Ben-DutkaLet me make this plain:
Had PlayStation 4 and Xbox One burst out of the gate and dominated 2014 with a slew of AAA titles and eye-opening productions that introduced a glorious new era of gaming, the Wii U would've been dead in the water. I mean, more dead than it is now.
The point is that PS4 and Xbox One were relatively unimpressive this year and as such, the Wii U doesn't seem to be dead. In fact, some recent sales climbs have hinted at a possible resurgence for Nintendo's console, which I wouldn't rule out. I honestly believe that because the two more powerful machines slipped this year, Wii U has walked through an open door. No, I don't believe it has any chance of actually beating PS4 or Xbox One in the long run; the bottom line is that it just isn't competitive enough on a technical scale. A few years from now, the Wii U will look downright archaic.
At the same time, you have to admit that it offers significantly different gaming experiences when compared to PS4 and Xbox One, which offer very similar experiences. The Wii U remains a family-favorite device and you really can't underestimate the timeless appeal of the classic mascots, and gameplay that never goes out of style, regardless of any technological advancements the industry makes. If Sony and Microsoft had put their best foot forward in 2014, I'm not sure we'd even be talking about the Wii U anymore. But we kinda are, and it's partly because PS4 and Xbox One haven't delivered on half their promises (yet).
The Wii U will likely end up last in overall sales but it will go down has having some of the best games this generation. And the thing that Nintendo does very well is create games that have lasting power. I rarely find myself selling or storing my Nintendo games because I'm always drawn back to them. Meanwhile I have a box full of PS3 games I likely won't touch again besides a select few exclusives. Even though games like SM3DW, Smash Bros Wii U and Mario Kart 8 etc don't have the photorealistic presentation most PS4 games have, their gameplay doesn't get old and will still look great years down the road especially now that they run in 1080p and at 60fps.
I understand why people would opt for a console with more power but I had hoped this gen would come down to games. So far it hasn't. I mostly use my PS4 for Netflix and playing last gen remakes. As for the Xbone, there's just nothing of interest on that machine. Maybe that will change. 🙂
Next year the Wii U has an open world Zelda game coming out with Starfox before that. Not to mention artistic stuff like Yoshi's Woolly World, Kirby's Rainbow Curse and colorful fun stuff like Spatoon. Nintendo just needs to announce a new Metroid Prime game now. And were finally getting some real next gen stuff for the PS4. It's gonna be a good year to be a multiple console owner.
Last edited by Jawknee on 12/21/2014 11:17:06 PM
I don't think your prediction will come true as having the some of the best games of this gen. Not trying to offend you since I know you love Nintendo, but how long can they keep releasing the same games over and over again before people start getting tired/bored? There are so many Mario games – I honestly can't say which is the newest one. Not to mention they don't have much, if at all, third party support.
The same can be said of all systems. They all release sequels to every franchise they have. Yet it's Nintendo's that still get some of the the highest scores overall by game critics. Still after 25 + years. They continually put out games that please both their fans and critics alike.
No offense taken of course. I'm simply looking at review scores and fan fair. Many of the highest rated games so far this gen are in fact Wii U games. If that trend continues, I'll be proven right. I of course can be proven wrong. The generation is still young.
Jawknee is right, except the reason I think they'll be known for (some of) the best games of the generation is because many of their IP's (Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc.) are proven recipes for success.
They're just such iconic, well-established, and well-designed games to begin with, it's not hard to produce a winner.
Don't forget, they've had nearly 30 years of Mario. It's pretty much perfected now. (That online Zelda game looks like an eventual flop, but that's because they're abandoning the winning forumla for it.)
At this point, anyone who suggests the Wii U is anything less than great is making an invalid argument. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't make every opinion valid. Wii U is really, really good. For all the obsession overhorsepower in some circles, the games look nothing short of fantastic. Whereas the Wii games looked dated to me from day 1 (in no small part due to the fact the console was not HD, a HUGE letdown as we all bought awesome widescreen, HD sets for the first time) Wii U games just look lovely from an aesthetic standpoint. I fully agree the controller looks ridiculous — but I'm telling you, it FEELS fantastic in your hands. One of the most ergonomically "right" controllers ever (right behind PS4's, in my view).
Nintendo has a reputation as a has-been company. But this also is just not a valid argument. Super Mario 3D World had more unique ideas per level than many games released these days have in their entirety. I'm not sure why everyone dismisses New Super Mario Bros. games — don't we like 2D platformers? I sure do! These are amazing games. Aren't we generally upset Square didn't stick to what works with, say, Final Fantasy, and that they have drifted too far from its essence? But Nintendo has made a point to keep a core Mario series true to the franchise's roots, and this is held up as an example of laziness, incompetence or a lack of creative fire. I could go on, but really, you get the idea. The games are awesome, because Nintendo is much closer to the top of their craft than many give them credit for these days.
And next year's lineup looks unreal: An open world Zelda? A new starfox? Mario Maker? And if they announce another Metroid I'm gonna lose it.
Everybody here knows I'm a massive Sony fan. I adore my PS4 (got some Alien: Isolation in before work today, CRIMINALLY underrated game, one of my favorites this year on any platform) and I think it's going to have more of the kinds of games I enjoy the most than any other platform. But that's beside the point. Just because one platform is great doesn't mean other platforms can't also be great. Wii U is great. If you love video games as much as I do, and you want to have access to a bunch of unique, amazing games you won't find anywhere else, do yourself a favor and pick one up. You won't regret it 🙂
@Killa, certainly no offense taken, but I don't think it's quite right to say Nintendo just makes the same games over and over. Video games are an iterative medium, and just because the same characters or worlds are used doesn't mean there's no innovation. The Legend of Zelda started on Nintendo, was revamped for Super NES in Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time was yet another reinvention that stands as one of the better and most influential games ever, Majora's Mask was a wildly unique experience, Wind Waker brought massive shifts to the graphical style and gameplay (loved that boat!), Twilight Princess was… admittedly not great, but sort of an attempt at going back-to-basics for the series, and Skyward Sword brought flight mechanics into play. Next year's game is open world, yet another iteration.
All of this is a long-winded way of trying to say that while the characters (and usually though not always the world) are utilized over and over, the WAY in which they're used is often radically different, and definitely changing in big ways over time.
I saw a video put out by Sony promoting 26 PS4 games for 2015. Most of them looked pretty great. Some I can't wait for but I noticed one thing. 90% of them were either shooters or revolved around shooting and blowing stuff up. People who say Nintendo only offers sameness can't really say anything different about what's coming to the PS4.
@Jawk, exactly. It's fair to say Nintendo has a certain "flavor", if you will. Ludicrous to think that doesn't apply to every game developer out there. And thank goodness for that! I'm thrilled Nintendo does what they do well, and that Naughty Dog sticks to what interests and inspires them the most, and so on. There's no one way games should be.
If Nintendo would stop being the oddball that likes to hangout between generations, I would seriously consider getting one of their consoles. The way they're talking lately, I may get to see it happen and when I do, they will get some of my money.
I never expected half of their promise to be made their first year anyway. Yes, it could always be better, but I doubt Wii U's relevance is because Sony and Microsoft didn't blow our socks off, but rather that they're big hits have emerged. I can almost guarantee if it weren't for Mario Kart or Smash Bros or whatever, they'd be struggling even if Sony and Microsoft choked 100%.
