There's been rumors going around on the Internet that Nintendo is developing a new video game console in the next 5 years known as the "Nintendo Fusion" which is an all-in-one device where you can play handheld games on the Fusion console and vice-versa which will hopefully be backwards compatible with 3DS titles. Although I think it would be in Nintendo's best interest to merge with Valve considering how underrated Steam is compared to the PS4 and XBox One in today's console wars, it would help elevate the problem that Nintendo has currently with a lack of online multiplayer in their launch titles. We're long overdue for a new F-Zero and StarFox game yet they refuse to release new games based on those IP's.
The biggest irony when it comes to Nintendo is that the reason why the NES took off in the 80's after the last video game market crash was mostly due to the abundance of 3rd Party Titles being released for that console while as nowadays those 3rd Party Titles are mostly being developed by Nintendo's competitors for release on Sony and Microsoft's consoles. Nintendo has learned the hard way that they can't survive on 1st Party Titles alone as it shows with their financial woes of the Wii U but as for the 3DS I think they might be branching out a bit more in terms of 3rd Party support aside from 1st Party like with Bravely Default. Region Locking titles doesn't help their situation either as it limits access to games that is geared to what Nintendo believes is a niche market when it could actually turn a profit for themselves.
They need to go back to the formula they used in the N64 era with today's advancements in technology, make an actual appearance at the next E3 Convention without having to resort to using Nintendo Direct, and don't make the same mistake again with the Wii U that they did 20 years ago with the Virtual Boy where they rushed to stay ahead of the curve. There wouldn't be so many anti-Nintendo articles on the Internet If they had learned from their past mistakes which apparently they didn't but perhaps it has more to do with the current transitional shift in the video game industry where developers, publishers, and independent developers are trying to juggle the concept of smaller games that don't take a ton of investment yet produce really well or games that we've been accustomed to since the 80's and 90's.
I've heard rumours of a new console but I dismissed them as such and never payed much attention. If it happens to be true though, I agree with the retrocompability and the ability to play handhels games (one thing I could never understand was if Nintendo was already thinking of only selling one Gamepad with each WiiU and not allowing two or more, why not allow the 3DS to be used as a Gamepad?).
About Valve, I'm not sure about the need for Nintendo to join it (make a partnership, whatever) nor the "irrelevance" of Valve. I'm still waiting to see what comes out of Valve.
When it comes to the region locking, I understand and accept their excuses that it allows for better sales management and the language issue (in Europe this really is an issue since they need to translate the games to some 7/8 languages and while not translating the games in some cases, like Portugal, they still need to translate the instruction books) but there are just too many people asking for that and also with good reason: to play the Japanese games that don't reach the West.
Nintendo had a chance of boosting sales, namely the WIiU, in the time period before last Christmas with games like Watch_Dogs being delayed and the whole issue about the Xbone measures and requirements but what did Nintendo do: little to nothing, namely in publicity, which is always needed, and we ended up seeing Mr. Myamoto bowing, apologising and ask for a little more patience.
Let's see what happens.
It's kind of a true fact though. The Wii U isn't doing as well as they should be, and they need a fix for next year. Sony and Microsoft are doing better, but they are doing poorly compared to the PS3 and Xbox360. While they have the lead on next gen consoles, they don't have the lead on handheld gaming which the 3DS does. I'm shocked the XboxOne did so well cause that to me looked like the worst system out of all.
To be honest though, the Wii U is kind of disappointing. The clonky, gigantor Game Pad was a good idea for being able to play when your siblings want to watch TV but it feels heavy for an actual controller. I got used to the controller eventually but for smaller children they probably won't be very fond of it. This isn't a problem for big families but for parents who don't care about gaming and for a single child, the child probably won't get too attached to his new system.
New gamers might not see the appeal to getting one right away, while old gamers like myself get it out of the impression that Nintendo makes good games, and that'll be worth it, then you got the just in College students, who are fans of Nintendo but don't have the money for it and see no real reason to buy the games. The only games I see worth getting a Wii U right now...
