PDA

View Full Version : Interesting article about Nintendo from MSN



TrueDolFan
08-03-2006, 01:49 PM
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/TheStreet/NintendoHitsTheNextLevel.aspx

Check out this article.

I told everybody that this would happen when the PSP first launched!

What do you think about this article? Do you think that it could be a glimpse into the future of consoles? Or do you think that Nintendo will only dominate the handheld market?

dQbell
08-03-2006, 02:30 PM
Nintendo has always dominated the handheld market. It's just their thing.

The author makes the assumption that Nintendo is offering the Wii as the low cost alternative, but we all know they are much aware of how lousy the gamecube did and need something to get back into the console market.

Everyone (including myself) isn't really feeling what Sony is doing, but I will be very interested to see what happens this fall and next year.

mor911
08-03-2006, 03:31 PM
Where's the irony in that it's an article on a Microsoft publication :lol:

So far, Sony's (SNE (http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=SNE), news (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/rcnews.asp?Symbol=SNE), msgs (http://moneycentral.msn.com/community/message/board.asp?Symbol=SNE)) PSP has been the ideal foil -- a fancy, expensive rival with lackluster software support. I expect Microsoft's (MSFT (http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?Symbol=MSFT), news (http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/rcnews.asp?Symbol=MSFT), msgs (http://moneycentral.msn.com/community/message/board.asp?Symbol=MSFT)) offerings to follow suit. (Microsoft is the publisher of MSN Money.)

Motion
08-03-2006, 03:47 PM
Everyone (including myself) isn't really feeling what Sony is doing, but I will be very interested to see what happens this fall and next year.

What exactly are you basing that statement on?

Phin-o-rama
08-03-2006, 04:04 PM
im glad i bit on the 360, the one thing i will say about the ps3 is that yes its $600 but you get an hdmi port, 60gb HD and bluray (although imo that is a waste of money)....

i see no reason to wait for the ps3 ....every title i care about (except final fantasy) will be on the 360....thats enough for me, as both systems are/will be great.

mor911
08-03-2006, 04:05 PM
What exactly are you basing that statement on?I think he means with the PSP... and i think he's basing it on recent sales (where the DS is absolutely crushing the PSP)

dQbell
08-03-2006, 04:48 PM
Where's the irony in that it's an article on a Microsoft publication :lol:

lol..I thought the same, especially with this "(Microsoft is the publisher of MSN Money.)" Nah, ya think? MSN Money.

TrueDolFan
08-03-2006, 05:42 PM
i see no reason to wait for the ps3 ....every title i care about (except final fantasy) will be on the 360....thats enough for me, as both systems are/will be great.

I assume you're talking about 3rd party games.

I think that the next console war will be very interesting. The company that will come out ahead is the company that can provide more great first-party titles, for the reason that you just stated - each system will have pretty much the same 3rd party games!

The major difference in each system's library will be the first-party titles. Nintendo EASILY has the edge on first-party titles. No other game company in the world comes close to the quality that Nintendo puts out. If Nintendo picks up the pace, and doesn't let their customers wait for months between major titles, they can gain MAJOR ground on Sony and Microsoft.

mor911
08-03-2006, 06:28 PM
I assume you're talking about 3rd party games.

I think that the next console war will be very interesting. The company that will come out ahead is the company that can provide more great first-party titles, for the reason that you just stated - each system will have pretty much the same 3rd party games!

The major difference in each system's library will be the first-party titles. Nintendo EASILY has the edge on first-party titles. No other game company in the world comes close to the quality that Nintendo puts out. If Nintendo picks up the pace, and doesn't let their customers wait for months between major titles, they can gain MAJOR ground on Sony and Microsoft.
I would have agreed with you 5-6 years ago... Truth is, Nintendo's 1st party games aren't THAT good anymore. They're sold on name alone mostly. Phsyconauts was better than Mario Sunshine. The list of Adventure games from God of War to Shadow of the Colosuss was better than Wind Waker. Metroid Prime is an FPS that makes you search for stuff WAYtoo long... Again, the games sell well because Nintendo has followers. But their 1st party game quality isn't that great.

Don't believe me? Imagine Jak or Daxter doing all that crap in Mario Sunshine... Still fun? Replace Link with some no-name character, would you sit through the boring hours of sailing for triforces then? If Metroid Prime was called Time Shift 3, would it have been genre shaping? I think not... But this is just my opinion.

Medieval954
08-03-2006, 08:40 PM
MSN Money is about 2 months late on that article. Sounds like every other article written by the mainstream media right after E3 praising the Nintendo Wii.