In short, props to all three companies.
The Wii-U did really bad with is sales this Christmas in comparison to the competition, it seems even Smash Bros couldn't even save it. I was all for it with Xenoblade Chronicles X, until they showed that the main character is created and mute through out the whole game, this design choice (technical limitation) ruined the entire game for me and I sold my Wii-U to buy a new HDTV. I really had high hopes for it as Xenoblade on Wii was my favourite game of the last generaion, it brought everything I loved about the genre back, but I just cannot stand playing a blank avatars in JRPG's so that design choice alone ruined everything.
Beyond that Nintendo has nothing that caught my attention. Ive never been into the Mario type games – all thought I would have liked to keep Mario Kart 8. It was all on Xenoblade and they let me down. But now I have a PS4 and a new HDTV I'm ready for 2015 to see the PS4 finally flourish with quality which was lacking in 2014.
Had PlayStation 4 and Xbox One burst out of the gate and dominated 2014 with a slew of AAA titles and eye-opening productions that introduced a glorious new era of gaming, the Wii U would've been *dead in the water*. I mean, more dead than it is now.
http://i.imgur.com/HbtsCoV.jpg
Was that intentional?
We can't let Ps4's and XBO's lack of AAA titles take all the credit for Wii U's ongoing relevance. NINTENDO released consistently great games. Not only are they fun, but they have good graphics in pixels and frames per seconds. Only reason I don't have a Wii U right now is because of the price. It is simply too expensive and I'm sure if they lowered it, more people would bite and it would see more sales. Thus remaining relevant as another "current gen console".
"consistently great games"?
The average review score for a Wii U game right now is almost as pathetic as it was for Wii. They release one or two gems a year (guaranteed using the same three-decade-old mascots) and about a billion pieces of shovelware every year.
That's hardly impressive. It has a few great games now but it has also been out more than a year longer than PS4 and Xbox One.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/22/2014 11:11:52 AM
At the moment, it's like this on Metacritic:
PS4 – 11 games with a score of 85% or more
X1 – 11 games with a score of 85% or more
Wii U – 17 games with a score of 85% or more
And looking at the launch lineup of those systems, the Wii U scored a bit better than the rest on Metacritic.
@Ben – Nintendo is certainly not alone in recycling the same old "mascots/characters" in their games. See the next Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Last of Us, etc. Even games like GTA or AssCreed basically change the names of their protags and backgrounds, and yet they're still basically clones of what came before.
Its not a fair critique at all. Since we know what to expect from Ubi, S-E, Sony, EA, Activision every single year. Sequels from their popular IP's. It shouldn't be shocking that Nintendo does the same thing.
It's like going to Mc D's and expecting to have anything but a McSomething.
The WiiU only has 17 total games? And the other systems only have 11? That can't be right…
Edit: I just looked up the TOP 10 WiiU games on meta critic…. The top 10 aren't even an 85, let alone the top 17…………. In fact, top 17 is only an 80. (As of September)
Bonampak, where are you getting this information? I can't see any evidence that it's accurate.
Edit 2: Ok I see it now. A large number of them released since September. lol (unfortunate that it includes games like Assassin's Creed III) Still though… there's over 100 games UNDER a 75… which kinda proves Ben's point.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 12/22/2014 4:38:12 PM
Complaining about shovelware is like going to a supermarket and complaining that there are 2000 items on the shelf you will never have any interest in purchasing. Especially considering that the majority of the 80 plus rated games are available only on the WiiU while the PS4/X1 share their library not only with each other, but PC and last generation systems.
If Sony didnt run their franchises into the dirt with mediocre entries, they would perhaps be able to pull from their history and manage to be stellar and innovative simultaneously. As it stands, they need to buy exclusives from Quantic Dream, From Software, Ready At Dawn, Ninja Theory, Level 5, Insomniac, United Front, and thatgamecompany because their first party is quite unremarkable when you get down to the meat of it. I guess if Sony really knew games they could have made the Vita compelling. Instead, I am left to ponder which they did faster: give up the Vita or give up to North Korea.?.
Last edited by n/a on 12/22/2014 5:22:39 PM
That's a crap, insanely biased analysis.
You're only counting exclusives and actually, you're only counting exclusives you want to count. There's a TON of garbage on Wii U and there are lots of huge multiplatform games on PS4/Xbox One that aren't even made for Wii U. Lastly, comparing exclusives to two consoles that have been around for HALF the time as Wii U is another statistical error. Let's see what we have at the end of 2015 for PS4 and Xbox One and compare that to what Wii U has now.
And you're not really going to sit there and say anyone can match Nintendo in terms of recycling mascots. You're not serious. Mario, Zelda, Metroid, these are THREE DECADES OLD, for the most part. Tomb Raider didn't show up until the mid-90s, GTAIII (the first GTA that was actually the GTA we know now) didn't come out until 2001, and Assassin's Creed and Uncharted are about 7 years old.
Last I checked, most of those franchises have reinvented themselves several times over. Lara Croft is hardly the Lara we had in the 90s, for example, and we've already had a half-dozen different main characters in AC (with four or five different settings, stories and time periods).
What has really changed for the Nintendo mascots and games? I mean, seriously? You're accusing companies like Ubisoft, EA and Activision of producing sequels every year, and you're not bothering to notice that Nintendo has basically been doing the same thing for 30 freakin' years?
Just laughable.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/22/2014 7:24:07 PM
"If Sony didnt run their franchises into the dirt with mediocre entries, they would perhaps be able to pull from their history and manage to be stellar and innovative simultaneously."
Possibly the most idiotic statement you've ever made. And you've made lots.
Sony runs their franchises into the dirt? Really? Can you name even one? Gran Turismo? Uncharted? LittleBigPlanet? inFamous? Ratchet & Clank? Resistance? Just because it didn't sell well doesn't mean anything; it remains one of the highest rated franchises in history. Same goes for God of War. Killzone? Shadow Fall wasn't great but it was hardly mediocre and the franchise isn't in the "dirt."
I must be missing all these failed Sony franchises. But by all means, try and compose a list. We'd all be interested to see it. Feel free to include former PlayStation third-party exclusives like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid. Oh wait, most will agree the best installments in both those franchises were PlayStation exclusives. Same can probably be said for GTA.
Is there even one first-party Sony franchise that's currently, or has ever been, in the "dirt?" I'm waiting. In the meantime, I'll go jump on a different-looking cloud in the latest Mario and pretend it's something new.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/22/2014 9:16:08 PM
"If Sony didnt run their franchises into the dirt with mediocre entries"
*snicker*
Like… if you're gonna keep flamming sony at least use a legitimate complaint about them instead of one of the big things they're known for… (Their first party IP's.)
Last edited by Underdog15 on 12/22/2014 9:19:41 PM
@Ben – Of course the Wii U is going to have a lot more 'garbage'. As you mentioned, its been around longer. And yet even with the PS4 being out around half that time, it already has a hefty amount of so-so and craptacular games under its belt (over 80 titles under the 75 score).
But you wanna talk about garbage games?
How about the ones that the big AAA companies have been delivering to the big 2 this gen?
You can count with a couple of fingers from ONE HAND the number of actual CURRENT GEN games that didn't end up as watered down versions of what was originally promised to us. Games come to us MOSTLY as glitchy/bug infested affairs that require massive patches to run properly. But that's okay… because that is NORMAL now. amiright?
