ROFL NINTENDO OWNS

[Carbon]

My definition is capacity and potential, games have the potential to be bigger, more involving and detailed, the games have more memory and expand on the things you do, every new generation of gaming has increased the things you put into a game and the things you get out of it

And I didn't hate every game the past 5 years. Some were quite good. The majority were rushed halfassed sequels, which I can't stand anymore.

lol *cough* FFX-2 *cough* (Though I did enjoy it the first time through. Doesn't really have any replay value, IMO. I HATE games that give you a different ending if you miss ONE FUCKING CUTSCENE *fume*)

[Paralyzed]

How would online multiplayer make any sense for FFVII... And no, usually (though apparently FFVII is an exception, nomura is interested in remaking it) the people making the game would rather work on a fresh idea, the company uses the remake to make money. The main people behind it are usually creative people who like to make new things.

I don't mean multiplayer straight through, I mean multiplayer add-ons, like multiplayer chocobo racing, but that is at risk of sounding reduntant with FFXI including it later this year. I don't mean in a MMORPG sense of number of people either. I figured someone would take it that way after I posted, but I got lazy.

It's obvious companies will want to do whatever will make the most money. It's why we are seeing basically the same games released over and over. Nintendo is guilty of this, Capcom is especially guilty of this. Pretty much every gaming company is guilty of this. How many GTA or NFS or "insert another popular game here" knockoffs have we seen? It's more apparent they care less about "new ideas" and more about "what sells"; As any business would.

[Xavier]

It has a lot to do with that. Companies have a lot of polling, and they always look at what gams were the top sellers of the year. If people keep buying certain types of games, there isn't really much reason for innovation. I guess the consumer is partially to blame for 5 years of crap too. But I really have to wonder who the hell they have working in game design, because almost anyone on these forums could walk into a company, look at a game their making, and tell them how to make it 100 times better without much effort.

If I had walked into Square's office while they were making FFVIII and gotten to play the game for 10 minutes, I would've bitch slapped the producer and been like, "draw system? nigga plz, no no no"

[Elcura]

It has a lot to do with that. Companies have a lot of polling, and they always look at what gams were the top sellers of the year. If people keep buying certain types of games, there isn't really much reason for innovation. I guess the consumer is partially to blame for 5 years of crap too. But I really have to wonder who the hell they have working in game design, because almost anyone on these forums could walk into a company, look at a game their making, and tell them how to make it 100 times better without much effort.

If I had walked into Square's office while they were making FFVIII and gotten to play the game for 10 minutes, I would've bitch slapped the producer and been like, "draw system? nigga plz, no no no"

You hit the nail right on the fucking head. Especially about FFVIII.

[Maxxthepenguin]

It has a lot to do with that. Companies have a lot of polling, and they always look at what gams were the top sellers of the year. If people keep buying certain types of games, there isn't really much reason for innovation. I guess the consumer is partially to blame for 5 years of crap too. But I really have to wonder who the hell they have working in game design, because almost anyone on these forums could walk into a company, look at a game their making, and tell them how to make it 100 times better without much effort.

If I had walked into Square's office while they were making FFVIII and gotten to play the game for 10 minutes, I would've bitch slapped the producer and been like, "draw system? nigga plz, no no no"

2 things, 1: FFVIII's draw system was pretty good once you got used to it... its Limit Break system was bahroken though

2: Fans are retards, trust me. Most of the stuff you think would be good is only in hindsight. Ususally theres an artistic vision that those ideas collide with.

3: I cant count

4: The past 5 years have been fine years for SE... FFX FFXI KH KH2 DQ8 and more that don't come immediately to mind.

[edgarfigaro]

SE hasn't inovated their gameplay since FFV. Does that make FF6-10 failures, or terrible games? No, but it does eventually lead to a lesser experience and burnout for the series fans. I didn't finish FFX. I hated VII and VIII. IX was ok, but I have not enjoyed a true FF since VI. Honestly, I don't think I'll be getting XII (the first FF I won't buy, ever...I even bought Mystic Quest back in the day).