New Super Mario Bros U (although I felt like it was just more of the same stuff and never finished it)
ZombiU (intense, terrifying, works well with the Game Pad)
Super Mario 3D world (super fun with a family)
Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze (my favorite title so far)
Bayoneta 2 (not out yet, but this is one of the main reason I wanted a Wii U)
Super Smash Bros (although the 3DS version is probably gonna rock the sales vs the Wii U edition)
The Legend of Zelda Wind Waker HD (this is arguable... some people will see no reason to play a remastered while some will be thrilled to relive a classic in HD)
Among the many titles released, these are the only few that I liked or can recommend. For 300$ it is a lot to save up for only those titles(5 out, 2 TBR). If you want to commit to a new system, you want to be able to play games on it and not have it collect dust. I have barely touched my system, vs the amount of times I have played my 3DS and PS3. But I am willing to spend a lot of money for a system just for a certain game, like when I bought my PSVita and I only play Ys: Memories of Celceta. My friends have bought a 3DS just for Pokemon X and Y. When Smash Bros comes out chances are, some folks just might get a Wii U JUST for that game.
The Wii U certainly feels very rushed though, perhaps because they felt they were behind in the "HD and hardcore" department. They even added games like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty. It's not very enjoyable to play these using the Game Pad, but the Controller Pro makes all these PS3/Xbox360 ports more playable for those who dislike the Game Pad, however I would prefer to play those titles on my PS3. Except for Batman Arkham City, the Wii U port was actually very nicely done with its gigantor controller.
I would like future Nintendo systems to rely less on gimmicks and more about delivering an excellent gaming experience. I always hated certain motion controls for the Wii and I am not a big fan of the huge game pad and opt to use my Pro Controller whenever I can.
I definitely hope Nintendo gets a better year in 2015 for home consoles. Even though I hold a grudge against Nintendo for not fixing my 3DS XL, I still enjoy a round of Mario, Donkey Kong, Zelda and Pokemon here and there on the big screen and I hope that a small drop in sales don't drive them to create over the top bad ideas that ruins why these games are classics to steer me away from buying future gaming consoles from them. Like the Xbox Kinect idea. It is the worst thing ever.
I think the 3DS is a fantastic system and I hope there is no need to upgrade again so soon like when they jumped from DS to DS Lite to DSi and DSi XL and then 3DS. That was extremely annoying cause I would have just bought the latest system and all a sudden "A new version is coming out!". I don't know why people hate on the 2DS though, as it is just a way for people to be able to afford a 3DS or not be concerned with possible ill effects from playing in 3D too long. It was never meant to be a "new must buy console", just another option for families.
So my reply is closer to a response to what that guy said in reply to you. I hate smartphones. They have so many features they're literally unusual and constantly hitting hotkeys that open up browsers o apps that you didn't mean to, and it takes legitly like 5 minutes to make a call in the thing. It's not as simple as find the person's name and hit call. I rather have a handheld system then get stuck with using a smartphone (Again). My handheld's have been much more use to me than any smartphone could ever be, and much less of a headache. =3 I highly doubt smartphones will take over the handheld world.
Note: This is just my opinion on how I feel about them based on my personal experience with them, not an absolute.
It's kind of a true fact though. The Wii U isn't doing as well as To be honest though, the Wii U is kind of disappointing. The clonky, gigantor Game Pad was a good idea for being able to play when your siblings want to watch TV but it feels heavy for an actual controller. I got used to the controller eventually but for smaller children they probably won't be very fond of it. This isn't a problem for big families but for parents who don't care about gaming and for a single child, the child probably won't get too attached to his new system.
I would like future Nintendo systems to rely less on gimmicks and more about delivering an excellent gaming experience. I always hated certain motion controls for the Wii and I am not a big fan of the huge game pad and opt to use my Pro Controller whenever I can.
I definitely hope Nintendo gets a better year in 2015 for home consoles...
I think the 3DS is a fantastic system and I hope there is no need to upgrade again so soon like when they jumped from DS to DS Lite to DSi and DSi XL and then 3DS. That was extremely annoying cause I would have just bought the latest system and all a sudden "A new version is coming out!". I don't know why people hate on the 2DS though, as it is just a way for people to be able to afford a 3DS or not be concerned with possible ill effects from playing in 3D too long. It was never meant to be a "new must buy console", just another option for families.