Heck,even 'journalists' will overlook these glaring flaws and just shrug them off.
For example: the guys at DIGITAL FOUNDRY failed at noticing the huge dead zones present in the PS4 version of GTAV. They noticed that the grass was better in the PS4 version. Oh sure. They noticed that. But they didn't notice that the lag was awful in the game. It took several gamers complaining about it on social media, and videos proving that the lag was a serious issue, before any of the devs finally decided to released a patch to fix it (sort of).
But again, this is what we can now expect from current gen games.
And what the heck are you on about in regards to mascots? Are you freaking kidding me with that crap? LOL
You know very well that Nintendo is the king of mascots. I know that you're OLD enough to know that.
Therefore, complaining that they release games with mascots on them is as dumb as complaining that water is wet.
Everyone expects Mario from Nintendo. That's only what they do! What do you expect from S-E other than mobile games? What do you expect from Konami other than awesome MGS games (and little else)? What do you expect from Activision but more CoD games?
Saying that Nintendo should quit doing Mario games only because is THREE DECADES OLD is a silly suggestion. ESPECIALLY WHEN MARIO GAMES SELL A LOT. EVEN ON THE 'DEAD' WII U.
Every single one of the mainline Mario games have sold OVER 2 million copies on that dead platform. And there are only like 3 of them on Wii U.
Its ridikulas that some people still believe that every single Mario game that has come out in the last 3 decades is just a clone of the first one from the NES. C'mon now. That's silly.
And to reinvent a franchise doesn't always involve changing the art style and making the game "dark", by including an 'edgy' plotline. That's not what happens with Mario games. If anyone wants to find out how they reinvented that 'mascot', they have to look at the GAMEPLAY.
Unless you never played a Mario game since the SNES days (that's probably your case), anyone can see that playing Mario 64 is not the same experience as playing the last Mario game. the gameplay is different. Yes, you jump and hit things (just like Lara Croft does), but the way you go about it is different. But what doesn't change is that the gameplay is always FUN.
And that's why Mario games keep selling well AFTER THREE DECADES.
Anyway,I am not saying that the Wii U is BETTER than the PS4. It is not. Not by a long shot.
My point is that the Wii U has a lot of gems in its library. And if similar gems keep coming (Xenoblade X might be one of them), then it could probably justify its existence. Even if it will end up this gen in last place.
I mean, what really matters is that games are any good. Right?
We get remasters now on PS4, but who cares? The games are good! The same can be said about MASCOT games.
As long as they're good, what the FUDGE is the problem?
Last edited by Bonampak on 12/22/2014 9:26:50 PM
I'm pretty late to this party. But doesn't it concern anyone that the Wii U has literally zero third-party support now? I look at their release schedule at Gamestop and I don't see a game that isn't published by Nintendo. And that list is very short. In less than two years time all meaningful support from Nintendo's partners have fled. There's nothing left other than Nintendo. I don't even think Game Cube had it that bad.
Yes, I want a Wii U because my family and I will get enough value from what's there as is, but let's be realistic, the system has been abandoned by everyone but themselves. The Wii U has been a failure as far as normal consoles go.
As for MS and Sony. We just closed out a first year, and the mountain of software is coming. Personally, I've already found more content than I can keep up with. I'm a happy PS4 gamer. It's like a snowball rolling. There's no stopping it.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 12/22/2014 10:14:36 PM
PS4's 2015 lineup.
Evolve
DOA 5 LR
The Order
Dynasty Warriors 8
Project Cars
DmC DE
Bloodborne
MGSV The Phantom Pain
MLB 15 The Show
Mortal Kombat X
The Witcer 3: Wild Hunt
Batman: Arkham Knight
All of these are first half of '15
And of course there's games like these coming which all or most should make 2015
Uncharted 4
Tearaway (looking great and I read it's a whole new game)
The Tomorrow Children
The Division
FF XV (it'll still sell)
Tekken 7
Assassin's Creed
Mass Effect
Whatever the next CoD is
and these sports games
Gran Turismo 7
Madden
Fifa
Exciting. That's a lot of great games. Not to mention diverse in content and offering.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 12/22/2014 10:53:14 PM
Bonampak, I don't think anyone is denying what WiiU has done well. I think it's exactly what Temjin pointed out.
You listed what…. 3 or 4 excellent IP's that will spread out over the lifespan of the WiiU?
How many unique IP's did Temjin list off? And do you think WiiU has that much variety at that value?
Killzone, Twisted Metal, LittleBigPlanet ( those sales of 3, though), Socom, Warhawk, The Getaway, Ratchet and Clank (that series didn't get a slow death last gen? And I'm a huge fan. Own every single game of the franchise) have gone downhill in terms of quality and sales.I could go as far back as the PS1 when they were pumping out Coolboarders, Jet Moto, Toshinden, and Destruction Derby with zero regards for quality and forward progress. Even Gran Turismo is on its way down.
No one is picking and choosing exclusives, just those worth playing. I dont leverage the mighty PS2 library by putting amazing games like Shadow of The Colossus, MGS3, Shadow of Rome, War of the Monsters, Sky Odyssey, Silent Hill 2, Suikoden 3, Onimusha Dawn of Dreams, Rogue Galaxy, R.A.D. Robot Alchemic Drive, God of War 2 Okami, and the Xenosaga trilogy in the very same category as Spy Fiction, Crash Bandicoot: Wrath of Cortex, and that crappy Ben 10 Alien Force game my son forced me to co-op with him for a week straight. Only the great games and, in that respect, the Wii U, much like the Wii before it has a unique and worthwhile library
Nintendo games are like the MGS series. Keeping the core familiar gameplay intact while the levels and world around are changed. There are vast differences between Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario 3D World just as there are between Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword. Yes if you take a snapshot, the games may look similar but when you play them, only then can you tell difference. And this segues perfectly with my last point.
Last month, you went on a tirade about people judging your precious Assassin's Creed Unity without playing it (I agree, of course). Yet, here you are, having not owned a Nintendo system since the SNES ( and no we will never tire of the reminder that you have it in a box with Tecmo Super Bowl. Yay.) and you try to make a claim on the quality of what is available on the systems, based exclusively on such a laughable barometer as Metacritic. Also Nintendo is the only company that stays true to the vaues you profess to expect from a video game company: staying true to their fans, not selling out for 'faster and dumber', and an emphasis on face to face contact with the multiplayer in their games instead of the cold impersonal nature of internet play. The hypocrisy staggers me.,
Last edited by n/a on 12/23/2014 4:10:09 AM
Saw the shelf and noticed I forgot The Mark of Kri. Not only as an amazing PS2 exclusive but also as yet another franchise Sony let slip through their incapable hands into the eternally hungering and gaping maw of mediocrity.
Damn Kid,
I finally agree with you on something. Im awaiting Ben's reply.
How is shovelware and mobile-quality games that are plug-and-play make-a-buck games not "faster and dumber"?
It's too bad you chose to ignore Temjin. He made some excellent points.
But then, picking and choosing your facts is what you do, I suppose…
I'm actually thrilled you listed all those unique PS2 IP's to illustrate the point about the variety that is missing from Wii and WiiU exclusivity. As Temjin pointed out, are you not worried about the fact that they have no third party support?
