PDA

View Full Version : Is Nintendo the Apple of gaming?


princealfie
Jun 2, 2006, 09:17 AM
I think that I'm most excited about the Nintendo Wii to be honest than the fancy shebang of the PS3 or Xbox 360. I really think that Nintendo has pulled off a hat trick where they demonstrate innovative stuff :cool: just like up the waazoo like Apple does. Certainly they think differently!

Dagless
Jun 2, 2006, 09:28 AM
It's a common, and probably cliched comparison these days. But it's true in my eyes. I never get ever get excited over "the newest Dell" or "playstation machine".

7on
Jun 2, 2006, 09:31 AM
I don't see Nintendo as the Apple of gaming. Why? Nintendo pushes for the the most consumer affordable. Apple does not.

Kimi
Jun 2, 2006, 09:50 AM
I don't think so. Apple goes for what works better (like the easy of use of OSX), were as Nintendo goes for the 'new idea' more than anything. That being said, the Game Cube was nothing new, nor the N64 or SNES. They were just regular game consoles.

Anyway, innovative isn't allways a good thing. The idea of the Wii bores me some what, I like playing games the normal way, not jumping and swinging my arms about... Apple does things to make them more functional than before, Nintendo havn't done that IMO.

Gasu E.
Jun 2, 2006, 09:51 AM
I don't see Nintendo as the Apple of gaming. Why? Nintendo pushes for the the most consumer affordable. Apple does not.

iPhoto + GarageBand + iMovie + iDVD +iWeb-->$79

How much will Nintendo charge for one game? $50? $60?

7on
Jun 2, 2006, 09:52 AM
iPhoto + GarageBand + iMovie + iDVD +iWeb-->$79

How much will Nintendo charge for one game? $50? $60?

I get my games for around $35ish and Gamecube games for $20

Flowbee
Jun 2, 2006, 09:58 AM
I get my games for around $35ish and Gamecube games for $20

The question was "How much WILL NINTENDO CHARGE for one game" not "How much can you buy old games for." Let us know where you're buying Wii games for $35ish.

tektonnic
Jun 2, 2006, 10:05 AM
Perhaps Microsoft are the Apple of consoles...

XBox & XBox 360 are not overly popular compared to PS3 but are considered by thier champions and users as better, higher spec'd, faster and a better experience.

But then if you think about it, Apple are the Microsoft of MP3 players...

cyberdogl2
Jun 2, 2006, 10:24 AM
They're more identical than not. Both are struggling starry eyed idealists. They focus on what they do best and don't rarely add features to their products. And when they do, the features are adopted by the industry sometimes a few years later. Apple did it with USB, taking out floppy, etc. Nintendo did it with, rumble, analog stick, great camera in 3d games.

Both have managed to maintain position in the marketplace and staying relevent by making portable devices that people buy. Gameboy and iPod.

I'm more scared if Apple dies, than if Nintendo dies. I can stand not having good gaming. But I can't live with no good computing.

Dagless
Jun 2, 2006, 10:33 AM
The way I see it...


-Nintendo and Apple are the underdogs. Low market hold in the consoles/computers, massive market share in the handhelds/music players.
-Both have raving fanboy support
-Both value good looks (Wii and DS Lite)
-Shigsy and Steve had RDF and magical charm powers
-Both try to go alternative paths to the mainstream (USB? 1 button mice? gyro controllers?), whether or not the majority of people like them or not.
-Both are friends to vast profit margins
-Both use good components and have good build-quality record.
-Both are better than anything Microsoft put out in any market :D

Apple seem expensive on paper. But at the time NO laptop came close to the power my PowerBook had for the same price.

MacRumorUser
Jun 2, 2006, 10:40 AM
Apple dont make games consoles.

Nintendo dont make computers.

Apple market to a small professional market - percieved by most non users as a machine for only the rich trendy types.

Nintendo try and get everyone to play its hardware - but is often left struggling and accused of being too childish.

Apple are often (but getting better) overpriced compared to their PC competitors

Nintendo are often (but not always) cheaper than its competitors.

FleurDuMal
Jun 2, 2006, 10:43 AM
I'm just wating for the day that Dell become the Sega of video gaming consoles (he says whilst using a Dell monitor...:p )

JDOG_
Jun 2, 2006, 10:46 AM
I've read topics about this before, and it is somewhat like comparing apples to oranges.

