johnlucas said:
Kwaad, sorry to inform you but Nintendo IS the videogame industry. Atari WAS the videogame industry once and threw away the opportunity. Nintendo picked up the ball and it has been theirs ever since. Sony gave a nice flash but it was more 3rd parties who made Sony than the other way around. Sony has some hit 1st party games but the impact they've had on gamemaking is not as significant. They're just hits. Nintendo and Sega's 1st party changed how other companies made their games. It's true that the Playstations expanded the market to a more global realm without which Wii could not go where it's going now, I'll give them that. But like Rol Stoppable said the more you make a console like a computer the more you make consoles irrelevant. The distinction must be there or consoles would lose their purpose. Check 1983-1985 and really check it this time. Though they call it all videogaming now, there were three distinct schools of electronic gaming. Computer, Arcade, and Video...you could also throw in Portable since its an offshoot of video but with no actual TV screen to emphasize the V in videogaming. The Arcades are more or less dead today in most places. Computer was the first school and Video is the second. The more video resembles computer just like the more arcades resembled the video the more irrelevant they make themselves. All were played on monitors, the distinction comes in the approach and the feel of each school. Computer gaming is one person affixed to a desk or laptop interacting with an interface designed for general purpose office use. Not very inviting for a gathering of people to crowd around hence the starting of networking. Since it was solitary and only linked to exclusive like-minded groups an elitism came about. A new country club of gaming emerged that tended to look down with disdain to other forms of gaming. The complexity in getting the games to work only aided in the snobbery. You'd have to be a techwhiz keeping up with every component of the machinery which while impressive puts up a barrier to others not inclined to want to learn all that. Which is how many computer gamers actually wanted it—a world all to themselves to escape the common of society. The interaction is distinct and defined for computer gaming to due the nature of the interface. Arcade gaming was designed for interpersonal social interaction and would allow for a small crowd to gather since the screen were big. The competition, sportsmanship and the atmosphere of the big arcade halls that would house the giant machines created a special gaming culture that wasn't present in the solitarianism or linked solitarianism of computer gaming. Most all arcade were designed for 2 players either alternatively or cooperatively. Camaraderie and skills were the draw here. Impressing a lesser skilled player or bystander and being able to play buffet style on one quarter as long as you were good. Your initials immortalized as long as the machine was plugged in. THAT'S what it was all about. Video gaming was designed for the home and comfort experience. It was to be as simple to operate as a common household appliance like a toaster or a refrigerator. As easy to plug and play as a tape player or CD player. It was designed with the masses in mind which made it the most profitable. Elite means few and regardless of the importance applied to elite the physical numbers are inverse. It's the pyramid of life. The TV screen was a lot more accepted at ease by the household thanks to the TV revolution of the 1950's. It took radio's place as the center of household media experience and replaced the fireplace as the gathering ground of family. So electronic gaming piggybacked on an established phenomena in the hopes of being just as accepted. Even more than arcades videogaming allowed whole groups to gather around and play together. It can take on a competitive aspect but often it took up a familial experience of laughter. Since it was common it was smarter to keep the players cheap and the content fun and demographic-crossing. Elements of the other schools crossed over into videogaming to enrich the experience and broaden the audience. But at the core were to be widely accepted game titles and a focus on fun to make people at ease with the machine just like they are with the toaster or refrigerator. At the core of the videogaming school was the acronym KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Think about that next time before you lament the Wii. Nintendo remembers what this experience is supposed to be about. John Lucas |
Your lust for Nintendo really sickens me. I'll be honest.
"Nintendo IS the videogame industry. Atari WAS the videogame industry once and threw away the opportunity. Sony gave a nice flash but it was more 3rd parties who made Sony than the other way around. "
Yeah, and you know why 3rd parties favored the Playstation? Sony pushed the envelope to include the cd drive. Companies wanted to make their games on the better hardware suited for them. Square said better hardware will make FF7 better (and then 8, 9, 10, 12, and you know, everything else). Hideo Kojima said better hardware would make Metal Gear Solid a better game.
There was a long period where N64 kept up with Playstation sales but the new cd format really pushed the gaming industry and propelled Sony ahead. Nintendo also got cocky, because apparently they listened to people like you that told them they are better than everyone else. Third parties make the consoles and right now the Wii is getting a lot of support because of the control scheme. The Eye Toy allowed such interaction in 2004 but I guess Nintendo is just more hip because they risked their entire console on a unique control scheme that is only better for some games.
But this resurgence does not mean they are the kings of consoles and that they were the true leaders the last decade. They were not. Sony has done a lot for the video game industry by pushing the hardware in the right ways.
Also, you can not say that the PS3 is not simple to use. It's still a console in that you put a disc in and it loads and you can play. You can also put a Hi-Def movie in there and lo and behold, it plays as well. Being able to do more complex things does not mean it's not a console. Every new generation of consoles they are as powerful as PCs. What's wrong with that? Consoles are not irrelevant because of that, because consoles will have the same system requirements for 5 years whereas PCs require upgrades almsot once a year to play the latest FPS. It is not a bad thing that consoles can play the best PC games for several years after their release.
I also want to point out that for simple games, the PSN and Live are far superior to the VC because new innovative games are being released (Geometry Wars, Calling all Cars) for cheaper prices. Does the VC even have new content yet or is it just Port Console?
Nintendo is far behind on online gaming. Game life is greatly extended from online content. Nintendo won't allow 3rd parties to release online games yet, and Strikers charged will only connect 2 Wiis together whereas Resistance has 40-player online with no lag.
I think the simple games should be downloadable, not released as mini-game retail packs.
I think more complex games will continue to flourish, but that is likely to be the reason the Wii doesn't dominate as much as some people think it will. Most of the more complex games will be on the PS3 and/or 360. I'm not too worried about the Wii ruining the industry because it'll be good for party games. I hope the PS3 has enough party games as well as the more hardcore games.
![[Prototype]](https://www.vgchartz.com/games/boxart/2846586AmericaFrontccc.jpg)