Then you look at Nintendo. Mario is somehow still fresh and fun, Zelda has become the zenith of game design...why? Because Nintendo is willing to take chances with their flagship titles. If Nintendo did what SE did, Mario 64 would have been 2D with pretty 3D graphics (aka what SMB DS is going to be). Zelda OoT would be LttP with 3D graphics. Both would've been excellent games (DS is looking pretty sweet), but wouldn't be the top 10 games of all time that they are. Even with the gamecube sequels, Nintendo continued to push the envelope. Washing away gunk was surprisingly fun, and anyone that didn't play Windwaker because of the graphics should be shot.

What it comes down to is, do you want to play the same games with pretty graphics, or do you want a new gaming experience? I think Nintendo has struck a near perfect balance, with the nostalgia available via downloads and DS ports, but brand new ways to play games on the flagship platform. Yes, Nintendo isn't completely innocent of the sequel syndrome (the original Mario Party actually allowed the more skilled people to win 75% of the time...the last one I played, V, was completely random who won), and they've made some serious miscues (the inablity to woe 3rd party developers)...but at the end of the day, they will get the majority of my gaming dollars, because I know every new Nintendo game is a new gaming experience that more likely than not, I'll enjoy throughly.

[Maxxthepenguin]

SE hasn't inovated their gameplay since FFV. Does that make FF6-10 failures, or terrible games? No, but it does eventually lead to a lesser experience and burnout for the series fans. I didn't finish FFX. I hated VII and VIII. IX was ok, but I have not enjoyed a true FF since VI. Honestly, I don't think I'll be getting XII (the first FF I won't buy, ever...I even bought Mystic Quest back in the day).

Ummmmmmmmmm

FFXII is going to be a complete gameplay reinvisioning. FFXI was a whole different genre (sorta). FFX had a whole new familiar yet very different battle system and no overworld at all. FFIX wasn't really innovative at all, but damn fun. FFVIII had the draw system... innovative? yes. misguided? well, common opinion is yes. FFVII was 3d and added cinematics. Your issue isn't with innovation, its just burnout in general.

Also, FFV was not innovative at all really. Job system from FFIII, pretty lame plot....

[Lordwafik]

I agree with the majority of your post Edgar, except this :

SE hasn't inovated their gameplay since FFV

Almost each FF came up with some new way of battle system so far

FF6/7 kinda same, attack, get OD, use it.
FF8 now had a draw system, which is awesome if you knew how to work it good, and took time farming t o100x item per junction, but I can see casual gamer not liking it
FF9 was horrible, in the sense you couldnt save overdrive, it was just used immediatley
FFX had a completly new way of turn base
FFX-2 had on the fly job swapping
FFXI is real time


They're all innovative, just not all ground breaking.

[BRP]

Don't forget how the way you power up your character is always different, game to game. Materia for example.

[edgarfigaro]

You guys are mistaking innovation for tweaking. Ask yourself this question...could FFVII through X been done on the SNES without any major gameplay modifications? The answer is yes. Now ask the same thing about Mario 64, Zelda OoT etc. In the jump between 2D and 3D, Square did nothing really (3D graphics and cinematics aren't innovation, they're eye candy...which is why FFVII is the most overrated game in existence). If you've played one FF, you're able to jump into any of the FF's with the slight exception of VIII and have no problems with anything that's going on. It's basically the same fucking battle system with either new look or a new interface.

Alot of games suffered greatly when they made the 2D to 3D jump. A few became legendary (GTA is the best example...the first two were shallow, 20 minutes then you're bored games...the 3rd is a masterpiece). A few didn't suffer, but didn't offer anything that hadn't been done before. SE is squarely in the third camp. They don't innovate, they just tweak following the same formula that was established with FFI. FFXI is the lone exception, and was a bold step...but did they really break ground in the MMORPG area?

SE isn't the only culprit, and they usually turn out a decent product...but you look at what they're capable of, and I get let down by another FF that at the core, is the same gameplay experience that I got with FFIV.

And for the record, the draw system wasn't the problem with FFVIII. It was actually kinda cool, unless you missed a GF along the way. The problem was the fact that the best attacks were the GFs, and they took 2 minutes to summon with you mashing buttons to power them up...that was fucking bullshit. Oh, and your level having nothing to do with your progression in the game was laughable too (Chrono Cross was the only game that was able to use that feature effectively). Finally, FFVIII's story was complete ass, which is the one thing all FF's are judged on.