I agree with everything that I quoted, and emphasize the bolded part. I didn't care for motion control on the Wii being pidgeonholed into so many games where I felt it wasn't needed (Super Paper Mario, Mario Galaxy, Donkey Kong Country Returns, etc) and that was probably part of why it wasn't as appealing for me as the Gamecube was. Granted, I got tons of time out of Brawl (that's one of two/three games I have on the Wii), but that was really the only "must-play" for me on that system aside from Wii Sports. I like new play styles when the game is designed for it, e.g. Wii Sports. That's also why the DS's touch screen wasn't gimmicky for me: games like Meteos, Super Mario 64 DS (the minigames, not the main game which didn't really use touch controls I think), and Warioware: Touched made great use of the touchscreen! And in games like Pokemon Pearl, touchscreen stuff wasn't thrown in like it seemed to be on the Wii. Granted, my only time with the Wii U is a demo unit of Super Mario 3D World (which, from my impression of it, could have been made as a 3DS game) at Best Buy, but it seems like that system has the Wii's gimmick problem. It might help things if the gamepad was a 4-player thing, but that would probably be expensive. I'm not a kid anymore, I can't afford to buy a Wii U just for the new Smash (which is on the 3DS anyway) and Dr. Luigi (yes, I love the Dr. Mario series). Perhaps the Wii U will pick up if there's enough successful games on it, but who knows. I also have no clue who will "win" the PS4/Xbox One "console war" (quotes because I don't think its that serious of a thing), because to be honest I'm not interested in the games they have to offer.
The 3DS is a great system! I think the reason that's become so successful vs. the Wii U is that the 3DS has a greater selection of games, there's a lower cost of entry ($130-200 vs $300), and the portability factor.The 3D effect is gimmicky to me (maybe not to other people who can enjoy it for more than 10 seconds?), so I'm glad the system seems focused on gameplay.I think it would be great if a 3DS could be used as a controller on the Wii U, it would encourage a lot of cross-platform use and boost sales of the 3DS. In terms of anti-Nintendo bias, there probably is some, but the Wii U isn't selling on Wii/N64/SNES/take your pick levels for a reason (but I don't think I need to rehash what others have probably said better). Nintendo probably won't go out of business or quit making consoles, but the Wii U's success as a console is uncertain. Could go either way, depending on what Nintendo decides to do with it.
With that said, I do have one thought: why wasn't the Gamecube controller design used as the Pro Controller? What they would have had to do, as I see it, is make the controller stick more durable (so the top doesn't peel off as easily) and make the wired design into a wireless one. I think it could be done at an affordable price. Heck, Amazon sells Nintendo-branded Gamecube controllers for $30 or so still:
There certainly were a lot of gimmicky games for the DS, especially when it was first released, but the DS's library is so much more expansive than the Wii's ever was, so it's easier to ignore and forget about those games. The 3DS and the Wii U also do the same; I was so excited about Spirit Camera only to learn that it was basically a crappy tech demo that was horribly designed, and playing one of the Marios as a Demo in a store (I think it might have been Super Mario 3D World, but I'm not sure) had some stupid gimmicks which forced P1 to look at the gamepad instead of the screen, like a normal person.
I think the main reason that we focus on and remember these things, though, is because Nintendo is the main company that's doing innovative things with their games and consoles like this (I mean, there's the Kinect, but from what I've heard from people who have it, it's basically just for gimmicks anyway). The whole dual screen aspect of the DS (plus the touch screen and the microphone) were considered to be really gimmicky and cheesy for a while, but it ended up pulling off. Wii's motion controls never became quite as natural as the two screen/touch screen did on the DS for me, but they still integrated it very well, especially in some of their top IPs, like LoZ; seriously, Skyward Sword with the Wiimote is pretty damn awesome, and certainly not gimmicky at all.
