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

Forums - Nintendo - Nintendo Fans, who do you want see OUT of the console race?

Rainbow Yoshi on 13 October 2010
xeroxm3 said:

I don't really want to see anybody out as much as I want to see Sega back in somehow. Seriously seeing a Dreamcast 2 would bring me so much joy.


I do think they should come up with a more suitable name though, in their console era they created some innovative names.



Around the Network
zgamer5 on 13 October 2010

sony for delyaing gt5, they broke my heart.

ps: i am now a nintendo fan, il be buying a wii and smg2 and nsbwii tomrow, i am also going to pre order kirby dk and zelda skyward sword.



Being in 3rd place never felt so good

oniyide on 13 October 2010

@kungkras  as a fellow Sega fan WTF are you talking about??? it was Sony's fault that Sega was sabatoging themselves with the 32x/Saturn debacle??? No  it was Sony's fault that Sega was bleeding money in the Dreamcast era??no  im glad that Sony did not have an official mascot, the whole mascot thing was kind of getting childish and Sony was able to be taking a little bit more seriously in terms of not being marketed as a kids toy. thats just me.  Ill keep it real i was hoping that Ninty went the way of Sega and dropped out of the consoles afte GC, not cause im a Sony fanboy or cause I hate ninty ( i dont) just didnt want to have to buy 2 consoles. would have been cool to play Mario on PS3 one big uber machine, but thats the past. I want MS to go, because of that RROD crap, that was pathetic and it makes me ashamed to be an American. How is it possible your 2nd machine out was actually crappy than your rookie one???? Where they that afraid of Sony and/or greedy they didnt take the time to fix the bugs. and they charge for online and half the weirdos pay it!!! Its been free for years!!!



xeroxm3 on 13 October 2010
Rainbow Yoshi said:
xeroxm3 said:

I don't really want to see anybody out as much as I want to see Sega back in somehow. Seriously seeing a Dreamcast 2 would bring me so much joy.


I do think they should come up with a more suitable name though, in their console era they created some innovative names.

As long as it's in the same spirit of the Dreamcast I'm okay with a name change. Seriously that system was all about redemption and I really wish it had done as well financially as it did critically.



leo-j on 13 October 2010
KungKras said:
Vanbierk said:
KungKras said:
Vanbierk said:
Mr Khan said:
Vanbierk said:

I love the competition that is currently present...But if I had to see a console maker stop making consoles, it would be Nintendo, because their games could be accomplished on pretty much any hardware, so there's no need for it, really.  As long as Mario was still found somewhere...it wouldn't make a lick of difference to me

Given Nintendo's design philosophy, that really isn't the case at all

Mario games, Metroid, and Zelda could be performed Nowhere else?

Wii sports, Zelda SS etc would not exist today if it weren't for nitnendo's hardware innovations.

And wouldn't that be just terrible...


yes it would be.

Also, there would be no Super Mario 64, no Z targeting system in  games because OoT would not have the analog stick etc.

Your opinion is backwards. If Nintnedo stopped making hardware, it would have a HUGE impact on the innovations in both game software and hardware, but if Sony or MS who only relies on 3rd party games (or copying 3rd party game koncepts) anyways would have left, then there would be no impact what so ever, because the 3rd party games that they get would be just as great on any other consoles, and many of their 3rd and first party games would be even better on PC (Halo, Killzone, etc).

I'll say it again. Your opinion is backwards.


I guess nintendo would have done disc based games, and 3d based games risking that people would reject a 3D mario, after sony took the risk first for console gaming...

also I guess nintendo came up with the idea of the "online gaming" interface on a console, and an "analog" stick on a handheld...



 

mM
Around the Network
ConnorJCP on 13 October 2010
KungKras said:
Severance said:
KungKras said:
Severance said:
MDMAniac said:
KungKras said:

I'll never get over the loss of the greatest rival that Nintendo ever had :)


The only rival to Nintendo is Nintendo themselves.


what about Sony ? PS1 and PS2 days?

