Who\'s up for giving Nintendo some love?

Joyda - the issues you have with pastels and crap on N64 is due to the cartridge limitations.  Not much room for texture storage.

Yes I quess they are. The textures can be beautiful also, but they\'re usually quite shoddy. And I think the colour is quite limited.

Well, maybe I\'m bored out of Snes; maybe that\'s my deal. I played so much my Snes games back then that I could get trough \'em single handedly and my eyes folded. But, I haven\'t said Snes is a bad console. Actually I think it\'s the greatest console of all time.

Oh and you got the wrong idea, 8-p, from my post here. You gotta agree that children love Nintendo 64, and Pokèmon. Do you, 8-p, love pokèmon? I quess you don\'t. But why you don\'t like it? There are things you can\'t explain.

Not all N64 games are childish. But most of them. And they costed MUCH here. So the probs of N64:

-Cartridges

-The price of the games

If those problems would have been fixed, N64 would be one of the top consoles, and still selling well. But it has had the overall -tag of being childish. And that\'s for a reason.

But I\'m sure those smaller problems also are fixed in GC; I\'m glad there isn\'t any cartridges anymore. Cartridges were fine on Snes, but porting to N64 was little too much.

Maybe the worst thing about N64 was the price of the games. They costed.. about... 125 dollars each here!

Don\'t take everything word to word, 8-P. I have wonderful experiences with Nintendo. And who said MarioKart can\'t be fun in 4-player even if childish graphics? I think MarioKart 64 is the most played game in our house.. or then it\'s Super MarioKart... well I don\'t know sure

The only problems weren\'t the carts and high prices or the pastel colours... It was also the lack of quality games. There were some, but not many. At least in my opinion PSX offered me way much more great games at the time. And still does.

Still, for the price of an N64 game you could almost buy a PSX here...

Well Joyda, I have a new respect for you.  I doubt you care, but I will actually read your posts knowing you have an openmind.

It was also the lack of quality games.
-Hawke-

Well I am glad that you have your opinion, but I have to disagree on it.  Yes PS had more games, but when they came out, chances of them being quality games were slim.  Unlike Nintendo, when they finally did come up, you knew that they were going to be worth buying.  Just answer me this one question...

Name all the games that "Game of the Year" from 1996 to the present.

Now, now.  Don\'t disagree with Hawke by doing exactly what he did - insulting the quality of games on his console.  Remember, the developers make the games; not the console makers.

As far as the PSX, yes it had more crap.  Because it was dirt cheap to develop for.  The price that you have to pay for the priviledge of having a steady flow of games (many of them good, many of them crap) and for having a lot of niche titles is that you\'ll get lazy developers who churn out crap.  Developers couldn\'t turn to N64 for a quick buck; cost too much to make games.  Make crap on PSX, and you only need 50,000 sales (out of 40 million users) to make a profit.  So don\'t say PSX is crap or has no quality.  The PSX had a LOT of quality, AAA games.

I think the PSX had more quality titles across more genres than the N64; but Sony gets no credit from me for that.  They had 200+ developers helping them out.  Developers willing to take the risk on 40 million US PSX owners.  We also got some cool niche titles on PSX.  N64\'s ratio of quality was higher because the risk was higher - meaning quality is a REQUIREMENT.  But don\'t forget, it had it\'s share of Superman\'s.  PSX had more quality titles out of 1000 games than N64 did out of it\'s 300 games.  But the N64 did have some masterpieces, because when you\'re limited you have to improve gameplay to make up for it.

So many consoles, so little time.  Since I got my PS2 I don\'t really plan to buy any new consoles.  I think in general most gamers only buy 1 console.  Only the few really hardcore gamers out there have to have every new console out there.  I think Nintendo in the past was just as you said: a toy catering to youngsters but hopefully they have matured along with its audience.  I think the x-box, nintendo\'s game cube, and the PS2 will be the fore runners into the future of gaming.  Which ever one of the 3 systems you get, I don\'t think you can go wrong.  If you wonder why I omitted DC, that is because I don\'t trust nor will i ever trust sega\'s dedication to the consumer.  I honestly believe when nintendo, and xbox come on line that sega will once again feel the pressure of the competition and bow out of the hardware business for good and become a full time sofware publisher like they want to.  As far a giving Nintendo some love.  I wont give the GC love but I will give the Big "N" some love \'cause it is because of them that the console market has been revived and is flourishing to this day.

Oh and I found one more problem that picked Nintendo 64 back then. It was the lack of 3rd party support.

The only rival console big N had then was Sony with its Playstation. And Playstation had massive 3rd party support ( and has still ). But I think the only thing that drove game-developers away were... the cartridges.

What if N64 would have been CD-based console? It\'d have been a massive success. CD means more space and space means more colours ( the games were large even on cartridges ) and cheaper prices...

But now we see GC. It\'s Nintendo\'s first CD-based console. I think this will get many 3rd party developers jump into it. Now remember EA making games for Snes? It did many. Now N64 had only few EA -games. Think about GC. It will have plenty.

So I\'m seeing GC as new Snes ( the same quality but better graphics/larger games... ); and if things go all right, Nintendo will stand up to a chance and maybe even beat the console war ( but I\'m trying to be open-minded here; but how could I know wich company is eventually going to win the war? ). GBA will be a success; it\'s for sure. Because GBA hasn\'t got any competition ( NeoGeo Pocket vanished from the market ), and if Nintendo makes up great ideas between linked GBA and GC, it\'ll drive many GB fans buy GC...