Nintendo focuses on slick hardware design (original DS maybe not as slick as it could be--obviously seen with DS lite), easy OS/functionality and new innovations (Superscope, Powerglove, SFX chip, Virtual Boy, Wavebird, Wii Controller, tilt-controlled game carts).

What it boils down to is that Nintendo is ultimately a software company. These days they use technology after it's been around for a while (no DVD on the GCN), but often combine it in a way that's useful and innovative (Nintendo DS). Likewise they put out dozens of first-party titles that sell like crazy...taking in those nice software profits.

Apple on the other hand, often uses cutting edge hardware (Airport, DVD-R, CD-R, Intel chips) along with some "older" tech with slick industrial design, markets the hell out of it, and sells it at what some consider to be a "prohibative" price.

Personally I think the the included software and support more than justifies the price, but it's a tough comparison strictly on hardware to compare computers to game consoles...unless of course it's the XBOX 360 :D

cyberdogl2
Jun 2, 2006, 10:48 AM
Nintendo focuses on slick hardware design (original DS maybe not as slick as it could be--obviously seen with DS lite), easy OS/functionality and new innovations (Superscope, Powerglove, SFX chip, Virtual Boy, Wavebird, Wii Controller, tilt-controlled game carts).



If you replace nintendo with apple in that sentence, it would still work.

JDOG_
Jun 2, 2006, 11:03 AM
If you replace nintendo with apple in that sentence, it would still work.

Yeah that's totally true--the iMac and Mac mini as of late especially.

Also, on second thought...if you were to include maybe 10-15 peices of software in any console gaming product, the cost comparison is completely different. For the console at least you're looking at close to an extra $600 on top of hardware costs :eek:

GFLPraxis
Jun 2, 2006, 11:48 AM
I agree that Nintendo is the Apple of gaming. They're both the innovators and pioneers, yet are often ignored or insulted ("Macs suck!" vs "Nintendo is kiddie!"). Granted, the biggest difference is that Nintendo is a bit more affordable.

Both companies have slick hardware design and spectacular engineering. Yes, the GameCube wasn't exactly a 'slick' design but the engineering was SPECTACULAR. It launched at $200 at a profit, while outperforming the $300 PS2 being sold at a small loss, and being very close in performance to the XBox which cost $400 to manufacture and was several times larger in size. It's like the Mac Mini or iMac, which are smaller than some external disk drives and LCD monitors respectively (I swear I've found monitors thicker than the iMac).



iPhoto + GarageBand + iMovie + iDVD +iWeb-->$79

How much will Nintendo charge for one game? $50? $60?

$50. When their competitors are selling them for $60. Further, their console is around 1/2 to 1/3rd the price of Sony's and up to 1/2 that of Microsoft's.

Perhaps Microsoft are the Apple of consoles...

XBox & XBox 360 are not overly popular compared to PS3 but are considered by thier champions and users as better, higher spec'd, faster and a better experience.

But then if you think about it, Apple are the Microsoft of MP3 players...

This seems to me a faulty comparison.
A) Macs have never been "higher spec'd" or faster.
B) The XBox 360 is not "higher spec'd" than the PS3.
C) How can you compare the experience of the XBox 360 to the PS3 which hasn't even been released?


I'm more scared if Apple dies, than if Nintendo dies. I can stand not having good gaming. But I can't live with no good computing.

Yet another good comparison. Despite having a relatively low marketshare compared to their competitors, both companies are among the most profitable of their competitors, with Nintendo posting higher profits than Sony's game division and me posting higher profits than Microsoft's game division (which has been earning approximately negative 250 million per quarter, so even someone with no income has more profits than Microsoft's game division).

And despite having low marketshare in their primary field, they both have absolute dominance in the handheld market (both are about 70-80% marketshare).



Both companies also focus on ease of use.

Also, both will have online pay-to-own services and both hate subscription services. (iTunes vs Virtual Console)

Anyway, innovative isn't allways a good thing. The idea of the Wii bores me some what, I like playing games the normal way, not jumping and swinging my arms about... Apple does things to make them more functional than before, Nintendo havn't done that IMO.

Having used the Wii controller, you are dead wrong. Nintendo is increasing functionality.

Dagless
Jun 2, 2006, 12:01 PM
I don't think so. Apple goes for what works better (like the easy of use of OSX), were as Nintendo goes for the 'new idea' more than anything. That being said, the Game Cube was nothing new, nor the N64 or SNES. They were just regular game consoles.