I guess the point is that things mostly feel gimmicky when they're forced, and early games are going to have this strongly because they need to introduce people to the changes and mechanics and such. If the changes catch on, they eventually feel natural (see: DS), but if they don't, they'll be reduced to a permanent joke (see: Virtual Boy).
I guess the point is that things mostly feel gimmicky when they're forced, and early games are going to have this strongly because they need to introduce people to the changes and mechanics and such. If the changes catch on, they eventually feel natural (see: DS), but if they don't, they'll be reduced to a permanent joke (see: Virtual Boy).
Funny you mention Nintendo's Virtual Boy being a permanent joke with today's gaming industry supposedly heading toward the next VR craze with the Oculus Rift for PC's, Project Morpheus for the PS4, and whatever VR peripheral Microsoft may be developing for the XBox One. Ubisoft doesn't want any part of it so that obviously means no VR Assassin's Creed and as for Nintendo I doubt they'd want to take another shot at VR when it backfired on them badly 20 years ago.
God forbid If this new VR craze heads toward something very similar to Sword Art Online (SOA) and .hack//Sign although using a head set to utilize the VR still feels very gimmicky to me much like with the Virtual Boy unless If it works almost exactly like the Microsoft Kinect which was pretty clever in terms of motion controls for it's time. As for the Oculus Rift I can imagine alot of people will be boycotting it now that Facebook bought it for $2 Billion, so that only leaves with Sony's Project Morpheus being the safer bet in terms of VR gaming If it does take off.
I have a feeling Oculus Rift will still probably be the leader (at least in the beginning), despite the FB backlash, because of the high amount of marketing and publicity. I've never even heard of any of these other things before, whereas Oculus Rift has been all over the news and internet, even before the FB aquisition. Anything Sony/MS makes is going to have a lot of catching up to do.
I am taking the whole "VR craze" with about as much salt as I can possibly carry, though.
I have a feeling Oculus Rift will still probably be the leader (at least in the beginning), despite the FB backlash, because of the high amount of marketing and publicity. I've never even heard of any of these other things before, whereas Oculus Rift has been all over the news and internet, even before the FB aquisition. Anything Sony/MS makes is going to have a lot of catching up to do.
I am taking the whole "VR craze" with about as much salt as I can possibly carry, though.
I have a feeling Oculus Rift will still probably be the leader (at least in the beginning), despite the FB backlash, because of the high amount of marketing and publicity. I've never even heard of any of these other things before, whereas Oculus Rift has been all over the news and internet, even before the FB aquisition. Anything Sony/MS makes is going to have a lot of catching up to do.
I am taking the whole "VR craze" with about as much salt as I can possibly carry, though.
I don't think it will catch on to be honest. It's too complex for a game system and there aren't any interesting games for it. I'm sticking with the 3ds.
You just play games from Nintendo or just games on Nintendo systems?
Athena said:
I have a feeling Oculus Rift will still probably be the leader (at least in the beginning), despite the FB backlash, because of the high amount of marketing and publicity. I've never even heard of any of these other things before, whereas Oculus Rift has been all over the news and internet, even before the FB aquisition. Anything Sony/MS makes is going to have a lot of catching up to do.
I am taking the whole "VR craze" with about as much salt as I can possibly carry, though.
If it becomes the leader, believe that in part will be due to being a gimmick! I agree with your comment saying that what today is gimmick tomorrow may be something good and successful but in my opinion the VR has a basic problem that other gimmicks like the DS and Gamepad hadn't: the size. Just like with the Wii, not everyone has room for it. I guess not every game will require you to have some space to move but still. That's why I consider the PS2 Slim one of the best consoles from Sony because it's beautiful, small and light.
On another note, companies should focus on improving gameplay mechanics and the AI (VR just doesn't seems to me like a new gameplay mechanic). This past generation there was eagerness to develop more capable and challenging AI and now this generation seems all about VR. Games are still scarce, now they're talking of improved versions of games just released for PS3 (GTA and TLoU), and the gameplay still remains the same, with lousy AI (I'm looking at you AC) and games just being clones of each other.