They are so different in style from Nitnendo and Sega that they shouldn't be considered a rival.


how so ? they're japanese ?

It's hard to explain. But I'll try.

Sega was like Nintendo in that they are both pure games companies, both relied on first party games to compete and to drive hardware install bases, both have a mascot that are the face of the company, and they have similar licensing practices.

Sony does not have a platformer that is the face of the company They have platformers, sure, but no mascots, and none of their characters is the face of the company the way Sonic or Mario is. They rely on undercutting hardware and paying third parties for exclusives in order to compete and drive install base.

I just think that Sony is too different from Nintendo to be considered a rival. Sure, they are a competitor, but they compete on very different terms whereas Nintendo and Sega competed against each other identically, and thus were rivals.

I totally disagree with you.

Sony did have a mascot during the PS1 dominated era.
And i really hope your joking about Sony relying on  3rd party games, Sony has probably the best First Party line up of any of the competitors this generation. Sony also relies on making new IPs instead of continuously recycling old ones.



Smart Men answer questions, Wise men ask questions.
Gamers play games, True Gamers support Gaming

venepe on 13 October 2010

I want 3rd party software developers out.  I want all software to be exclusive to a particular console.  That way there is a compelling reason to own all of them.  True competition.

Either that or a standard/single console manufacturer.  Whichever, I don't care, one single format for hardware.  Then the competition would be just between software developers.



"¿Por qué justo a mí tenía que tocarme ser yo?"

KungKras on 13 October 2010
leo-j said:
KungKras said:
Vanbierk said:
KungKras said:
Vanbierk said:
Mr Khan said:
Vanbierk said:

I love the competition that is currently present...But if I had to see a console maker stop making consoles, it would be Nintendo, because their games could be accomplished on pretty much any hardware, so there's no need for it, really.  As long as Mario was still found somewhere...it wouldn't make a lick of difference to me

Given Nintendo's design philosophy, that really isn't the case at all

Mario games, Metroid, and Zelda could be performed Nowhere else?

Wii sports, Zelda SS etc would not exist today if it weren't for nitnendo's hardware innovations.

And wouldn't that be just terrible...


yes it would be.

Also, there would be no Super Mario 64, no Z targeting system in  games because OoT would not have the analog stick etc.

Your opinion is backwards. If Nintnedo stopped making hardware, it would have a HUGE impact on the innovations in both game software and hardware, but if Sony or MS who only relies on 3rd party games (or copying 3rd party game koncepts) anyways would have left, then there would be no impact what so ever, because the 3rd party games that they get would be just as great on any other consoles, and many of their 3rd and first party games would be even better on PC (Halo, Killzone, etc).

I'll say it again. Your opinion is backwards.


I guess nintendo would have done disc based games, and 3d based games risking that people would reject a 3D mario, after sony took the risk first for console gaming...

also I guess nintendo came up with the idea of the "online gaming" interface on a console, and an "analog" stick on a handheld...

You're right, Nintendo wasn't first to use a disk based console with 3D graphics, but neither was Sony. Sega was!

And don't forget that PC had online ages before consoles, and that Dreamcast and even Saturn had it before the Xboxes.

So the innovtion that MS and Sony brought to the table according to you is basically the interface itself for online on consoles, and analog sticks on handhelds. Sure, the online interface is a nice innovation by MS, but analog stick on handhelds? Come on, taking something that already exists and slapping it on a handheld is barely innovative if innovative at all.

So that's like one innovation worth noticing against a growing list of HUGE hardware and software innovations from Nintnedo. Wich leads me to the original point of Vanbierk's opinion being backwards.



I LOVE ICELAND!

KungKras on 13 October 2010
ConnorJCP said:
KungKras said:
Severance said:
KungKras said:
Severance said:
MDMAniac said:
KungKras said:

I'll never get over the loss of the greatest rival that Nintendo ever had :)


The only rival to Nintendo is Nintendo themselves.


what about Sony ? PS1 and PS2 days?

They are so different in style from Nitnendo and Sega that they shouldn't be considered a rival.


how so ? they're japanese ?