Anyway, innovative isn't allways a good thing. The idea of the Wii bores me some what, I like playing games the normal way, not jumping and swinging my arms about... Apple does things to make them more functional than before, Nintendo havn't done that IMO.

N64 was innovative. Analogue controls for one. I remember back in the day when people criticised that specific area "it's so precise, will break easy!", "I prefer the Dpad!". Yet look now. everyone and their aunty has an analogue stick controller. GC was a lot new. Like Praxis said, it was a tremendous feat of engineering. The SNES maybe not so innovative, even though Sony though it was innovative enough to clone the controller entirely, adding handles and 2 more shoulder buttons. same layout mind.
Course the N64 pioneered 4 controller ports. N64 brought us 3D worlds at a good speed etc.

So Nintendo go for the 'new idea' yet they also don't. Oxymoron time. All games consoles are "regular games consoles". The only different one I'm seeing is the Wii.

2nyRiggz
Jun 2, 2006, 03:32 PM
Nintendo is the freaking Nintendo of gaming...they made gaming what it is today....i don't see them as an underdog or anything other than what they are...Nintendo(creators of wonderful games)

Bless

Moshiiii
Jun 2, 2006, 03:53 PM
Nintendo is the freaking Nintendo of gaming...they made gaming what it is today....i don't see them as an underdog or anything other than what they are...Nintendo(creators of wonderful games)

Bless

backed

GFLPraxis
Jun 2, 2006, 04:34 PM
Nintendo is the freaking Nintendo of gaming...they made gaming what it is today....i don't see them as an underdog or anything other than what they are...Nintendo(creators of wonderful games)

Bless

As the first consumer OS with a GUI, you could say the same about Apple and the computer industry.

7on
Jun 2, 2006, 04:39 PM
The question was "How much WILL NINTENDO CHARGE for one game" not "How much can you buy old games for." Let us know where you're buying Wii games for $35ish.

Well I do buy DS games for $35 :D

risc
Jun 2, 2006, 05:03 PM
Both have crazy fans that will go nuts if you point out anything bad about either company... so yeah they are the same. Are they innovators? Nintendo are, Apple aren't. Apple use generic PC hardware and have an OS that runs reasonably well. Other than OS X where is the innovation at Apple?

FleurDuMal
Jun 2, 2006, 05:07 PM
Both have crazy fans that will go nuts if you point out anything bad about either company... so yeah they are the same. Are they innovators? Nintendo are, Apple aren't. Apple use generic PC hardware and have an OS that runs reasonably well. Other than OS X where is the innovation at Apple?

I would cite how Apple brought portable digital music from a niche for computer geeks into the mainstream, but I don't know whether thats more to do with innovative marketing that innovative hardware.

risc
Jun 2, 2006, 05:15 PM
FleurDuMal IMHO marketing is the only place where Apple are innovative. From what I can tell they basically invented the consumer product zealot. Other than that I really don't see anything innovative about Apple anymore. Sure back when they used PPC they had something to make them stand out from the crowd, but their current computer hardware is hardly what I'd call innovative.

edit: Just watch all the flames I get from now on just to prove that Apple invented the consumer product zealot. ;)

zap2
Jun 2, 2006, 05:27 PM
Both have crazy fans that will go nuts if you point out anything bad about either company... so yeah they are the same. Are they innovators? Nintendo are, Apple aren't. Apple use generic PC hardware and have an OS that runs reasonably well. Other than OS X where is the innovation at Apple?


Um, the migth use "PC parts" but the hardware is not average..when you show people a Mac, there say "wow" Friends for come over my house ask were is the tower to go with my iMac G5? Laptop wise, first 17'' Laptop, very sleek disigns, iSight built it(its in PC but not many) and as the OS is in a whole different ball partk, its truely amazing! I can see how someone can say Apple is not a company all about innovation! The iPod from 2001? And all iPods from then? iTunes Music store? And Mac OS X is hardly something to to blow off as nothing. And all the Apps for OS X! And Spotlight!

PPC was nice, but x86 is were the support is, you will see. I'm not sure why PPC is SO big of a deal for people, i mean its nice, but the support was not there, making x86 better for real usage

2nyRiggz
Jun 2, 2006, 08:26 PM
As the first consumer OS with a GUI, you could say the same about Apple and the computer industry.