Don't blame me. I'm just casual when it comes to gaming. And I prefer to play what I'm familiar with and I usually don't like to try new things. I actually played Mass Effect for a couple of hours before I got bored. I also don't like a lot of games nowadays. Most games today don't feel like games but instead interactive movies. And the graphics while impressive doesn't look interesting to me. Games these days try too hard to be realistic as I don't care if the game is realistic or cinematic.
Nintendo is the only company I know who still focuses on gameplay rather than cinematics or graphics. I just prefer retro gaming because those games actually feel like games and not interactive movies.
Also, I think you should just make a separate thread on VR gaming.
Just because American sales for Nintendo falters away it doesn't necessarily mean that ALL gamers in North America only play games developed in the West instead of both East and West like in the 80's and 90's before Sony brought Western video game development into the forefront 20 years ago. Not to say that all Western games are bad, there's actually quite a few that I enjoy especially from the 90's as well however they don't have the same quality and appeal they once had except for a select few nowadays like Dark Souls I/II which I hear is as difficult as the original Ninja Gaiden on the NES but no where near as impossible to beat as Silver Surfer on the Sega Genesis.
I have to agree with 8bitCelebi in regards to the current state of gaming these days as games are far less challenging now than they were 25 years ago where they're less exciting to play than they once were. That challenge was the real excitement of video games back in the day, but what happened was that over the years gamers complained too much about how they hate getting punished for dying in a game to the point where companies caved into their complaints by developing games that are too easy to beat especially with broken power-ups like the White Tanooki Suit from Super Mario 3D World and Super Mario 3D Land. Kids nowadays who play games don't get that same level of coordination skill that my generation grew up with years ago that shaped the gaming culture we all know today.
I think another thing that made Eastern gaming more appealing than Western gaming is the lack of logic behind them, it doesn't make any sense because it's not supposed to and over the last decade up to now Western video game developers and producers kept developing too many games that were not only logical but too dark and gritty with less quirkiness involved. Don't get the wrong idea, I don't think there's anything wrong with having logic in video games (especially the Ace Attorney series by Capcom) depending on the plot, design, and premise but If you don't make it fun and quirky for people to get into while being too serious with it then it becomes stale and boring.
Nintendo is the only company I know who still focuses on gameplay rather than cinematics or graphics. I just prefer retro gaming because those games actually feel like games and not interactive movies.
LittleBigPlanet (You'd probably like this if you like Nintendo)
Dark/Demon's Souls (You'd LOVE this series if you want pure gameplay)
inFamous
Gravity Rush
Dota 2
Skyrim
Portal
Monster Hunter 4 (Not out in America yet; confirmed for early next year; already considered of the best in the series) (If you want gameplay, Monster Hunter is your game)
Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing Transformed (Basically Mario Kart, but different enough to warrant the series; you should give it a shot)
Killzone Mercenary
Tearaway (A very "Nintendo" game, you should give it a shot if ever possible)
Rayman Legends (Like platformers? Then you'll like Rayman Legends)
Soul Sacrifice
Toukiden
And a whooooole gamut of indie titles (also lumping "smaller" titles in here). From (mostly) recent years alone, that I have played, or watched friends play, there's (Spoiler tagged because don't want long post size consisting of single lines):
Awesomenauts
Fez
Luftrausers
Super Crate Box
Thomas Was Alone
Towerfall (Ascension)
Runner 2: Future Legend of Rhythm Alien
Bastion
Hotline Miami
Proteus
Telltale's The Walking Dead
Terraria
Dustforce
Steamworld Dig
Gunman Clive
Velocity Ultra
Quacamelee
Mutant Mudds
New Little King's Story
Spelunky
Stealth Inc. A Clone in the Dark
(Keep in mind every game listed here is off the top of my head, other than a few I had to look back at my Steam library for haha. Can only keep so much in memory. There's a lot more to be noted that I'm forgetting, and that's for fact.)
Shoot, even some iOS titles are primarily gameplay! Cut the Rope is one of my favorite puzzle games in a long time. Jetpack Joyride's some good fun, too. And this is coming from someone who generally dislikes iOS.