Still good to hear again, though. :)

dQbell
08-03-2006, 09:52 PM
What exactly are you basing that statement on?

"Sony has done very little to justify why the system is worth a premium price for consumers that don't care about raw hardware performance and are not hard-core audio/visual consumers. Unfortunately we believe that represents over 90 poercent of the consumers in the marketplace." -DFC Intelligence

Not only is the cost of the system higher than the Wii's, but also developing for the system is substantially higher.

"One of the things we like about that platform is the development costs...on the Wii are nowhere near what they are on the PS3 and Xbox 360. That's something that's quite encouraging. As you probably know, our portfolio maps very, very well to what we think the Wii demographic is going to be." -THQ president and CEO Brian Farrell

When you look at this fall and into 2007, you will most likely see the Wii with a larger more creative library of games (based on the above comments).

"The PlayStation 3 is a computer. We do not need the PC." Phil Harrison, president of Sony Computer Entertainment's Worldwide Studios

Do you hear the arrogance there? Sony is riding on the popularity of what is Playstation to go into a whole new field, a field that is dominated by Microsoft. They obviously are aware of the connection MS is making with the 360 and PCs. It's odd, on one hand you have Sony evangelising their exclusive games, and then they are going to extremes claiming after the PS3 is released there is no need for the PC. I say leave those claims to Apple, they have a more substantial possibility of challenging the PC.

I'm not hoping for failure on Son'y part. My comment of "not feeling" Sony is simply based on their strategies and overall theme they are trying to promote. To come out and say, "The PC is now moot," and yet be so vague in what the PS3 is (other than exclsuive titles and Blu-Ray), is risky.

This of course is all in the context of this fall and 2007. I really do believe that in 2-3 years, the PS3 will be worth my attention.

TrueDolFan
08-04-2006, 10:13 AM
I would have agreed with you 5-6 years ago... Truth is, Nintendo's 1st party games aren't THAT good anymore. They're sold on name alone mostly. Phsyconauts was better than Mario Sunshine. The list of Adventure games from God of War to Shadow of the Colosuss was better than Wind Waker. Metroid Prime is an FPS that makes you search for stuff WAYtoo long... Again, the games sell well because Nintendo has followers. But their 1st party game quality isn't that great.

Don't believe me? Imagine Jak or Daxter doing all that crap in Mario Sunshine... Still fun? Replace Link with some no-name character, would you sit through the boring hours of sailing for triforces then? If Metroid Prime was called Time Shift 3, would it have been genre shaping? I think not... But this is just my opinion.

I agree with you that Mario Sunshine wasn't up to par. But Wind Waker and Metroid Prime were great!
I know you didn't like the "sailing around looking for Triforce pieces" part of Wind Waker, but what did you think of the rest of the game? If it didn't drop your jaw at times (especially the end when Link drove his sword into Ganondorf's skull!!!!), then you are seriously jaded.
Metroid Prime is the only FPS that I have been able to stomach since the genre came out. It's the only FPS that still feels like a GAME, instead of feeling like "run around levels and shoot everything". That's just my opinion.

mor911
08-04-2006, 10:38 AM
I agree with you that Mario Sunshine wasn't up to par. But Wind Waker and Metroid Prime were great!
I know you didn't like the "sailing around looking for Triforce pieces" part of Wind Waker, but what did you think of the rest of the game? If it didn't drop your jaw at times (especially the end when Link drove his sword into Ganondorf's skull!!!!), then you are seriously jaded.
Metroid Prime is the only FPS that I have been able to stomach since the genre came out. It's the only FPS that still feels like a GAME, instead of feeling like "run around levels and shoot everything". That's just my opinion.
I think everyone misunderstands me when I say this about Metroid Prime and Windwaker. I'm not saying they're bad games. I played them both, and liked them very much. I'm simply saying that Metroid Prime didn't do for me (or for gaming) what Super Metroid did on the SNES. Windwaker didn't do what Link to the Past or Ocarina of Time did. Windwaker and Prime didn't influence gaming. They were great games no doubt, but they aren't the standard. With Super Metroid, Link to the Past, and Ocarina or Time, Nintendo's games were second to none. With Nintendo's current crop, there are a whole heap of developers that are putting out better games. Nintendo simply has the fanfare and the big names to sell better.

Again, Prime and Windwaker WERE great games... But nothing in those games says, "Nintendo makes the best first party games" to me. Not anymore.