Last edited by Underdog15 on 12/23/2014 9:27:10 AM
Kid: You didn't name one franchise of Sony's that was "driven into the dirt." Not one. It's your own opinion that certain franchises are on the way down (and Gran Turismo is definitely not one of them, as you know nothing about cars and racing). Your argument centered entirely on Sony messing up their own franchises, so they don't have as much to draw on in terms of history as Nintendo.
That's a junk argument. And you ignored that most of Sony's franchises have reinvented themselves in order to stay relevant and so as to reflect the advancing technologies and changing demographics. And this whole time, you're naming franchise after franchise on PlayStation that aren't in the "dirt;" they merely disappeared. Jet Moto, Toshinden, Crash Bandicoot, etc.; nobody is saying those series disappeared because they sucked ass at the end. They just disappeared.
And that's far more franchises, encompassing far more genres, than Nintendo has ever bothered to tackle. Nintendo games are NOT like MGS. Another ridiculous analogy. MGS has changed significantly over the years; it has changed its entire control scheme once, changed its setting and story numerous times, altered its focus between action and stealth, etc. What has Mario done? What? What about Zelda? Go more open world? Yay, it's still the same character, still the same setting, the stories are 8-year-old laughable, etc. Maybe you need to play the original MGS again, and then play Ground Zeroes. Then sit there with a straight face and try to tell me that Mario 64 is just as different from any new Mario platformer.
I've played all the Zeldas so don't try to slip that by me. No, they don't all play differently. They look a little different (thanks to the cel-shading in Wind Waker) and the structure is a little different but aside from that, it's Zelda. The only significant change came between 2D and 3D. And by the way, that's the LAST time the Nintendo mascots underwent a drastic change or upgrade.
You know nothing. Just because I haven't owned a Nintendo system since the SNES hardly means I haven't played the games. I've borrowed every system since the SNES, I've played every Nintendo since the SNES at the homes of friends and family, and by the way, you'd WANT to use Metacrtic for your retarded argument, because it seems to be a law in this industry that no critic is ever allowed to give any game with a major Ninty mascot anything less than a 9.
The rest is shovelware that nobody cares about. "Staying true to the fans" has never been about staying rooted to the spot and refusing to advance. That's not what that's about. Maybe it is for you, but that's your own business.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/23/2014 11:33:09 AM
Bonampak: I'll take a Watch Dogs with a few flaws over yet another Nintendo platformer because I'm not 9 years old anymore and I enjoy new experiences.
"You can count with a couple of fingers from ONE HAND the number of actual CURRENT GEN games that didn't end up as watered down versions of what was originally promised to us. Games come to us MOSTLY as glitchy/bug infested affairs that require massive patches to run properly. But that's okay… because that is NORMAL now. amiright?"
BS. None of that is true; it's not even worth rebutting. This is what happens when a few games grab headlines for a while and everyone ignores the hundreds of other titles released. You get idiotic and completely unrealistic generalizations.
The "journalists" of whom you speak have been ignoring any flaws in first-party Nintendo games since the beginning of time. So don't even bother with that argument.
Nintendo is the "king of the mascots" because of history. You're allowed to be king of the mascots because of your impact on the industry. We are also allowed to judge them based on their performance since then and what they've produced since then. Not a single new mascot. Not one. No way to defend that.
I also never said Nintendo should stop making Mario games. I never even inferred it. If you're going to keep putting words in my mouth, just stop talking. I've played all the Mario games. The mechanics have not changed. It's a platformer and always will be. We press a button to jump. There are a few new commands we've seen down through the years and a few new moves and enemies.
The gameplay is always "fun" is a subjective opinion. Irrelevant. I can say the gameplay in Assassin's Creed is always "fun" and you're not allowed to say I'm wrong because it's 100 percent opinion. Lara Croft has had a top-down dungeon-crawler spin-off, by the way. I mean, just so you know.
There's NO difference between Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy?? Wow. Just let that one go…..
As far as genres Nintendo hasnt done….which are they? Platformers with Mario Kirby, Donkey Kong, and Yoshi. Action Adventure with Zelda and Metroid. Horror with Eternal Darkness and now Fatal Frame. Extreme Sports with 1080 and WaveRace. Arcade Racers with F Zero and Mario Kart. Sports Sims (back in the day) with Ken Griffey Baseball and NBA Courtside. FPS ( BEFORE it was fashionable) with Goldeneye and Metroid Prime. Arcade Sports with Mario Golf, Mario Strikers, Punch Out. RPGs with Baiten Kaitos, Xenoblade, Golden Sun, Pokemon, Paper Mario and the Thousand Year Door. Strategy games with Fire Emblem and Pikmin. Life "simulators" with Tomadachi Life and Animal Crossing. Fighting games with Super Smash and Killer Instinct (before they sold Rare). Arcade rail shooters with Sin and Punishment and Kid Icarus Uprising. Puzzle games with Captain Toad Treasure Tracker. Educational games with Brain Age and Art Academy. And then games that don't fit anything like Luigis Mansion, Mario and Luigu seriesñ Warioware.
So please enlighten to the genres Nintendo hasnt tried their hand in. While you're at it, enlighten us to the Sony franchises that REINVENTED themselves and were not merely better looking versions of the same core game and gameplay.
Face it, when it comes to Nintendo, you have no clue. You think because you played Mario Party over a friend's house and borrowed a system for a few days it entitles you to use that as a basis for an anecdotal argument against Nintendo? If you really feel that way we have nothing to debate anymore because only one of us fully supports both Sony and Nintendo platforms, in terms of games bought and played, and it's not you.
Last edited by n/a on 12/23/2014 1:39:26 PM
The fact that you say Nintendo had FPS "before it was fashionable" proves a level of historic ignorance that I refuse to even address.
You really think I don't know those games listed, don't you? And you fail to even mention the corresponding games on Sony and Microsoft's side. The TRAILBLAZERS in this industry are not found in Nintendo's world. "Life sims" were a joke. Nintendo began a revolution, kicked in once more with the N64 and that was it. Has there been even one game on a Nintendo platform that has arguably revolutionized this industry on the GameCube, Wii, or Wii U? What have they even offered in the past fifteen years? And hey, here are some great numbers, considering how much you love Nintendo and how awesome all their games are:
# of games averaging over 90% on PS2: 53
# of games averaging over 90% on Xbox: 28
# of games averaging over 90% on GameCube: 26
# of games averaging over 90% on PS3: 60
# of games averaging over 90% on Xbox 360: 48
# of games averaging over 90% on Wii: 15
You don't even want to see what the numbers are like when we go 80% and above. The last three Nintendo consoles are so far behind, it's pathetic. This was a combination of Metacritic and GameRankings figures but of course, I'm sure you don't want to use those. They're flawed in some way, I imagine, right? You have your skewed reasoning, I'm sure.
What then? The games that helped push this industry forward? That other developers were influenced by, that created fresh artistic and technological expansions? Like Heavy Rain, for instance? Or the third-party shooter genre refinement and explosion, headed by Uncharted and Gears of War? REAL simulations, in the sports and flight categories? The open-world structure, embraced and utilized by most major developers today? Advancements in storytelling and cinematography? Voice performances? Direction? What about extreme customization and boundless new interactive capabilities in the platforming genre, with the likes of LittleBigPlanet? Why hasn't Nintendo ever gone quite that far? How is that a SONY franchise expanded on a quintessential Nintendo genre?