But we\'ll see that in the future...

I\'m not about to Nintendo some lovin\'.  Infact, I\'m very angry at Nintendo!  How dare they release such a sweet console with so many appealing games!  Dear God, I\'m gonna be bankrupt when it comes out, because I want so many damn games on it!

NGC = $200
Metroid = $50
Mario = $50
Perfect Dark 2 = $50
Thornado = $50
SSX = $50
Wave Race = $50

Price total = $500 :eek:

Damn you Nintendo!  Damn you for taking my love for games advantage by releasing an awesome console with so many killer AAA titles!  Damn you for taking my money, then putting me in gaming bliss so I don\'t notice!  Damn you to hell!

Sorry but 500 bucks is nothing

GC is going to be quite cheap console; that\'s good.

But PS2 costed ALONE 600 dollars!

So now I\'m in bankrupt... but happy about it

Wait, wait, throw in a Wavebird (wireless controller) and a memory card.

Wavebird = probably $35
Memory Card = $20
System and games = $500

Subtotal (not including future desired games, or sales tax) = $555

I\'m talking about American currency, buddy. PS2 here in America is $300.  So I would estimate that in your currency system, my subtotal would be about $1110 (where do you live?  Australia?).

Actually, if I pre-ordered all of these gaming necessities and put down money on it over time, I could pay that $555 in no time.  Ahh, October 2001 marks the month of Nintendo sublime.

[Edited by Harry Mason on 12-17-2000 at 12:12 AM]

Finland actually, Harry

Oh boy, it\'s going to cost a lot here :eek:

hehheh...

Merry X-mas

Originally posted by 8-P
Unlike Nintendo, when they finally did come up, you knew that they were going to be worth buying.  Just answer me this one question...

Name all the games that "Game of the Year" from 1996 to the present.

Why should I name Zelda OoT and Mario 64 & all that stuff. To me, those weren\'t games of any years. That\'s the majority\'s opinion. I\'d like to point out I am an individual, on which these game didn\'t have much effect. I know those are some of the best games ever made and I have insane respect towards Mr. Miyamoto, but sorry, they didn\'t have much impact on me. Hence I chose the masochist way and went for the machine with wipE\'out" (one bloody aggravating game, but still the most enjoyable one I\'d encountered)

And you just told what the problem was "When they finally did come up with something"... The quality games were few and far between, but this was compensated by them being quadruple-A titles. Nintendo and Rare make great games, but the PSX (and now the PS2) offer/ed a wider range of good/great games to enjoy.

And Ktulu, I did not down the quality of Nintendo\'s games, thank you very much, I just don\'t happen to like many games out on the N64.

Originally posted by Hawke

Originally posted by 8-P
Unlike Nintendo, when they finally did come up, you knew that they were going to be worth buying.  Just answer me this one question...

Name all the games that "Game of the Year" from 1996 to the present.

Why should I name Zelda OoT and Mario 64 & all that stuff. To me, those weren\'t games of any years. That\'s the majority\'s opinion. I\'d like to point out I am an individual, on which these game didn\'t have much effect. I know those are some of the best games ever made and I have insane respect towards Mr. Miyamoto, but sorry, they didn\'t have much impact on me. Hence I chose the masochist way and went for the machine with wipE\'out" (one bloody aggravating game, but still the most enjoyable one I\'d encountered)

And you just told what the problem was "When they finally did come up with something"... The quality games were few and far between, but this was compensated by them being quadruple-A titles. Nintendo and Rare make great games, but the PSX (and now the PS2) offer/ed a wider range of good/great games to enjoy.

And Ktulu, I did not down the quality of Nintendo\'s games, thank you very much, I just don\'t happen to like many games out on the N64. [/B]

Thank you Hawke. I love you!

That\'s what I think, too. Some people say \'but Nintendo makes the best games ever... etc\' but that\'s opinion. Some people might not like those games much (yes, they do exist). I\'m not saying they aren\'t good games - I\'m just saying that different people have difference opinions. And IMO Mario 64 isn\'t that great.

I don\'t see why people put so much faith into a full company; it\'s like Rare. Though you may like Goldeneye, that doesn\'t mean that every single Rare game will come out that great; look at Donkey Kong 64.

Of course, this same logic applies to Squaresoft and every other third party just as much as it does Nintendo and their second parties.

In other words, what I\'m saying is... being a fan of a company is stupid, they could always screw up with a game.

Originally posted by M4
I don\'t see why people put so much faith into a full company; it\'s like Rare. Though you may like Goldeneye, that doesn\'t mean that every single Rare game will come out that great; look at Donkey Kong 64.

Of course, this same logic applies to Squaresoft and every other third party just as much as it does Nintendo and their second parties.

In other words, what I\'m saying is... being a fan of a company is stupid, they could always screw up with a game.

Heh, I agree, but not 100 Prosently. Let me say that I\'m not a particular "developer"-fan, I\'m a "game-fan"; so if FFVII is a game I\'ve fallen love into, it doesn\'t mean I\'ve fallen in love with Square. So if I\'m a fan of FFVII, I\'m not a fan of Square.

But this isn\'t always the truth. I like Square\'s games. Quite overally every single one. Expect for Chocobo Racing for PS... So it makes me to wait Square\'s games, even if they\'re not FF\'s. Does that make me a Square fan, does it?

Well, it\'s like a two-way relationship. You give and you get. Both ways. Not a single way.