[Elcura]

You guys are mistaking innovation for tweaking. Ask yourself this question...could FFVII through X been done on the SNES without any major gameplay modifications? The answer is yes. Now ask the same thing about Mario 64, Zelda OoT etc. In the jump between 2D and 3D, Square did nothing really (3D graphics and cinematics aren't innovation, they're eye candy...which is why FFVII is the most overrated game in existence). If you've played one FF, you're able to jump into any of the FF's with the slight exception of VIII and have no problems with anything that's going on. It's basically the same fucking battle system with either new look or a new interface.

The anwser is actually no, you think SNES has the memory and capacity to hold all that data and do everything smoothly? The reason FFI > FFVI were so simplistic is because of the (S)NES. FFVII > FF(whatever) could NOT have been done on such a primitive machine without toning down a LOT (so essentially it's not even the same game), it's not hard to understand really. In that way, it was ground breaking, the graphics for a FF game were enhanced so greatly and the game looks awesome, the memory and capacity of the game now was doubled and more involving, the gameplay was solid and FF-esque the only thing different was pretty much the setting. FFVIII-IX weren't ground breaking but innovative in their own LITTLE ways (we've discussed this before if you took to time to read).

You could easily play FFVIII having played any FF, it isn't hard to grasp, even if you haven't play FF before (for those who started on FFVII). FFX was probably the most complex and involving if you get into it (sphere removing and enhancing, moving the right paths etc) and even that isn't hard anyway (I don't actually see what you're point was saying that).

You think Mario 64 wasn't just Tomb Raider with a fat red plumber in it? Oh wait, it was, yet you still call that innovation? Why? Face it, Mario 64 didn't do much of anything other then being 3D, the concepts were the same and the gameplay was similar (pretty much the same but in 3D). Was it a good game? Hell yes (did I like it, I did).

3D Zelda had been done before in other games, but OoT was done right, and done perfectly, they didn't change much from LTTP except make it 3D (and those minor tweekings you speak off that every sequel has), it wasn't an innovative ground breaking change, it's just that LoZ games have always been very creative in how they do things and doing it in 3D is awesome, same way that playing a FF game in 3D is awesome.

Alot of games suffered greatly when they made the 2D to 3D jump. A few became legendary (GTA is the best example...the first two were shallow, 20 minutes then you're bored games...the 3rd is a masterpiece). A few didn't suffer, but didn't offer anything that hadn't been done before. SE is squarely in the third camp. They don't innovate, they just tweak following the same formula that was established with FFI. FFXI is the lone exception, and was a bold step...but did they really break ground in the MMORPG area?

Not as many games suffer as you may think, if you want a successful transition into the 3D world then you have to follow the same template as the former games, all companies have done it and continue to do so, you have to copy and paste before you really tweek shit and get a feel for what you have to change or modify. I don't know much about FFXI being a ground breaking MMO, but the battle system was no doubt very creative and new, I think the job change system was something unique as well, whether it's ground breaking is debatable (other things out shadow the innovation, things you see all over the FFXI talk section).

SE isn't the only culprit, and they usually turn out a decent product...but you look at what they're capable of, and I get let down by another FF that at the core, is the same gameplay experience that I got with FFIV.

You're right, Nintendo does the same thing as well, *coughLoZ: MM and WWcough*. I don't know if that last part was good or bad for you... but in general having the same gameplay experience is a good thing, so uhh, OK.

And for the record, the draw system wasn't the problem with FFVIII. It was actually kinda cool, unless you missed a GF along the way. The problem was the fact that the best attacks were the GFs, and they took 2 minutes to summon with you mashing buttons to power them up...that was fucking bullshit. Oh, and your level having nothing to do with your progression in the game was laughable too (Chrono Cross was the only game that was able to use that feature effectively). Finally, FFVIII's story was complete ass, which is the one thing all FF's are judged on.