Also, there's no issue with where gaming is now. It has moved on to where the word game can mean more than, well, gameplay. It can mean pure gameplay, it can mean cinematics, or it can mean an immersive experience you can't get anywhere else. Journey was a beautiful game, and it didn't really have gameplay at all! But that doesn't mean anything bad; that experience could never translate into a book or movie.
I get liking Nintendo. Their approach to games is something that really hasn't changed over the years -- they have stayed in their roots. When you see Mario, or Link, or Kirby, you feel familiarity. It feels "safe" for lack of a better word. You know what you're going to get, and that's what you want.
But that approach has VERY obvious flaws. Nintendo, as a whole, really don't ever branch out. Sure, you get your small eShop titles here and there, and yes their games have certainly progressed. Things have become bigger and better over the years. Mario can jump off walls, he can triple jump, he can pull off crazy acrobatics in an extremely colorful 3D world. But when you step back and take a deeper look, this is Mario. It has been Mario since Super Mario Bros. on the NES, and it'll be Mario 'til the day Nintendo goes down. You're not going to load up a new Super Mario game, and say, "Oh boy, I wonder what twists on gameplay Nintendo made this time!" (But then of course when they do twist things up ala Sunshine, the majority trash it. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU, SUNSHINE DA BOMB.)
Thankfully competition does exist. Sony cover where Nintendo lacks, Nintendo fills in for Microsoft, and Microsoft keeps Sony's game output in check. Those missing holes? The niche? Indies are there for you. I think people forget this: Gaming is not Nintendo, gaming is not Sony, or Microsoft, or that small company most people have never heard of. Gaming is a giant culmination of numerous companies working together, whether it be directly or not. You think Sony would have taken off in the gaming business if it weren't for Nintendo's success (Remember, the Playstation was going to be a Nintendo/Sony console)? Would online gaming have taken off as much as it did without Microsoft? Would things like Fez exist without indies covering for those games that would never be advertised to the masses?
I honestly did try to fit something more on-topic into this post, but I don't know what more to add on and will instead re-instate my previous post from months ago:
Me from the past said:
Isn't the real issue at hand here here anti-anything articles?
I think SotS already made the point better than I could, but just to finish this, mortal kombat (hey! another great game not made by nintendo! who knew?) style.
professorlight said:
Look around the pagethread: their editorial line is clear, all ipads and stuff, a little PS4 news shortcut up there and at first sightnintendo this, nintendo that, two articles about how nintendo will inevitably fail and it's doing everything wrongis the best and only producer of quality games, while sony, microsoft and indies produce garbage, and nintendo needs to get on their level to compete.
So, just... let them bestop. Those guysyou want the console war, because that means businesstheir side, their choices are correct and superior, and they can't stand that this time there isn'tsuch a clear winner (PS4nintendo) so they try to start shit.
When I first wrote that, the guy was obviously trying to get traffic (and subsequently money) by dissing nintendo. Now that I quote that, you're doing the same thing, but not for money; as far as I know, the original article's writer didn't even care about consoles, and just wrote what would bring the most traffic.
That magnificent bastard friedrich nietzche said:
“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster... When you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you”
Nintendo is the only company I know who still focuses on gameplay rather than cinematics or graphics. I just prefer retro gaming because those games actually feel like games and not interactive movies.
LittleBigPlanet (You'd probably like this if you like Nintendo)
Dark/Demon's Souls (You'd LOVE this series if you want pure gameplay)
inFamous
Gravity Rush
Dota 2
Skyrim
Portal
Monster Hunter 4 (Not out in America yet; confirmed for early next year; already considered of the best in the series) (If you want gameplay, Monster Hunter is your game)
Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing Transformed (Basically Mario Kart, but different enough to warrant the series; you should give it a shot)
Killzone Mercenary
Tearaway (A very "Nintendo" game, you should give it a shot if ever possible)
Rayman Legends (Like platformers? Then you'll like Rayman Legends)
Soul Sacrifice
Toukiden
And a whooooole gamut of indie titles (also lumping "smaller" titles in here). From (mostly) recent years alone, that I have played, or watched friends play, there's (Spoiler tagged because don't want long post size consisting of single lines):
Awesomenauts
Fez
Luftrausers
Super Crate Box
Thomas Was Alone
Towerfall (Ascension)
Runner 2: Future Legend of Rhythm Alien
Bastion
Hotline Miami
Proteus
Telltale's The Walking Dead
Terraria
Dustforce
Steamworld Dig
Gunman Clive
Velocity Ultra
Quacamelee
Mutant Mudds
New Little King's Story
Spelunky
Stealth Inc. A Clone in the Dark
(Keep in mind every game listed here is off the top of my head, other than a few I had to look back at my Steam library for haha. Can only keep so much in memory. There's a lot more to be noted that I'm forgetting, and that's for fact.)