Names like Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Heavy Rain, Final Fantasy, Uncharted, Killzone, Ratchet & Clank, Flower, Journey, etc. These names DID things that reached out into the industry. Killzone added a weight and style to a genre in dire need of a control shake-up, R&C fused platforming and action, Metal Gear Solid defined and redefined the nature of stealth in games (and storytelling, in many ways), Heavy Rain represented the potential driving force in terms of interactive narration to which this industry can aspire, Gran Turismo helped pioneer (and improve upon) simulated racing, GTA was another pioneer in the open-world structure (and when it was, it was a PlayStation exclusive).
There are a great many facets to video game development these days. The fact that most major Nintendo titles don't really even USE some of them (voice acting and script writing being examples) is bad enough. But when you can't point to a single game that became influential in development circles, that changed the way we play, that provides a residue we can feel in other genres on other platforms, you've got a dying – or increasingly niche – platform. And that's precisely what Nintendo is right now.
Are we done here, or are you going to try to spin more garbage into an argument that has nothing but subjective rambling and zero facts? Want to try to explain why the overwhelming majority of those 100 million Wii sales happened in the first few years and in the last three or four years, you couldn't GIVE one away? And why Wii U already appears archaic, and will appear even more so at the end of 2015?
Maybe we should all just admit that without the motion-sensing fad of the Wii, Nintendo would be a third-party developer right now, or exclusively in the handheld business. Yeah, maybe we should.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/23/2014 4:03:18 PM
Coming from a neutral standpoint, or better yet, someone who loves both Nintendo and Sony games and consoles, gaming since the mid 80s, and own every console released from Nintendo AND Sony up until this generation, and I can say that both Kid and Ben make good points, but there is a middleground here.
Certain points should not be dismissed, and I don't believe Kid's point's are irrelevant.
There are franchises that Sony mismanaged and let sink down the tubes.
Jet Moto; The best one was the first, while the sequels diminished in quality with each release. And mind you, all 3 games were Greatest Hits, but the latter 2 were barely playable. The physics actually got WORSE in each iteration.
Crash Bandicoot is another that after it's 3 PS1 entries, also got worse, even down to the Kart racing games. The PS1 entries of every version of those games were excellent. Come PS2, along with some multiplat releases, the games just went downhill. I'm not sure if multiplatforming is a reason for degradation, but the mechanics and their level of response just weren't up to par with the previous generation, even level design.
Battle Arena Toshinden started off great, and again, perhaps in their strive for realism in physics and such, they faltered seeing as 3D fighters were still not where they are at today. So by the time 2 and 3 came around, they simply didn't fare as well. Even the graphics, despite an increase in pixel count, weren't as clean as they should have been on the latter iterations.
Mind you, all 3 of these franchises saw a decline in scores (across the board on many reputable sites), hence game quality, with each successive game. I'm not sure where Sony's efforts were at with them, but if they really wanted those franchises around, they would be. Again, all 3 franchises made it to Greatest Hits status (only the first Battle Arena Toshinden).
Tequilla's point of Nintendo releasing consistently great games was most likely aimed at it's first-party lineup, so there should be no surprise, as Nintendo is practically solely known for surviving on first-party games. It's probably not the best thing to do, but who else has been able to pull it off for so many generations? I mean, let's face it, after the SNES, Nintendo has practically been flying solo. The N64 may've been the last system that had any decent 3rd party support; it may be a stretch to include the GameCube. And shovelware doesn't count as support, so the Wii is out. That's part of Ben's argument right there as well I believe.
Does Nintendo cover multiple genres? Yes, but not as many (sub-genres), as Sony. But that's ok. Nintendo has it's following. And not just that, but more importantly, despite having 30 year old mascots, the games are highly scored and rated. So if the quality is there, then that alone goes to show that the games are not as rehashed or tired as, let's say, COD. On top of that, it's not like Nintendo floods it's systems with Mario games of the same genre. They don't annualize. So if there's one or two 2D and 3D Mario platformers on their system, why's that an issue? What would Sony's systems be without a Grand Turismo (and not for nothing, those mechanics have NOT changed). As far as I know, that's what the fans are waiting for. People buy Nintendo systems because they know that they'll be able to play a Mario, Zelda, Metroid, or any other games known to be part of Nintendo's arsenal. And they'll sell systems based on that alone. That's how strong Nintendo's first-party lineup is. Now if the games that mattered were crap, Nintendo would not be around, and they would not sell systems on name alone, since that catches up to you eventually, which Nintendo would be long overdue for if that was the case. But if anything, the Wii iterations of their first-party games that have been released so far have been considered the best the entries have ever seen. Mario Kart 8, Super Smash Bros Wii U, etc.
Age is irrelevant in terms of enjoying a Mario game or any of their other first-party efforts. And not for nothing, even adults find Mario platformers to be a formidable challenge. I mean we're talking Mario here, not Toy Story Mania. Nintendo doesn't need to strive for realism, and some of us don't want that. We know that we can go to a Nintendo system and have some of the cleanest fun out there and still receive a challenge. Our kids can play with us, and we can all huddle around the living room TV and play one of Nintendo's first party titles and now worry if the adult settings were set correctly, or if the content is suitable for children.
Granted, on Ben's side of the argument; Can Nintendo keep using ONLY those first-party mascots to survive? Can they continue making the same TYPE of games and survive? Eventually Nintendo will need more variety, more diversity, because third-party support, and exclusivity, is becoming integral to survival in the console race. I get that. Sony is known for bringing about fresh content, new franchises, ground-breaking stuff. The only problem I have with Sony us they do sometimes let things go prematurely. They don't always stand behind certain products. Look at the Vita, and some of the franchises that are no longer around. I mean, I LOVE JET MOTO. I play it till this day. Sony is also known to revive 'dead' franchises. Granted, not all of them because that would be a serious undertaking (fortunately Twisted Metal was salvaged after a few low points, as well as WipeOut). Who else but Sony could pull that out of their sleeve?
Sony has broken records with the PS4 in terms of sales, and that speaks in and of itself. Why? Because gamers know what to expect from a Sony system in terms of variety of genres, quality, and generally more mature-themed content.
Sony also has it's system sellers: Uncharted, The Last of Us, Gran Turismo, God of War, etc.
At the end of the day, these systems have their strengths despite the flaws found in each one. But they're still around for a reason. If first party was the only way to stay afloat, the Dreamcast would have lived past 2-3 years, and Sega would be in the console war. But that's a whole other argument I'm choosing not to start. I'm just saying, Nintendo wouldn't be around based on just that. They have something. Granted, they're in their own world, with their own sefl-sustaining ecosystem, but again, to pull that off you'd have to be…Apple. The only thing I wish Sony would do like Nintendo is support their handheld systems. The PSP had more life in it, an the Vita technically has a long way to go, but not without proper support. Heck, if both companies would take a cue from each other on each others successful areas, we'd see a beautiful balance.
Remember guys, proving your point doesn't necessarily mean disproving the other guy's. You may both be correct, despite the opposing arguments. It just feels like sometimes the person is being attacked, and not the actual topic. I love the passion everyone carries and uses to support their arguments; signs of a true gamer.
Just my 2 cents, despite the long-windedness.
P.S.