No, Draw system was pretty much it, GF's aren't the best way to do damage later on in the game but early-mid game they are, if you think GF were the strongest thing you've obviously never done a limit break before (HELLO AURA - MAKING THE GAME STUPIDLY EASY SINCE YOU FOUGHT SEIFER!). Having the level progression thing was actually a good idea in my eyes, it stopped monsters becoming pointlessly easy and kept a consistant level of challenge for the gamer. It would've been better if (like you said) levels actually mattered. I won't even touch the story, or the characters, yuck.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Um, don't rag on Zelda:MM and WW. Though they were similar to OoT they both were more innovative than what most companies come out with (Vice City and San Andreas, I'm looking at you). The 3 day timer in MM added an interesting addition of pressure and learning daily patterns was fun. WW had the sea and the graphics (different from other cel shading) creating a completely different feel from past Zeldas...

[Xavier]

You guys are mistaking innovation for tweaking. Ask yourself this question...could FFVII through X been done on the SNES without any major gameplay modifications? The answer is yes. Now ask the same thing about Mario 64, Zelda OoT etc. In the jump between 2D and 3D, Square did nothing really (3D graphics and cinematics aren't innovation, they're eye candy...which is why FFVII is the most overrated game in existence).

I strongly disagree. Tweaking is what is going on now. The jump in console power from the SNES to the N64/PS was significant enough that reusing some old-school gameplay while pumping up the graphics to 3d changes how a game is played. I don't see how you can say the jump from 2d sprites to 3d polygons wasn't huge.

My problem is now, when graphics have very little room left to improve, and the gameplay still hasn't changed that much. The industry got away with it because graphics continued to improve, they can't really anymore. Looking at a game on your tv can only (and Oblivion is kinda close to me on an hdtv) be the same as looking out the window. The growth I guess is going to be through memory, more things happening at once, more cinematic approachs (MGS3 did it really well), etc.

[Meilyn]

My yardstick for remakes is Conker's Bad Fur Day (BFD). This game was AWESOME on the N64. I loved all parts of it basically, and the multiplayer was freaking fantastic. The entire game was just goofy fun. Only drawback was that the N64 couldnt handle it all the time and the framerate would get pretty choppy at time (which would just add to the mayhem lol). When I heard they were coming out with a rehash on the Xbox, I was ecstatic.

However, they made a big mistake. They tried to make the game more like every other shooter out there, and more like Tribes/Halo with the vehicles and such. Thats all well and good, but they took out the multiplayer maps/modes of the original! That was a majorly bad move imo. There already are much better games for that type of multiplayer out there, but how many games let you kill opponents by pissing on them?

Don't get me wrong, I loved that they made a remake, the graphics were much improved and framerate was never a problem, but the multiplayer is what gave the original its replay value. My friends and I would play it all the time, and the varied modes made for never getting bored. Whether it be the caveman vs raptors, beach storming area, heist, or capture the flag, each area was tons of fun. The rhythmic thumping of the gattling gun, the decapitation with the samurai sword, or the big blast of the rocket launcher were all great fun for different reasons. With the new game, they went away from these sadly and made just another shooter. In one level you could get into a bomber plane and just constantly carpet bomb the spawn area (and at the same time destroy their ability to get planes) with near impunity.

I would have LOVED rare if they had kept the old maps and gameplay. If it ain't broke don't fix it (with the exception of updating the engine/system for lag-free gameplay). Or, at the very least, have a cheat/unlockable portion of the game where you can get old gameplay. As it is, the Xbox copy sits on the shelf while we still howl it up with the 64 cartridge.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Nintendo Ownage News:
Nintendo has officially announced it will not charge $60 for games like Sony and Microsoft

[realraiko]

360 games are £50 in UK lol

[Maxxthepenguin]

360 games are £50 in UK lol

Sad thing is a I know a brit who has one... Poor sucker

[burntaru]

Nintendo always has been at the forefront of innovation, hell go back as far as the NES when Rare developed the splitscreen multiplayer for a racing game. Simple innovations are sometimes overlooked, and please for the love of god do NOT compare Mario64 to Tomb Raider.... considering that Mario came out what? 6 months BEFORE tombraider... and sorry but teh mechanics of TR were fucking terrible... they've been terrible in every sequel.

But like you've all stated time and time again its not about graphics. Nintendo has stuck their necks out there more than a few times, they have brought to the industry things that EVERYONE has taken and used. Analog Controller? Rumble features? Wireless (and they still own everyone there) The revolution is doing the same thing, hell I believe I saw somewhere that somebody designed a PS2 version of the new revolution controller (not wireless) Both Sony & MS got their asses sued over the dual analog/rumble controllers and sony is still fighting that shit.

