn't hurt them

I don't think you understand what I was saying ...

While I think it is interesting and plausible that a 2D Mario game would have been more successful than Mario 64, I think that it is impossible to determine how successful it would be. In hindsight, knowing people like my sister who abandoned home consoles when they became so focused on 3D, I think it was probably foolish for the industry to abandon 2D gaming with the N64/Playstation, but I also think that moving classic franchises to 3D has produced some of the best (and best selling) 3D experiences around; and Nintendo’s work in this area is far better than most.

Keyword being 3D, yes as a 3D game Mario 64 is amazing, but that may speak more to 3D lacking the appeal of 2D, or perhaps arcade style gameplay having superior appeal over the style of Mario 64.



Rumors indicate that it is planning on following the first approach, sticking a new, motion-sensitive controller onto an existing console. Our perspective is that this is the worst of the three options.

-Clayton Christensen back in 2007 already knew Move would be a bad idea

Khuutra on 30 March 2010
axt113 said:

True, but majorities tend to have more impact on everything, I mean companies chase majorities, and majorities decide success in politics and even direct businesses.  We have new York times bestsellers, not best critics.

Actually that's not true, its called interpolation when you do it within known points "interpolation is a method of constructing new data points within the range of a discrete set of known data points"

Mario 64's numbers show that 3D Mario has never had the success of Super Mario, so we can show that to be true.

Most of our measures of what is worthwhile are based on amounts Khuutra, we base things on profits, on sales, on majorities, you can argue that there is some other value that is not measured by numbers, but what bearing does that have on anything that matters?

NSMB Wii will easily surpass MW2, it doesn't matter how fast something sells, in fact selling fast and then droppng off shows that it won't be a classic game, NSMB will both pass it, it'll sell for far longer, possibly even longer than the DS NSMB, that shows a truly great game

We have reached an agreement concerning the fact that there are other value metrics, and we reached it respectfully; that's all I wanted.

As to what else matters? Why, how fun I think it is, of course.



axt113 on 30 March 2010
Khuutra said:
axt113 said:

True, but majorities tend to have more impact on everything, I mean companies chase majorities, and majorities decide success in politics and even direct businesses.  We have new York times bestsellers, not best critics.

Actually that's not true, its called interpolation when you do it within known points "interpolation is a method of constructing new data points within the range of a discrete set of known data points"

Mario 64's numbers show that 3D Mario has never had the success of Super Mario, so we can show that to be true.

Most of our measures of what is worthwhile are based on amounts Khuutra, we base things on profits, on sales, on majorities, you can argue that there is some other value that is not measured by numbers, but what bearing does that have on anything that matters?

NSMB Wii will easily surpass MW2, it doesn't matter how fast something sells, in fact selling fast and then droppng off shows that it won't be a classic game, NSMB will both pass it, it'll sell for far longer, possibly even longer than the DS NSMB, that shows a truly great game

We have reached an agreement concerning the fact that there are other value metrics, and we reached it respectfully; that's all I wanted.

As to what else matters? Why, how fun I think it is, of course.

Ah, but even on fun, Super Mario wins over 3D, since more people find it fun, hence its long term appeal and sales.

 

What we have come to agreement, and as your comment proved, is that all relevant value metrics can be determined by numbers, often majorities



Rumors indicate that it is planning on following the first approach, sticking a new, motion-sensitive controller onto an existing console. Our perspective is that this is the worst of the three options.

-Clayton Christensen back in 2007 already knew Move would be a bad idea

Around the Network
Khuutra on 30 March 2010
axt113 said:
Khuutra said:

We have reached an agreement concerning the fact that there are other value metrics, and we reached it respectfully; that's all I wanted.

As to what else matters? Why, how fun I think it is, of course.

Ah, but even on fun, Super Mario wins over 3D, since more people find it fun, hence its long term appeal and sales.

 

What we have come to agreement, and as your comment proved, is that all relevant value metrics can be determined by numbers, often majorities

....I was being facetious for the sake of proving the point that umbers cannot be indicative of how one is going to enjoy a game, which is all that matters in the first place as someonee who consumes video games.

More people finding something fun does not make it more fun, it just means that more people find it fun.