Now if Square-Enix could take care of the FF series the way Nintendo takes care if it's franchises. Yeah man, keeping its roots, while improving on some of the technical aspects, and keeping intact what gamers love about the series…I'm just saying 😉
I meant to say Crash Team Racing was great, so the decline was in the second game.
Also, for a console that's not doing so well, the Wii U has been selling out this holiday season. It's still considered relevant in that sense, regardless of the mere ripple is has in the industry right now.
I mean, I'd still get one. As of NOW, I'd get it over a PS4. Granted, I know when the PS4 gets rolling, it's damned near unstoppable. I know what Sony's momentum of can do for a PlayStation system.
Last edited by Aranha on 12/23/2014 4:27:12 PM
Aranha: Jet Moto is hardly a landmark franchise and don't forget that it was a change in studio that screwed things up; from David Jaffe's Singletrac to the crappy 989 Studios. It doesn't really matter because Jet Moto is hardly a franchise that would've sustained anything going forward.
I love it like you do (yup, I still play the original, too) but let's face it, Jet Moto today wouldn't mean much.
Crash Bandicoot was fine. The only thing it suffered from was an aging mechanic, which all platformers (INCLUDING Nintendo's) suffered from in that time, as developers were still wrestling with the benefits of a 3D world.
Battle Arena Toshinden, like Jet Moto, barely matters. Tekken is what matters and last I checked, as a PlayStation exclusive, it was a definite pioneer and icon of the genre.
Nintendo's first-party lineup has thrived on the same old formula. That's not a bad thing; my contention is that it hasn't GIVEN anything to the industry. What we're seeing today in development trends and advancements has nothing to do with Nintendo; the trailblazers in this industry over the past 15 years have all been on Sony and Microsoft's side.
And I'm sorry, but age is not irrelevant. When people grow up, their tastes and interests change. I'm not saying adults can't enjoy Mario; I'm saying there are tons of other games and genres that are far more likely to appeal to a mature adult. And that's a fact, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. I have no problem with adults who like Nintendo games but I will question those who defend Nintendo to the death, and exclusively play games that are quite clearly designed for a younger audience. Sorry, but I'd have the same questions about hardcore 40-year-old fans of comic books.
I will also always contend that Nintendo consoles are ONLY still around because of the Wii's explosive fad. And that's precisely what motion-sensing was; I said it at the time and I was right. Without that, Nintendo wouldn't be in the console business today. That much, I'm sure of. There's just nowhere near enough quality software, and nowhere near enough games that appeal to a wide demographic.
I'll always love Nintendo. That's what people aren't getting. I will not, however, fall prey to the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia, and pretend that Nintendo is keeping up with the industry of interactive entertainment. That, quite simply, is not true, no matter how you slice it. That's all I mean to prove, really. No problem whatsoever with those who enjoy Nintendo products. 🙂
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/23/2014 5:39:47 PM
Yeah, Ben THAT'S what we said. That the most technologically inferior console would pioneer techological advancements. LOL. You never cease to amuse, my man. No one claimed thatñ nor did anyone claim that they had the most exclusives on the console. All we said were that the consoles consistently deliver great and unique games, which is a fact most irrefutable. So, if you can't agree with that, well, I don't know what to tell you. But feel free to continue your most singular narrative of movie games being the best games there are.
Kid: Yeah, just crawl away with your tail between your legs without addressing any of my points, the most important of which being that Nintendo hasn't contributed an important game in fifteen years, and hasn't advanced the industry one iota. Technology is one side of the development game. One.
The consoles do not consistently deliver great and unique games because basically none of them are unique (are you kidding me?) and the ratio of shovelware to the decent titles is just beyond ridiculous.
But really, run away. It was pointless to begin with…Ninty fanboys are always delusional.
now wouldn't it be great if Nintendo would just concede their console hardware and release a special Wii U style controller for the XO and PS4 that was used to exclusively play their franchises. It'd be great. They could still do all their two screens and Amiibo toy things and still have all of their games filtered through a lower cost controller.
They could even have a special Nintendo app tp launch for PSN and XO that could funnel you into their own world of products.
It'd be great. Sure. Some ardent fans would hate it and say it would suck but I'd love it.
Errrr, Nintendo DID have FPS before they were fashionable on consoles. Golden Eye and Perfect Dark on the N64 then Metroid Prime on the GameCube. What did the PS1 have in terms of FPS? Nothing. The PS2 had Killzone which was mediocre at best.
"Ninty fanboys are always delusional", "I'm not 9 years old anymore"
So platformers are children's games and if a grown man likes them they're somehow not as mature as you and/or delusional? Why are you so condecending and easy to anger at people who frequent this site? Relax.
Last edited by Jawknee on 12/23/2014 7:27:29 PM
Ben, I destroyed you in this debate and exposed your ignorance, as if that was necessary. lol. Read it back. You asked for a list of games that Sony failed with incompetence and i gave you a list that declined in Metacritic score AND sales. What was your comeback? 'Durr no they just went away!' You claimed Nintendo didn't try many genres. I give a WEALTH of games in different genres. Your response? 'Durr, they aren't innovative!'Then you went to compare one of the most amazing console libraries against the Cube. I mean, every gamer knows the PS2 was tops. But you use it as some sort of trump card in every debate, no matter the subject. As I have consistently said Shadow Of The Colossus is my favorite game of all time. No, Nintendo fanboy here that can't recognize fun and innovation in other companies, bud. You're the one who can't even admit that Goldeneye and it's multiplayer was a revolution for gaming. Still didn't answer they question of genres Nintendo missed or these REINVENTED Sony franchises you claim exist. lmao It's like arguing with 'Listen, Linda' kid except youre a grown man with the inabilty to have a coherent debate, no matter the eloquence. I mean, he's a kid so he has an excuse.
Last edited by n/a on 12/23/2014 7:49:51 PM
PS2's launch FPS was Timesplitters.
It had some pretty good feedback from fans. It was hardly revolutionary and I couldn't get into it, but it was PS2's solution for the genre at the time.
Eventually World War games like Medal of Honor came around PS2-side.
EDIT: I think Unreal Tournament may have also been a PS2 launch FPS title or a little time thereafter. I remember mocking it's inferiority to the PC version =)
Last edited by Temjin001 on 12/23/2014 9:18:36 PM
Jawknee: He didn't say before FPS's were fashionable on consoles. He said before they were fashionable. PC gamers everywhere are laughing very hard at that, and so should you. FPSs were THE fashion on PCs ever since the days of Wolfenstein and that definitely pre-dates freaking GoldenEye. And if you're wondering about a FPS on PlayStation, try Medal of Honor, which was probably more advanced than either GoldenEye or Perfect Dark at the time, but didn't get half the attention.
Ninty fanboys are delusional. 9-year-olds are more likely to enjoy Nintendo's games as opposed to adults. These are truths, yes. You can conveniently ignore the other sentences, like where I said everyone can love Nintendo all they want, and I have no problem with an adult playing a Nintendo game.
By all means, it's the only chance you have of winning any argument anyway; i.e., dismissing anything you don't like.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/23/2014 9:42:32 PM
Kid: LOL Nobody reading that is going to say you "destroyed" anything. You didn't answer a single question or point. Not one. You couldn't come up with a game in the past 15 years Nintendo has made that has had any significant impact on this industry, any game that has influenced developers, any evidence that anything Nintendo has produced has forwarded the progress of this industry. I'm still waiting.