Very true indeed...



Bless

sam10685
Jun 2, 2006, 08:54 PM
i've always thought nintendo and apple were the most inovative and best companies.

Dagless
Jun 2, 2006, 09:07 PM
i've always thought nintendo and apple were the most inovative and best companies.

Apple and Nintendo are also the only 2 companies who have yet to have a device fail on me, or have a dead pixel or pretty much ANY problem what so ever.

Just good quality components I reckon.

bobber205
Jun 2, 2006, 09:14 PM
The way I see it...


-Nintendo and Apple are the underdogs. Low market hold in the consoles/computers, massive market share in the handhelds/music players.
-Both have raving fanboy support
-Both value good looks (Wii and DS Lite)
-Shigsy and Steve had RDF and magical charm powers
-Both try to go alternative paths to the mainstream (USB? 1 button mice? gyro controllers?), whether or not the majority of people like them or not.
-Both are friends to vast profit margins
-Both use good components and have good build-quality record.
-Both are better than anything Microsoft put out in any market :D

Apple seem expensive on paper. But at the time NO laptop came close to the power my PowerBook had for the same price.

I agree. Once my tech teacher showed me a comparsion chart of Apple products versus a PC.

3,000 some dollars for the cost and upkeep of a apple machine over about 4 to 5 years. (top of line model or close)

7500 dollsra for the cost and upkeep of a PC machine over the same amount of time.

One note: The apple computer did cost more at the beginning, yes smoked the PC years later. :D

risc
Jun 2, 2006, 09:14 PM
Apple and Nintendo are also the only 2 companies who have yet to have a device fail on me, or have a dead pixel or pretty much ANY problem what so ever.

The only 2 devices I've ever had with dead pixels are from the 2 companies you mention above. ;) Dead pixels have nothing to do with good components just bad luck.

In my history of using computers the only company that has caused me any grief personally is Apple. I've had a dead iBook, and a dead iMac... oh and a dead AL ACD... and based on all of the complaints on this forum about MacBooks and MacBook Pros oh wait I'll just stop...

YEAH APPLE AND NINTENDO KICK A$$!

tedrjr03
Jun 2, 2006, 11:34 PM
i like them both but i dont think that you can compare them equally. Like everyone said Nintendo is usually cheap as apple is Usually expensive, but they both make quality products.

GFLPraxis
Jun 3, 2006, 01:54 AM
Nintendo's one dead pixel = replacement policy is nice though.

risc
Jun 3, 2006, 02:05 AM
Nintendo's one dead pixel = replacement policy is nice though.

Indeed and just 1 more reason Apple aren't Nintendo. ;)

wako
Jun 3, 2006, 03:09 AM
I CAN NOT stand for another spin off of Mario, Kirby, Pokemon, Zelda, etc game!


I CAN stand for another mac


:)

Kimi
Jun 3, 2006, 06:34 AM
I CAN NOT stand for another spin off of Mario, Kirby, Pokemon, Zelda, etc game!


I CAN stand for another mac


:)
But as Pokémon rocks, and so does Super Smash Brothers (Please give me aDS version so I don't have to buy a wii!), I think I'll put up with a few of them. But there are too many Mario games.

GFLPraxis
Jun 3, 2006, 12:13 PM
I CAN NOT stand for another spin off of Mario, Kirby, Pokemon, Zelda, etc game!


I CAN stand for another mac


:)

Yet, Nintendo releases one Zelda game every three years, and about the same frequency for Kirby games and Metroid, and I don't care about Pokemon.

As for Mario; no two Mario games ever have the same engine. If Nintendo was pumping out rehashes, I'd be annoyed, but if no two Mario games ever play REMOTELY alike, then there is no problem with having as many as possible. Why do you care if it has the same characters? There are TV episodes with hundreds of episodes with the same characters. If there are a lot of games using Mario, but every single game plays COMPLETELY different, what's the problem?

The *only* game I feel Nintendo overuses is Mario Party. There's one almost every year. That has to end.

Outside of Mario Party, every game I consider totally seperate. I don't consider "Mario Superstar Baseball" to be in the same category as "Super Mario Strikers" (soccer). As such, there's only been one baseball title, one soccer title, etc, etc, and seven Mario platformers (Super Mario Bros, Super Mario Bros 2, Super Mario Bros 3, Super Mario World, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, and New Super Mario Bros for the DS) in the past twenty years. I can't wait for the next Mario platformer, they are so rare.