It's hard to explain. But I'll try.

Sega was like Nintendo in that they are both pure games companies, both relied on first party games to compete and to drive hardware install bases, both have a mascot that are the face of the company, and they have similar licensing practices.

Sony does not have a platformer that is the face of the company They have platformers, sure, but no mascots, and none of their characters is the face of the company the way Sonic or Mario is. They rely on undercutting hardware and paying third parties for exclusives in order to compete and drive install base.

I just think that Sony is too different from Nintendo to be considered a rival. Sure, they are a competitor, but they compete on very different terms whereas Nintendo and Sega competed against each other identically, and thus were rivals.

I totally disagree with you.

Sony did have a mascot during the PS1 dominated era.
And i really hope your joking about Sony relying on  3rd party games, Sony has probably the best First Party line up of any of the competitors this generation. Sony also relies on making new IPs instead of continuously recycling old ones.

Crash bandicoot and spyro? Those were good platformers for the system, but they were never the face of Sony.

How much hardware do Sony's first party games push? Have you seen how terrible Sony's first party lineups were during the PS1 and 2 era?

And even though Sony's first party games are new IP's they are not original. GoW plays just like DMC, GT is a racer, Ratchet and Clank is your standard 3D platform game, same goes for spyro in his glory days, Killzone is a generic FPS and Infamous is a generic sanbox game. Nothing about hose games stand out. The only Sony first party games that stand out are LBP (Which is from Media Molecule who were bought by Sony this gen) and the games from Team ICO.

Sony never relyed on first party until most recently, and they only try to do that becasue their 3rd party support decreased this gen. Hell, the game that sold the original Playstation was Final Fantasy VII wich is a 3rd party game.



I LOVE ICELAND!

ConnorJCP on 13 October 2010
KungKras said:
ConnorJCP said:
KungKras said:
Severance said:
KungKras said:
Severance said:
MDMAniac said:
KungKras said:

I'll never get over the loss of the greatest rival that Nintendo ever had :)


The only rival to Nintendo is Nintendo themselves.


what about Sony ? PS1 and PS2 days?

They are so different in style from Nitnendo and Sega that they shouldn't be considered a rival.


how so ? they're japanese ?

It's hard to explain. But I'll try.

Sega was like Nintendo in that they are both pure games companies, both relied on first party games to compete and to drive hardware install bases, both have a mascot that are the face of the company, and they have similar licensing practices.

Sony does not have a platformer that is the face of the company They have platformers, sure, but no mascots, and none of their characters is the face of the company the way Sonic or Mario is. They rely on undercutting hardware and paying third parties for exclusives in order to compete and drive install base.

I just think that Sony is too different from Nintendo to be considered a rival. Sure, they are a competitor, but they compete on very different terms whereas Nintendo and Sega competed against each other identically, and thus were rivals.

I totally disagree with you.

Sony did have a mascot during the PS1 dominated era.
And i really hope your joking about Sony relying on  3rd party games, Sony has probably the best First Party line up of any of the competitors this generation. Sony also relies on making new IPs instead of continuously recycling old ones.

Crash bandicoot and spyro? Those were good platformers for the system, but they were never the face of Sony.

How much hardware do Sony's first party games push? Have you seen how terrible Sony's first party lineups were during the PS1 and 2 era?

And even though Sony's first party games are new IP's they are not original. GoW plays just like DMC, GT is a racer, Ratchet and Clank is your standard 3D platform game, same goes for spyro in his glory days, Killzone is a generic FPS and Infamous is a generic sanbox game. Nothing about hose games stand out. The only Sony first party games that stand out are LBP (Which is from Media Molecule who were bought by Sony this gen) and the games from Team ICO.

Sony never relyed on first party until most recently, and they only try to do that becasue their 3rd party support decreased this gen. Hell, the game that sold the original Playstation was Final Fantasy VII wich is a 3rd party game.

D:



Smart Men answer questions, Wise men ask questions.
Gamers play games, True Gamers support Gaming