YOU said Sony drives its franchises into the dirt. This is an obvious implication that the franchises turned to crap and as a result, disappeared. I outlined exactly why that wasn't the case at all. A LOT of franchises have disappeared and at least Sony TRIES new things and TRIES new IPs. When the hell was the last time Nintendo even offered a new IP that tried in ANY way to break boundaries and produce something positive in terms of progression in interactive entertainment? What? Pikmin? LMAO
I told you the last three generations of Nintendo basically sucked. I gave you numbers to show it. All you do is hide behind the, "oh, PS2 was king so it isn't fair," not even bothering to notice that the numbers for the PS3/Wii generation were WAY worse for Nintendo.
I said the last time Nintendo revolutionized anything, or gave us anything even REMOTELY new, was during the N64 years. I said it ended there and all you can do is talk about Mario 64 and GoldenEye. Thanks for proving my point.
You can hide all you want. You can just decide to toss out arbitrary "I destroyed you!" comments like a petulant little child, which is all you've proven yourself to be here. You know zilch. Your knowledge of gaming history is absolutely deplorable. Rattling off a bunch of games (and actually thinking you'll impress me, as if I've never heard of them) doesn't make you a scholar. Your complete inability to address the FUNDAMENTAL POINTS of this debate is clear to all, except you.
I clearly and consicely outlined the points of my argument: Nintendo hasn't innovated for shit since the N64, they produce the same basic style of gameplay for all their major games featuring the major mascots, and without the Wii's motion-sensing fad, there would be no Nintendo consoles right now due to the PATHETICALLY small number of decent games for the Wii and Wii U over a span of seven years. I've given you review numbers. I can give you sales numbers. I explained why your ridiculous comparison between MGS and Nintendo games was just that: Utterly ridiculous. You ignored that, too, and we all know why.
To all of this, you have no answer. Now please, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself (as if that's humanly possible at this point), just stop. And really, keep trying to convince everyone here you're not a rabid anti-Sony basher who ONLY posts anti-Sony and anti-PlayStation crap at this site. Nobody believes you. And thing is, nobody cares. You've shown no evidence to counter the argument that you're a Sony hater.
WHY are you still here? Just to get owned at every turn? 'cuz I can keep doing that all day and all night, son.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/23/2014 9:44:56 PM
Points well taken Ben, although I must say it was because of Jet Moto 1 and Twisted Metal 2 that I even got a PS1. I think they deserve a bit more credit. They might not seem so great now, but I think they are some of the games that defined PlayStation and Sony may not be where they are now had those titles, along with several others, been in their lineup.
In terms of Goldeneye making the FPS fashionable, I'll go ahead and say that in Kid's context, fashionable should be used as a synonym for mainstream, and mainstream it did make the FPS. Yes, I was playing Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, and Duke Nukem (I even had lan parties) on the PC, but none of them ever hit the media unless it was to be called out on their level of gore and violence. Goldeneye received accolades for about 2 years after its release, and was on the news for how great it was, how successful it was, and what it did for the FPS genre. Medal of Honor (which I also own for the PS1) pretty much kickstarted the war shooter. But Goldeneye put FPSs on the map like no other and in many ways paved the way for the modern FPS.
All this talk of Nintendo's stagnancy has me thinking though Ben, and this is just stuff to think about because good, valid points are being made on your side: What if it's Nintendo's role to be the keeper of old-school gameplay? Perhaps retaining that is just as important to the industry as the innovation and strides that Sony and Microsoft have made. I mean, think about it: Can we really say that platformers are as popular as they used to be? Not quite. Yes, there are some that are released here and there, but I think it's because of Nintendo's persistence in releasing at least one 2D and 3D Mario game with every system, that has kept the genre alive in certain ways. It may even be the reason why other platformers innovate and do so well. If Nintendo really wanted to innovate, motion control aside, wouldn't they be releasing powerhouse consoles like Sony and Microsoft? Wouldn't they have this all-in-one console made to do everything? Simplicity appears to be Nintendo's bag, and they seem to play that game well.
Another point I'd like to make, perhaps mentioning Nintendo's relevance in updating/maintaining franchises is this: I loved the original Super Mario Bros, yet could barely stand the second, and couldn't get into the 3rd, despite it being a well made game. On SNES, I loved Super Mario World, played it inside and out for years. Mario 64 came out, and I couldn't get into it. Till this day I still can't. I've given it several tries, to no avail. But I love me some Super Mario Sunshine on the GameCube, and love to death Super Mario Bros Wii, and Galaxy 1 and 2 (and as a quick side note, I thought the old school Mario side-scrolling 2D platform games were a thing of the past and thought there was no way I'd enjoy SMB Wii becasue the mechanics would be dated and old, etc, and then I played it, and Nintendo shut me up and made me realize those mechanics are beyond solid). Therefore, Nintendo must be changing something with each iteration of these games, and it's not just fluff. Yes, the same basic game mechanics exist (as is the case with most games of the same genre), but they've enhanced it, and evolved it to allow for something modern that still feels fresh, despite the same basic control scheme.
One more thing to mention, especially since perhaps it has less to do with age, and more about the mechanics, is that despite Mario games being aimed at a younger audience, the gameplay is universal. Like if there was a Mario FPS, does that make it a child FPS suddenly? The fact that it happens to be Mario would be incidental, but the mechanics are still FPSs. Mario games have more to do with art style than something simply meant for kids. Platformers aren't age specific, neither are arcade racing games, or brawlers. You replace Mario in any game with say, Nathan Drake of Uncharted fame, and the game doesn't suddenly become more mature.
But I believe your point may've been more towards the fact that no Nintendo/Mario game is story driven, or complex in its characters which at that point, you are correct. But hey, Nintendo games are just great for picking up and playing, without letting things get convoluted or complicated. That's what we have a PlayStation for, right?
Also, I understand Toshinden didn't matter after Tekken came out, but Sony did view it as something of importance when it first released. It was a US launch title and one of the first 3D fighters around, and was the first to include side-stepping, ever, as well as weapons-based fighting. I mean, Sony even sold it as a bundle with the PS1 (I can't believe I even remember that).
So at one point Toshinden WAS a system seller. I know people who bought it based on that game alone. Why Sony didn't continue with something that served as a pioneer into the 3D weapons-based fighting is beyond me.
Fortunately we received Soul Blade a year later, and fortunately it was an exclusive despite being third party, but how did Toshinden become irrelevant when Tekken came out, if Soul Calibur has co-existed alongside Tekken? Granted, there aren't as many Soul games as Tekken, and they're both made by Namco, but it's not like Toshinden was pushed out by the Soul series. There was only 1 Soul Blade and 3 Toshindens on the PS1 alone (4 if you count the one that never made it stateside).
Actually, I guess that answers my question; Sony gave Toshinden 'til the count of 3 to make things happen, and I guess it couldn't prove itself even on its 3rd iteration.
@ previous responses about FPS on PS1:
Don't forget the PS1 also had Quake II (which I own), Disruptor, Doom, Aliens Trilogy, the weird corridor-like FPS Forsaken, Star Wars: Dark Forces, Jumping Flash (remember that?), South Park, 007: The World is Not Enough, and a few more, but I can't think of any that felt as good, or were presented or played as well as Goldeneye.