TrueDolFan
08-04-2006, 11:58 AM
I'm simply saying that Metroid Prime didn't do for me (or for gaming) what Super Metroid did on the SNES. Windwaker didn't do what Link to the Past or Ocarina of Time did. Windwaker and Prime didn't influence gaming.

But, (with the exception of Square's FFVII) every time there is a genre-defining game, who created it?

Nintendo.

Not every console generation is going to turn the video gaming world on it's ear. For example, the SNES/Genesis era. Was Super Mario World such a giant leap from SMB3? No, but it ROCKED!! It wasn't until the N64 that we had the next great innovation - Super Mario 64. It was truly revolutionary, and SO far ahead of SMW, it was amazing.

There hasn't been a truly revolutionary game during this generation of consoles. Will there be one on this next generation? Probably not. But if there is, you can bet it'll be Nintendo (and Miyamoto) that comes up with it.

mor911
08-04-2006, 01:10 PM
But, (with the exception of Square's FFVII) every time there is a genre-defining game, who created it?

Nintendo.

Not every console generation is going to turn the video gaming world on it's ear. For example, the SNES/Genesis era. Was Super Mario World such a giant leap from SMB3? No, but it ROCKED!! It wasn't until the N64 that we had the next great innovation - Super Mario 64. It was truly revolutionary, and SO far ahead of SMW, it was amazing.

There hasn't been a truly revolutionary game during this generation of consoles. Will there be one on this next generation? Probably not. But if there is, you can bet it'll be Nintendo (and Miyamoto) that comes up with it.
I know, but Mario 64 is almost 10 years old now. Nintendo uses the same formulas. It's old now. Here's how the new Zelda game will be.

Link will be in some sort of trouble, maybe it's a friend of his (the princess) that needs help. He'll make his way into a castle/dungeon. He'll find a power up that will coincidently help him get throught that dungeon AND help him beat the boss AND help him get to the next dungeon... Of course which will contain a weapon or power up that will help link get through that dungeon, beat the boss, and get to the next dungeon. In all of this, link will meat some very un-interesting characters that will no doubt spawn another Nintendo spin-off in the coming years and somewhere in there you'll transform into a wolf.. WOW! That sounds strangely familiar though. Wait, that's right... Every Zelda game so far followed the same suite. All I want is for them to evolve. The same way they evolved from Mario 3's formula to Mario 64. It was something (besides having "Mario" in the title) worth playing. But lately, they sell games on name recognition alone.

Nintendo's not the only ones that do it either. Example, If they released Halo3 today, there'd be lines around the block to get it. No matter how ordinary the game is (and is - Halo2 I mean), it will sell... On name recognition alone.

Nintendo knows the new Zelda game will sell... They just need it to sell Wii's not too.

TrueDolFan
08-04-2006, 01:44 PM
I know, but Mario 64 is almost 10 years old now. Nintendo uses the same formulas. It's old now. Here's how the new Zelda game will be.

Link will be in some sort of trouble, maybe it's a friend of his (the princess) that needs help. He'll make his way into a castle/dungeon. He'll find a power up that will coincidently help him get throught that dungeon AND help him beat the boss AND help him get to the next dungeon... Of course which will contain a weapon or power up that will help link get through that dungeon, beat the boss, and get to the next dungeon. In all of this, link will meat some very un-interesting characters that will no doubt spawn another Nintendo spin-off in the coming years and somewhere in there you'll transform into a wolf.. WOW! That sounds strangely familiar though. Wait, that's right... Every Zelda game so far followed the same suite. All I want is for them to evolve. The same way they evolved from Mario 3's formula to Mario 64. It was something (besides having "Mario" in the title) worth playing. But lately, they sell games on name recognition alone.

Nintendo's not the only ones that do it either. Example, If they released Halo3 today, there'd be lines around the block to get it. No matter how ordinary the game is (and is - Halo2 I mean), it will sell... On name recognition alone.

Nintendo knows the new Zelda game will sell... They just need it to sell Wii's not too.

But what I meant was revolutionary titles. What happened with Mario 64 is something altogether different than merely the evolution of a series. It was (and IS) the single most revolutionary video game ever created. It brought a whole new dimension to gaming that we all only dreamed of before it. It literally reshaped gaming as we know it.
The same way the original Legend of Zelda reshaped gaming as we knew it back in the day.

This kind of revolution doesn't happen every day, or even with every new console generation. There hasn't been a truly revolutionary game since Mario 64! And, like you said, that was nearly 10 years ago (next month it'll be 10).