BTW, if they replaced Mario in Mario SuperStar Baseball with baseball players, nobody would be complaining, but the game would be much less fun (because you can't blow your opponents up in regular baseball).

Dagless
Jun 3, 2006, 02:24 PM
The only 2 devices I've ever had with dead pixels are from the 2 companies you mention above. ;) Dead pixels have nothing to do with good components just bad luck.

In my history of using computers the only company that has caused me any grief personally is Apple. I've had a dead iBook, and a dead iMac... oh and a dead AL ACD... and based on all of the complaints on this forum about MacBooks and MacBook Pros oh wait I'll just stop...

YEAH APPLE AND NINTENDO KICK A$$!

Unlucky for you. but like I said. all I've bought from them 2 work perfectly. never a failed Nintendo or Apple product. they exist. but I've never seen one.

Actually, glancing over my shoulder I see a set of Sony headphones. they be the only Sony product I've had not to break! same for my MS mouse :cool:

risc
Jun 3, 2006, 06:15 PM
Actually, glancing over my shoulder I see a set of Sony headphones. they be the only Sony product I've had not to break! same for my MS mouse :cool:

I don't think I'm unlucky it's just one of those things. I'd never base a lack of dead pixels as a reason a company kicks ass over another 1, I've never had a Sony product break on me and I've owned heaps from walkmans back in the 80s, all of their consoles, their TVs (and monitors) both CRT and LCD. Does this make Sony the Nintendo of consumer electronics? No I don't think so, but then I kind of think this whole thread stinks of Apple and Nintendo fanboys who haven't actually worked out that they don't owe these companies anything and neither of the companies really care what the fanboys think. ;)

2nyRiggz
Jun 3, 2006, 10:34 PM
No I don't think so, but then I kind of think this whole thread stinks of Apple and Nintendo fanboys who haven't actually worked out that they don't owe these companies anything

Indeed...in every thread...not just this one but you learn to deal with it and plus you throw in a few jabs to get the party going;)


Bless

wako
Jun 4, 2006, 03:00 AM
As for Mario; no two Mario games ever have the same engine. If Nintendo was pumping out rehashes, I'd be annoyed, but if no two Mario games ever play REMOTELY alike, then there is no problem with having as many as possible. Why do you care if it has the same characters? There are TV episodes with hundreds of episodes with the same characters. If there are a lot of games using Mario, but every single game plays COMPLETELY different, what's the problem?



You're right, no two games look alike and they all play different


But the storyline is old and stupid. Either beat bowser because he is going to destroy the world or Princess is in trouble. Im an RPG guy and the story just gets old and VERY unappealing. You would think after Princess's 2nd capture she would learn to hire better security right instead of a bunch of mushrooms.

Even when they dont do those overplayed storylines, there isnt much character developement because if you played atleast two mario games, two zelda games, you already know who your character is. Whats the point of playing. Cool my character is a italian plumber who is able to beat a minion of baddies single handedly. Ok... boring...

On other platforms, especially Sony's playstation they have many different RPGs. Most of them arent even released in the states! Not only do they have many, all of them are different in every single aspect almost except for battles which do have alot in common. But other than that atleast the game is fun because it has a good storyline going and has great character build up making you want to know more about the game. Ninetendo with their repeating characters just simply do not offer that. Same old every single time.

Dagless
Jun 4, 2006, 06:47 AM
No character development? So I suppose we all know about why Link is a werewolf, what ties him with Midna, who the enemy is in Twilight Princess and the intricate details about the "dark world" engulfing parts of the world.

Zelda games don't even have the same storyline.

Links Awakening? He's trying to get off the island.
Ocarina of Time? He's time travelling to and fro to stop Ganondorf.
Majoras Mask? He's trying to stop the moon from crashing down.
Minish Cap? He's trying to break a curse on the King of Hyrule.

*thems just the ones I've played through to completion

Now Mario is tried and tested. if only I could find that story I posted about Mario, a storyline attempting to satisfy the desires of people who want Mario in some epic realistic storyline. Some folk must remember that :o

Doraemon
Jun 4, 2006, 10:22 AM
[...]
-Both have raving fanboy support
[...]

That's probably the only reason for having this thread.