@ PS2 FPSs:
TimeSplitters was the most addictive FPS, after Goldeneye, I've ever played. It's very straightforward, so not much of a story, but the mechanics and the different guns and timelines were enough to get me to play through on all difficulty settings. I beat that game inside and out. I even enjoy it more than the sequels, despite their advancements and improved graphics. For a launch title (and a launch purchase), I have to say TimeSplitters did more than an amazing job, and to me , it stands the test of time, even more so than Goldeneye, although it isn't exactly a fair comparison since they're a generation apart, and TimeSplitters was a follow-up effort from some of the creators of Goldeneye, which at least attests to the quality of their work.
Last edited by Aranha on 12/24/2014 1:17:19 AM
AranHa. I was a fan of Toshinden right from the start. I liked the first two games a lot. The third one really tanked it.
This is my take. Toshinden was born out of the fighting game explosion started by SFII years before it. But it's lack of arcade presence hurt it bad. Fighters were games you tried hard at home at, then took your stuff to the arcades to prove your metal.
Virtua Fighter
Toshinden
Tekken
Bloody Roar
Darkstalkers
Star Gladiator
Dead or Alive
SF Alpha
SFIII
Soul Blade
Tobal
Dark Rift (ha sucked so bad)
Capcom vs Marvel (including Xmen and Marvel)
Fighters Megamix
Mortal Kombat
War Gods
Mace: The Dark Ages
Killer Instinct
Guilty Gear
And then there was SNK and their gazillion fighters.
Most of these had multiple entries.
I owned and played them all.
So many fighters in so short time. Some of them had to deflate. Toshinden was one of them.
(yea, I know I'm mixing 3D and 2D)
Tekken became king because it proliferated arcades everywhere and that made it's presence widely known and liked (I worked at an arcade for a few years and saw this first hand). Toshinden slipped bad with it's third entry. Soul Blade hit it off strong and it was another System 11 or 12 game, like Tekken, that hit arcades pretty hard at the time as well (cheap and easily distributed).
I'd love to have Toshinden return. It was like a blend of Street Fighter and Soul Calibur, with a bit of KI in there. It's well liked and well missed by me.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 12/24/2014 1:19:44 AM
Temjin:
Wow, I'd completely forgotten about the saturation of fighters in the market at that time, and being that I was heavily into fighters, I thought more was better. I was in my teens, so I thought an endless number of fighters could exist at that time and survive. I was very naive to think that way. Haha, on your list the only ones I didn't play were Star Gladiator, Dark Rift, and Mace.
Hadn't even realized or bothered to take notice that the first Toshinden wasn't in the arcades, although I looked it up and it says the 2nd Toshinden was, which is a bit ass-backwards, and was probably too little too late.
Thanks for the insight on this, especially something that helps me reflect on something very big in my life at the time (well, still is).
Side note:
Street Fighter Alpha 3 is my favorite all-time street fighter.
Also, did anyone notice that the PS1 was the only system to host 3 consecutive canon Tekkens? And my goodness, the strides they made with each iteration. Of course, the changes were more noticeable then than they are now for obvious reasons (laws of technology/science and such), but oh man was the PS1 the little 32-bit system that could!
Last edited by Aranha on 12/24/2014 8:54:39 AM
I don't agree with some of the things Ben said, but Kid, you definitely did not win at debating. Do you even know what debates are?
I spotted a couple areas you could easily have addressed, but instead, made it exceptionally easy to put you down. As someone who DOES understand the formal debate process exceptionally well (and ignoring this is the internet), you'd have scored extremely low.
Like… pathetically low. I bet you don't even remember the origin of the debate.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 12/24/2014 10:43:43 AM
Yep. I liked SFA3 well too. I had a decent Karen at the time. It was my fav of the Alpha series.
"Go for broke!"
Yea, the Tekkens saw nice improvements. The mo-cap worked got real nice when guys like Lei, Eddie, and Xiayou hit the scene. I also liked how they fully integrated the sidestep in T3. I loved T3 the most. I played and competed in local arcade tournaments. I placed 2nd and 1st for the two (respective) T3 tournaments I entered.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 12/24/2014 10:55:29 AM
Wow, just seeing it in text, "Go for broke!", took me back. I loved SFA3 so much I bought it every time it came out; PS1, Dreamcast, PSP, and as part of the Anthology on PS2. My favorites are still the classics: Ken and Akuma, but I'm pretty nasty with Fei Long and a few others.
Yeah, Tekken 3 was revolutionary, and during a time when I was introduced to Capoeira (look at my avatar), so I loved playing with Eddy Gordo. I still remember when his original name was going to be Rally Jackson. Although after learning Capoeira, I've come to see how limited Eddy's move set actually is, but is enough to suffice in a game.
Much props on those tournaments, especially to get 2nd and 1st. That's an INSANE accomplishment. I'm no slouch in Tekken, been playing since '95, but it is just an awesome experience to watch masters at play. That goes for any fighter, because the execution, timing, and dexterity required to execute said moves carries a high degree if difficulty and learning curve. And yeah, T3 is my favorite. It's pretty much what every Tekken has been modeled after since.
Aranha: I agree that Twisted Metal was a huge brand for PlayStation, although not so much Jet Moto. Ironically, I got the PS1 with Jet Moto and TM2 and I played those games to DEATH. To my earlier point, though, Twisted Metal is definitely not a franchise Sony "ran into the dirt." Jaffe brought it back in fine form with Twisted Metal: Black on PS2 and another Twisted Metal on PS3. Great games both; they just landed on a new, unknowing generation and therefore were nowhere near as big.
As for GoldenEye, I think it depends on your definition of "fashionable" and "mainstream." In the gaming world, it's definitely not true that N64 made FPSs fashionable because gaming essentially revolved around the genre at that point and it was all on PC. Furthermore, nothing in the industry at the time could really be called "mainstream." Video games had yet to make that leap and really, the average person off the street would see no distinction between GoldenEye, Medal of Honor, Doom, or any other video game. GoldenEye was revolutionary for FPSs on consoles, which I said before. Since then, of course, Nintendo has done nothing in that genre (or any other genre, besides what they've already done).
Nintendo the keeper of old-school gameplay? I suppose. I rather see them as the keeper of interactive entertainment for kids. Sony and Microsoft target a different demographic and really, if we only had Sony and MS, there wouldn't be anywhere near as many options for children. I think it's a good thing that "simplicity is Nintendo's bag" and I certainly don't begrudge them that. It's important to have simpler, more innocent productions out there, especially when the industry is constantly under fire for uber-violent and gritty productions.
Regarding your experience with Mario, I don't think it's so much that Nintendo was changing things, I think your perspective and likes have changed over the years. I couldn't get into Mario 64, either, but I also couldn't get into either Galaxy or really, any 3D Mario. It has to be 2D or I don't care. Nintendo does make minor changes to Mario but at the end of the day, it's just a 3D platformer and nothing more. And that's okay. So long as we admit that, I'm fine with having those games around.
For the most part, I agree with everything else you said. But not necessarily the part about Nintendo gameplay being "universal." We say that because we grew up with video games and we remember how they used to play. It's universal among our age group but for teens and young adults of today, most basically dismiss Nintendo as being for kids. And they're not wrong: The art style, the simplicity, the fact that it's basically a cartoon, all implies that indeed, it's designed for, and marketed to, children. That's just a fact of the industry, I believe.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 12/24/2014 2:32:29 PM