I personally give a shit about "awe inspiring graphics" give me a game that has a actual STORY, good gameplay.... We dont need more sports game, we dont need a remade FFVII or remade anything. The problem is that companies such as Sony & MS are in this PURELY for the money, MS is a bigger sinkhole than L.A. What they lose 4-8BIL on the Xbox? How much did sony initially lose on the PS2?

We all know that Nintendo will delivery maybe not QUANTITY but quality games. With new gameplay, and they'll push the envelope again (IE: Nintendo DS) Where as MS & Sony will continue to do what they've always done, flood the market with random titles, rehashed concepts and prettier pictures. As much as I love my PS2, if I had to choose, I'd take my cube 10X over.

[Heian]

Nintendo always has been at the forefront of innovation, hell go back as far as the NES when Rare developed the splitscreen multiplayer for a racing game. Simple innovations are sometimes overlooked, and please for the love of god do NOT compare Mario64 to Tomb Raider.... considering that Mario came out what? 6 months BEFORE tombraider... and sorry but teh mechanics of TR were fucking terrible... they've been terrible in every sequel.

But like you've all stated time and time again its not about graphics. Nintendo has stuck their necks out there more than a few times, they have brought to the industry things that EVERYONE has taken and used. Analog Controller? Rumble features? Wireless (and they still own everyone there) The revolution is doing the same thing, hell I believe I saw somewhere that somebody designed a PS2 version of the new revolution controller (not wireless) Both Sony & MS got their asses sued over the dual analog/rumble controllers and sony is still fighting that shit.

I personally give a shit about "awe inspiring graphics" give me a game that has a actual STORY, good gameplay.... We dont need more sports game, we dont need a remade FFVII or remade anything. The problem is that companies such as Sony & MS are in this PURELY for the money, MS is a bigger sinkhole than L.A. What they lose 4-8BIL on the Xbox? How much did sony initially lose on the PS2?

We all know that Nintendo will delivery maybe not QUANTITY but quality games. With new gameplay, and they'll push the envelope again (IE: Nintendo DS) Where as MS & Sony will continue to do what they've always done, flood the market with random titles, rehashed concepts and prettier pictures. As much as I love my PS2, if I had to choose, I'd take my cube 10X over.

Those are many of the reasons that Nintendo will be around even longer, they are more dedicated to making a high quality product and serving their customer base than both Microsoft and Sony. There are still alot of great titles for PS2 and Xbox but the ones acutally published and developed by them are total consumer, "Lets make the most money with the least amount of effort" games/titles out there.

Nintendo to me has always had great products/titles: Mario, The Legend of Zelda, Metriod, ect... No matter how childish you think Mario is, you have to admit that the quality and the amount of entertainment from the games are enormous. As for inovation, look at Mario Kart, great fucking game. In fact I wish I still had my SNES and N64 just so I could play Mario Kart. After the huge success of Mario Kart, look at all the other manufactures who came out with thier own spin off that came no where near the orginality or success of any of the Mario Karts.

To me Nintendo will always the highest quality of games to me. I personaly can't wait for Revolution, just hoping I can afford it.

[Elcura]

There's something you both forgot; it's called 3rd Party developers. Sony has always had 3rd party developers, Nintendo will only start using them more this generation and MS uses them somewhat randomly (I don't really keep up with MS). Sony has hardly ever released any games by itself cause it's all in the 3rd party devs, if it's software you're talking about, Sony has no part of that, if it's hardware then Nintendo hasn't pushed the front as hard as you think (analog+rumble pack is about it) where Sony copied and modified to make something work as all companies do.

You can't say Nintendo cares just about the gamers and not money, if they didn't care about money there wouldn't be a competition between companies and Nintendo would've went fucking BUST years ago if they didn't care about money.

Nintendo cares about money, you can see this with all the Zelda/Metroid/Mario games they bring out, as well as releasing new games in a popular series (SSB).

Anyway, I've argued to death about this topic, so this is pretty much my last post in the matter unless someone says something incredibly stupid/ignorant.