Comparing Nintendo to Apple is like comparing apples to pears.

myshoeshurt
Jun 4, 2006, 11:19 AM
I'm way more excited for the Wii than the other systems. It's always been the case for me that I'm stoked for Nintendo's systems and nobody else's. But the Wii may be the first system I actually stand in line to buy the first day it arrives.

I've drawn comparisons between Apple and Nintendo myself actually. And look at the Wii! It screams Apple.

I can't wait!

Moshiiii
Jun 4, 2006, 11:36 AM
I CAN NOT stand for another spin off of Mario, Kirby, Pokemon, Zelda, etc game!


I CAN stand for another mac


:)

I got this! Ill quote Reggie:

Nintendo Power: Speaking of new franchises, over the last five years, there have been more than 20 games starring Mario, and more Zelda and Metroid games than we're used to seeing. Are you worred about overexposing those franchises

Reggie: In terms of our core franchises - Mario, Zelda, Metroid- I beilive we have done an outstanding job shepherding those franchises and doing new and unique things with each. You focus in on Metroid, and how er've been able to balance the traditional Metroid type of experiences with the brand-new first person look of the Metroid Prime series. I think that's been fatastic. You look at the broad range of Zelda-everything from the cel-shaded look to the more mature look of Twilight Princess-we've shephereded that franchise in a frantastic way. So first, Iw ould give us an A+ for what we've done with our current franchises. We have also done a fantastic jobs with new franchises. What do I mean? Nintendogs, a brand-new franchise that on a worldwide basis has now sold over 6 million copies. The Bran Age series, before we even launched it in North America had already sold over 5 million units.

GFLPraxis
Jun 4, 2006, 11:36 AM
You're right, no two games look alike and they all play different


But the storyline is old and stupid. Either beat bowser because he is going to destroy the world or Princess is in trouble. Im an RPG guy and the story just gets old and VERY unappealing. You would think after Princess's 2nd capture she would learn to hire better security right instead of a bunch of mushrooms.


Did...you just call...Mario an RPG? It's a pure and simple platformer, and platformers SUCK when you give them complex stories ;)


Even when they dont do those overplayed storylines, there isnt much character developement because if you played atleast two mario games, two zelda games, you already know who your character is. Whats the point of playing. Cool my character is a italian plumber who is able to beat a minion of baddies single handedly. Ok... boring...


Not true about Zelda. Have you played Zelda 64? Long, complex storyline. Every Zelda game is like that.

Same old every single time.

Not true. Mario is the only game that reuses the same storyline. Metroid and Zelda have excellent stories, and in fact the story is one of the main reasons for playing Metroid Prime.

GFLPraxis
Jun 4, 2006, 11:37 AM
That's probably the only reason for having this thread.

Comparing Nintendo to Apple is like comparing apples to pears.

They're both fruity and delicious!
Hmmm...did I miss the point? :confused:

(yes, that was a joke, I'm not an idiot ;) )

wako
Jun 4, 2006, 02:39 PM
I got this! Ill quote Reggie:

Nintendo Power: Speaking of new franchises, over the last five years, there have been more than 20 games starring Mario, and more Zelda and Metroid games than we're used to seeing. Are you worred about overexposing those franchises

Reggie: In terms of our core franchises - Mario, Zelda, Metroid- I beilive we have done an outstanding job shepherding those franchises and doing new and unique things with each. You focus in on Metroid, and how er've been able to balance the traditional Metroid type of experiences with the brand-new first person look of the Metroid Prime series. I think that's been fatastic. You look at the broad range of Zelda-everything from the cel-shaded look to the more mature look of Twilight Princess-we've shephereded that franchise in a frantastic way. So first, Iw ould give us an A+ for what we've done with our current franchises. We have also done a fantastic jobs with new franchises. What do I mean? Nintendogs, a brand-new franchise that on a worldwide basis has now sold over 6 million copies. The Bran Age series, before we even launched it in North America had already sold over 5 million units.


Thats true, they have made innovation through each game. however Im still bored. It got old. I want to see newer characters instead of the same old.

I find it awkward how a parents can now relate to their kids, knowing the character and missions of the games they play.

I still find many of the games that Nintendo releases to be boring compared to many of the other games that other systems have. I just dont see much of a reason to buy any nintendo products. Maybe other than the DS because PSP has been lacking in quality games.

GFLPraxis
Jun 4, 2006, 05:06 PM
Thats true, they have made innovation through each game. however Im still bored. It got old. I want to see newer characters instead of the same old.

