Epic no like Wii

[awesome]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

better story-telling (without text Nintendo!),

but what's wrong with text?
no voice acting>>>crappy voice acting imo.

[iconoclast]

Originally Posted by awesome

but what's wrong with text?
no voice acting>>>crappy voice acting imo.

And no video games is better than a shit sandwich. This is Nintendo, the Great Innovative Gaming Company. Why can't they do good voice acting? Your argument is ridiculous--"hey let's do the same old thing, cause if we do something new it might be shitty...that's how much confidence we have in ourselves"....give me a break.

[Chibi Kitsune]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

And no video games is better than a shit sandwich. This is Nintendo, the Great Innovative Gaming Company. Why can't they do good voice acting? Your argument is ridiculous--"hey let's do the same old thing, cause if we do something new it might be shitty...that's how much confidence we have in ourselves"....give me a break.

it's a Japanse based company that has several characters that are known world wide.

chances are the only good voice acting would be the Japanese voice actors

go play an Inuyasha game(rent the cursed mask) and come back

you'll wish the game was in all text

[awesome]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

And no video games is better than a shit sandwich. This is Nintendo, the Great Innovative Gaming Company. Why can't they do good voice acting? Your argument is ridiculous--"hey let's do the same old thing, cause if we do something new it might be shitty...that's how much confidence we have in ourselves"....give me a break.

Sure, doing new things and innovating is great and all, but why fix what isn't broken? What exactly is wrong with text?

[tr1p1ea]

He cant read.

(screenreaders also dont work on consoles)

voice in a game = not innovative
improving graphics/ai in the exact same types of games as last gen and thats all = not innovative
making a graphics heavy, online multiplayer centric engine so that devs can produce *casual* shovelware multiplayer shooters with half-assed sp = not innovative
being angry that you are being embarassed by how oblivious you were to superior business stratergies when you were so confident(see: arrogant) that you thought you couldnt lose by taking two steps *in the SAME direction* instead of your normal one, only to see that you've just left a great big laneway open for Nintendo that will take you twice as long to close = not innovative

[iconoclast]

Originally Posted by tr1p1ea

He cant read.

(screenreaders also dont work on consoles)

voice in a game = not innovative
improving graphics/ai in the exact same types of games as last gen and thats all = not innovative
making a graphics heavy, online multiplayer centric engine so that devs can produce *casual* shovelware multiplayer shooters with half-assed sp = not innovative
being angry that you are being embarassed by how oblivious you were to superior business stratergies when you were so confident(see: arrogant) that you thought you couldnt lose by taking two steps *in the SAME direction* instead of your normal one, only to see that you've just left a great big laneway open for Nintendo that will take you twice as long to close = not innovative

This is complete spin. As for why not text? Because this is 2008 and there's a better way to tell a story. I mean, hell, why not just put the story in the intro of the instruction booklet like the NES days? Any objections? (Oh btw I have a Master's degree, so yes I can read). You Ninthings make me sick with your blind allegiances. Like they couldn't have done waggle and nexgen graphics, story-telling, online. Why didn't they? So they could keep the cost down (remember, Nintendo needs to make profit on consoles). They wanted to release at a lower price point to attract non-gamers. Some might call this a superior business model, but I disagree. Certainly it's different and certainly it's successful. But many of their customers are outside of the traditional gaming market, which is fine. But just as they've attracted more casuals, they've turned off some hardcore players...well, they've been doing that since N64. Basically, they can't compete with the likes of MS and Sony for Hardcore gamers because both those companies have deep pockets and can afford to take initial hardware losses in order to bring the cutting-edge technology to the table. But I don't necessarily think this means MS and Sony have bad models. Look at the automobile market. GM and Toyota by far outsell Mercedes or Ferrari or Porsche. Does this mean GM and Toyota have the superior business model and the others don't know what they're doing? Certainly not. It's just that they have different business goals. For Nintendo, the goal is simple: make as much money as possible off video games. For MS and Sony, it's not so simple. They're competing for hardcore gamers, but also for living room presence as media centers and trojan horses for new media formats (hmm...who am I talking about). One could argue that Sony has the better model, seeing as how they're going to be collecting obscene amounts of BRD royalties in the years to come. One could also argue that MS has a winning strategy in developing a cohesive online network that works well with their OS software. My point is that it's fairly ridiculous to say that Nintendo has a "superior" business model. This wrongly assumes that each company has the same business goals, which is clearly not true.

[Junkie13]

Epic truth.

[valius]

It's in their best interests to NOT support Wii, since they WANT the market for their engine to expand.


And bad voice acting... ruins the enjoyment of a video game, IMO. Too true for many otherwise good RPGs.

[superslug]

(Oh btw I have a Master's degree, so yes I can read).

I really hope you learnt to read before you started your masters. Though they could have taught you about paragraphs.

Why get so upset that in a thread attacking nintendo someone is defending them. Nintendo wanted to make a gaming that platform that a lot of people want to play on. They did so by lowering the entry level price and making a simple and innovative interface. To claim that console whose major update is better graphics and online functionality that is nothing better than what is available on pc is innovative and then to say a console that tried something new is not innovative is utter crap.

Like they couldn't have done waggle and nexgen graphics, story-telling, online.

Story telling has nothing to do with the platform and everything to do with game developers. I agree that they could have done graphics but chose not to because of price. Why is that something to complain about. They left out the ability to fly to the moon as well because that put it out of most customers price ranges.

The most sucessful business model is arguable though arguing for MS is probably getting harder with nintendo making money and sony leveraging blue ray sucessfully.

[tr1p1ea]

lol icon, you really do go out of your way in your attempts to 'downplay' Nintendo's success. Typical anti-Nintendo banta however. Just because ms & sony have an alterior motive towards the gaming industry doesnt change the fact that they are being outdone. Im more inclined to liken ms/sony's stance on 'gaming' to that of the mainstream pop-music industry. Big dollars pushing cash-in, manufactured, formula based games designed specifically to appease to their target audience (through the use of big advertising budgets) for a short period of time while they get to work on the next one. The *hardcore* crowd are easily swayed by tech jargon they dont understand, flashy lights, plastic looking graphics, shooters and anything online. Just as music producers know that teenage girls are easily swayed by boybands, meaningless choreographed dance moves, a lacking of instruments and softened, slow motion videoclips.

Nintendo pointed out that the industry was spiralling in this direction years ago. That the videogame industry was soon to become like the music/film industry; development was becoming so expensive that only those with all the $$$ would hold significant voice, and even then, they would only stick to low-risk, tried-and-true formulas garaunteed a return (shiny online shooters). This is re-enforced by the fact that all the big publishers are scrambling about trying to buy up all the competition (EA, Ubisoft etc). Not only did Nintendo see a need to reinvent how users interact with videogames, they set out to make their platforms economically viable for any software house, big or small. Not only do these factors reduce the risk involved with videogame development/investment (especially for developers with limited resources), they also push creativity/new ideas.

Nintendo are trying to keep the industry vibrant, ms/sony are just giving out what they have concluded appeases to their small demographic in order to make the statistically 'garaunteed' dollar whilst they devise a way to push their real agendas.

If you like cookie-cutter, graphics centric, 'flavour-of-the-month' online shooters then more power to ya.

Side note: As far as im concerned, reading actually immerses you in the game universe more-so than listening to actors. Akin to the difference between reading a book and watching a film. But thats just me.