There are value metrics that can be determined by numbers, but if you thinkn you can take my attempt to gracefully leave this conversation and turn it into acquiescence to a point which I have contested since the beginning then you are more sorely mistaken in this than you are on the aforementioned contested point.



jarrod on 30 March 2010
scottie said:
jarrod said:

scottie said:
Sorry to get off topic, but with so many people being wrong about the same thing I have to

The next Nintendo home console will NOT use Blu Ray.

Nes - proprietry storage format
Snes - proprietry storage format
N64- proprietry storage format
GC - proprietry storage format
Wii - proprietry storage format

Gameboy - Proprietry storage format

GBA - Proprietry storage format

DS - Proprietry storage format
Wii2 - a competitor's storage format



What the hell kind of pattern recognition is that?

Blu-ray isn't "a competitor's storage format", it's owned by a consortium of companies (just like DVD, which GC/Wii's disc format is based off of).  And Sony isn't even the top rights holder, Matsushita is (who also developed GC/Wii's disc format).  Pretty easy to see where this is going...

Sony also held a stake in Matrix Semiconductor, who's 3DM is the format used for DS cards.  That didn't keep Nintendo from also investing in the company and using the format (which is now owned by SanDisk)...

Crap, I forgot handhelds. Your points are irrelevant

 

GC/Wii does not use DVD. They use a proprietry format based off DVD. I did not say that Nintendo wouldn't use a proprietry format based off Blu-Ray, so there was no point you raising that point.

 

As for your bizarre claims about the DS. The DS game card technology is owned by Nintendo, and manufactured on their behalf by Macronix. Perhaps you should cite your sources in order that I may more thouroghly point out how incorrect they are

Here's a link to Nintendo's original investment in Matrix.  After the SanDisk buyout, press pretty much went silent understandably.  There's was more at Matrix's website (both on applications and technical specifications), but that was also taken down with the SanDisk purchase.  3DM is more a method or manufacturing process (literally stacking memory arrays vertically, with  rewritable spec) than a distinct proprietary format though, and it's compatible with other solid state memory solutions.  And yes, it's the basis for those teeny tiny DS cards.

Also, the Wii disc drive can read DVDs with a simple firmware hack.  The only reason it's not DVD compliant out of the box is because Nintendo didn't want to comply with DVD forum spec (ie: put in a digital audio out) and didn't want to pay license fees.  The technology for GC/Wii games is DVD though, just like PS2 games, Xbox games or 360 games.  



mortono on 30 March 2010

It will be powerful, but in a different way than we expect.



Squilliam on 30 March 2010

Technology has always been a supporting factor for the gaming market and never a defining factor. You need the content to take advantage of the advanced technology and the cost has to be justified. With a next generation console Nintendo doesn't have to aim very high, just 2-3* the current level of performance and let diminishing returns and refinement take care of the rest which ought to have them covered no matter what the competition comes out with. They have an advantage here in that a little improvement over what is out there now is still a massive improvement on their terms.



Tease.

archbrix on 30 March 2010
axt113 said:

History proves you wrong, you keep saying that 2D Mario wouldn't sell as much, sorry, but if that were true, then you wouldn't have seen NSMB Wii blow by every 3D Mario in a matter of weeks.  Also trying to point to SMW 2, which wasn't a Super Mario game just proves the weakness of your argument.

No a good game is a good game, is a good game, and a 2D Super Mario game is better than a 3D Mario, and that's been proven over and over, Mario 64 was a flop when compared to Super Mario games, and it has nothing to do with the times, if it did, NSMB Wii wouldn't have sold as much, but it sold far more, because its a better game, not because of the times.  But obviously you just don't have a clue of how the market works.

 

Again, NSMB Wii was released last year, not in '96.  The market is already past the inception of 3D; of course a fun game is going to sell.  The "15+ year" argument that Khuutra made is not garbage, it's just not what you want to hear.  If you knew anything about the market (clearly you don't) you'd know that something that works at one moment may not be as popular the next.

Super Mario 2, a 2D game, sold 10 million+ copies on a system that sold over 61 million consoles.

Super Mario 64, a 3D game, sold over 11 million copies on a system that only sold 32+ million consoles.

Not only did Mario 64 sell more copies total, it did so with a much lower install base.

Your "no exceptions" argument fails.

And you lose... again.