I find it awkward how a parents can now relate to their kids, knowing the character and missions of the games they play.

I still find many of the games that Nintendo releases to be boring compared to many of the other games that other systems have. I just dont see much of a reason to buy any nintendo products. Maybe other than the DS because PSP has been lacking in quality games.

Isn't it good for a parent to be able to relate to their kids? I consider it a good thing.

And let me honestly ask you. What Nintendo systems do you own? Have you played Metroid Prime, Zelda 64, and Zelda: Wind Waker? Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine? I get the impression that you're judging the games from their covers (which yes, tend to show the same characters a lot). But every single Zelda, Metroid, and Mario game have had entirely new worlds with different characters (well...by Mario I mean Mario platformers, not Mario sports titles and spinoffs) every time.

Especially the Zelda storyline, which involved time travel, the ability to meet people in the past and future and change their lives in Zelda 64, then an entire different world allowing you to travel through time to repeat the same three days in a thousand different ways in Majora's Mask, then Wind Waker, after the destruction of the entire world from Zelda 64 with a new civilization built centuries later on the ruins of the old...

Dagless
Jun 4, 2006, 05:42 PM
Isn't it good for a parent to be able to relate to their kids? I consider it a good thing...

Yea I was thinking that. I didn't want to say anything incase I got what he was saying wrong.

I don't mean to cause offence, but (wako) are you one of those kids who loves their GTA etc? It's just an impression I got from the parents comment.

Personally I think breaking boundaries is a good thing. There was a time where I was the only serious gamer in my house. My sister had a GBA but didn't bother much with it, had about 3 games over it's 6 year lifespan. But the DS has radically changed that. Even my mum loves Nintendogs and I play my dad on Advance Wars from time to time. I like that we're starting to play more. A Wii on the big TV will be a definite addition to the family - running off how things are going now. I want my family to play.

Moshiiii
Jun 4, 2006, 08:17 PM
A Wii on the big TV will be a definite addition to the family - running off how things are going now. I want my family to play.

I concur. I was talking to my mom a few days ago, I was explaning the Wii and talking about Nintendo's aproach to "non-gamers" like her. Her main concern was if she would have enough time to play videogames (both my parents like to stay active). I think though games like the Tennis they displayed at E3 seem basic enough and simple to where she can pick it up and play for a few minutes. Also, I can see a whole family sitting down and playing Warrio Ware Wii.

MacsomJRR
Jun 4, 2006, 09:02 PM
Nintendo is totally the Apple of gaming. Nintendo basically invented the popular home gaming system just as Apple invented the personal home computer, GUI, the mouse etc...

conditionals
Jun 5, 2006, 11:32 AM
I don't think so. Apple goes for what works better (like the easy of use of OSX), were as Nintendo goes for the 'new idea' more than anything. That being said, the Game Cube was nothing new, nor the N64 or SNES. They were just regular game consoles.

Here we have what may be the biggest backpedal ever recorded in text.

progx
Jun 5, 2006, 05:18 PM
Nintendo is definitely the Apple of gaming. Look at what we be gracing many Nintendo's fans hands on Sunday in the US, the DS Lite, the true successor to the Gameboy, will definitely be huge.

The new revision of the DS will be the hottest handheld in gaming, that's my feeling on it. Look over in Japan, they can barely keep the Lite stocked. It may just be the next iPod craze, where everyone has to have it.

Games like Brain Age, Tetris and Magnetica are instants for casual gamers who just want to play a puzzle or two when they are bored. If they want to expand use of the DS, they'll buy Datatel's 4GB Hard Drive for it.

For us gamers, who love everything there is about Nintendo, Sunday will be one of the greatest days of 2006 for us. Naturally the Wii's release will be a glorious day. Nintendo may get both markets under their thumb this time, the Wii dominating in the home market and DS Lite for handheld.

Sony will be a close second in the home market and portable-wise a default second.

Microsoft, they should have waited on the 360. Great system, but it won't stack up graphically to the PS3, nor the functionality and fun of a Wii.

My two cents…

To reply to the user who said he doesn't know why people are holding out over the PowerPC chip. Here's an answer from one diehard, it's the next generation of computing and the best architecture around. Why do you think that all the next generation consoles are using it? The XBox 360 has three low core G5s versus the stripped down Intel Pentium 3 in the original, which is obviously better.