Shoot, even some iOS titles are primarily gameplay! Cut the Rope is one of my favorite puzzle games in a long time. Jetpack Joyride's some good fun, too. And this is coming from someone who generally dislikes iOS.
Also, there's no issue with where gaming is now. It has moved on to where the word game can mean more than, well, gameplay. It can mean pure gameplay, it can mean cinematics, or it can mean an immersive experience you can't get anywhere else. Journey was a beautiful game, and it didn't really have gameplay at all! But that doesn't mean anything bad; that experience could never translate into a book or movie.
I get liking Nintendo. Their approach to games is something that really hasn't changed over the years -- they have stayed in their roots. When you see Mario, or Link, or Kirby, you feel familiarity. It feels "safe" for lack of a better word. You know what you're going to get, and that's what you want.
But that approach has VERY obvious flaws. Nintendo, as a whole, really don't ever branch out. Sure, you get your small eShop titles here and there, and yes their games have certainly progressed. Things have become bigger and better over the years. Mario can jump off walls, he can triple jump, he can pull off crazy acrobatics in an extremely colorful 3D world. But when you step back and take a deeper look, this is Mario. It has been Mario since Super Mario Bros. on the NES, and it'll be Mario 'til the day Nintendo goes down. You're not going to load up a new Super Mario game, and say, "Oh boy, I wonder what twists on gameplay Nintendo made this time!" (But then of course when they do twist things up ala Sunshine, the majority trash it. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU, SUNSHINE DA BOMB.)
Thankfully competition does exist. Sony cover where Nintendo lacks, Nintendo fills in for Microsoft, and Microsoft keeps Sony's game output in check. Those missing holes? The niche? Indies are there for you. I think people forget this: Gaming is not Nintendo, gaming is not Sony, or Microsoft, or that small company most people have never heard of. Gaming is a giant culmination of numerous companies working together, whether it be directly or not. You think Sony would have taken off in the gaming business if it weren't for Nintendo's success (Remember, the Playstation was going to be a Nintendo/Sony console)? Would online gaming have taken off as much as it did without Microsoft? Would things like Fez exist without indies covering for those games that would never be advertised to the masses?
I honestly did try to fit something more on-topic into this post, but I don't know what more to add on and will instead re-instate my previous post from months ago:
Me from the past said:
Isn't the real issue at hand here here anti-anything articles?
Older Sonic games
Spongebob games
Tony Hawk Pro Skater Games
Theme Park
Zoo Tycoon
Order Up
Thrillville
BTW I'm not a hardcore gamer. I can't afford more than one system per generation. For that matter I only get a game if I really want it and not by suggestion from someone else. I usually don't like to try new things and when I do, I get bored quickly which is why I prefer to stick to what I'm already familiar with.
I did rent Skyrim and played 2 hours before I got frustrated.
I'm also not big on home consoles at all, so I spend most of my gaming time on handhelds.
As for puzzle games, I still think Tetris is the best. I can play Tetris for longer periods than other games like Cut the Rope. I did have a PS2 and 360 but got bored with them quickly.
Gaming in general isn't my passion. It's not that I'm a Nintendo fanboy since I don't even play games like Animal Crossing, Fire Emblem, Pikmin, or Metroid. I only buy games that interest me the most.
Also I think your comment is a troll comment because you're listing games I don't even care about. It's not a very appropriate comment especially on Pokébeach where we're all Pokémon fans and because of that, we all play Nintendo systems. (unless you use illegal emulators.)
