What game are you PLAYING now?

[42ndstreetfreak]

Just finished "Call of Duty: Big Red One"

Now playing "Pariah"

All Xbox.

[Quorthon]

I'm sure the industry will do better, but there's a lot of bad times ahead if the companies aren't ready to innovate.

I figured the PS3 "no secondary market" thing would just be a myth--but still, you never know. A lot of money is lost by companies on used software.

The PSP is doing fairly well, as in it's still alive, but from what I understand, it's getting it's ass handed to it by the Nintendo DS--which, as I understand, is one of the top-selling (if not the top selling) system in Japan. The other problem with the PSP, aside from the ludicrous use of it as a DVD player, is that 80-90% of the games are just Playstation 2 ports--why would you want two copies of the same game? One for your PS2 and one for your PSP. And don't forget--who wants to deal with loading times on a portable system? I see it as totally pointless--portable gaming is supposed to be fast. If you want a portable DVD player, buy a portable DVD player--they're a lot cheaper, and there's a lot more movies for it.

So far, Nintendo has good reason to believe innovation is the way to go--the DS is weaker than the PSP, but is selling better. Partially because of cost, partially because of innovation, and partially because that Nintendo is the first company focusing past the regular "gamer" demographic to wider audiences.

I don't think Online gaming has changed the industry all that much. Online gaming has been a reality since about the mid-90's, and was dreamed of in the 80's. The Xbox made online gaming more accessible to console gamers, but their target audience is still just that--standard-hardcore console gamers. Sure, online feels new to console gamers--but they're all playing the same war sims against each other--and the same will be true of the X360 down the road. Online gaming is really nothing new, and never offered a dramatic change to the way we play games--just who we play them against--sort of. We're still playing against other gamers--just a house or state away. A more drastic change was the leap to 3-D. And hell, that was nearly a decade ago. Nothing's changed since. The controllers are the same, the games are the same, just the graphics improved. But the games themselves, are almost exactly the same.

There was a study that showed that the number of homes with video games in the 80's was about 30%, now it's way up to about 35%. The only reason the industry is booming is because the gamers--almost all the same people as in the 80's--have grown up and now own multiple consoles.

And they are indeed expensive to make. The PS2 reportedly cost $400/per console to produce, the Xbox was reportedly about $450. Microsoft didn't make a profit with it's Xbox division for over 2 years. Then they rushed the next console out a meager 2 years after that. This is one of the reasons I'm going for the Revolution: It'll be cheaper. It won't need to push all the horsepower in the world to sell--and all that horsepower that Sony's cramming will still sell it only to maybe 90% previous gamers--the market won't expand with horsepower alone. I've seen Xbox 360 games, and hell, I'll be damned if they aren't exactly the same shit that's out now for the Xbox, PS2, and GameCube. The graphical difference (at least right now) is a minimal improvement at best. For the Revo, it's innovation will sell it. It'll be the weakest of the three--but in reality, side-by-side, the average person will hardly notice any graphical changes. "Oh hey man, that dude on PS3 has, like 50,000 shades of red and the same guy on the Revolution has only 35,000." Who cares? Like I said, the X360 is hardly a dramatic improvement over the Xbox. From what I've read, Nintendo doesn't make "horsepower for the sake of having horsepower" systems. Nor do they build them to be as powerful as possible, and to hell with the cost! Their consoles have traditionally been built with affordability in mind--they don't lose money on each one they make. Knowing that the PS2 cost roughly $400 to make when it came out, and that it's weaker than the GameCube (which is rumored to cost about $100-150 to make) shows that Sony doesn't really give a shit about the consumer--just their wallets. And the fastest way they believe to get to them is to make the system more powerful than anything else out there. At this point, I'd actually be surprised if the PS3 cost less than $400. I wouldn't be surprised if the price edged closer to $500. Some people pay that much in RENT!

The first couple years might--might--be boom time for gamers with the PS3 and X360 because of somewhat-drastically prettier games, but the systems and games will become lackluster faster than ever because we'll be playing the exact same games the exact same way. Gamers will begin to realize there's nothing new much sooner than they did with the current generation. The complexity of the controllers and games will still prevent the market from expanding into formerly "non-gamer" demographics. Nintendo's "much easier" controller is meant to be easy to use. Non-gamers will look at it and say, "shit, I can do that."

I've seen the Nintendo Revolution Demo. It does well in showing ideas to developers (which I believe was the idea) and gets the mind thinking about all the possibilities. The only possibilities with X360 and PS3 are online gaming, and HD (oh and playing DVD's--which begs the question, just how many freakin' DVD players does one need?). The Revolution is being all advertised as "Wi-Fi out of the box," as in, online the second you plug it in. So the only thing it won't have is HD--and whoop-de-doo. Most people don't even have HD TV's yet! Thank whatever god there is that Nintendo is actually, finally doing something with online gaming! Supposedly, it's totally free with them as well. On top of that, their planning on a service where you can play countless old games from their history--so games from the NES, SNES, N64, and GameCube (backwards compatible to the GC) will be downloadable to play on the Revo.

Don't blame me if I'm biased and damn-near a Nintendo fanboy, I've always loved their games and Nintendo has shown better than the other two companies that they actually care about video games, not just profits or market domination. Plus, I could never forgive Sony for killing Sega--the last actual video game company besides Nintendo--leaving the big N to fend for itself as a lone game/entertainment company against heartless infinite-money electronics corporations.

So was the delay of the PS3 confirmed, then? Or is that still a rumor destined to be true?

But, whatever the case, I guess we'll know this fall what everyone wants (unless Nintendo delays--again--bah!!). Either gamers want the same old shit again, but prettier and more expensive--or they want innovation. Time will tell, I guess. I personally want innovation. Pretty graphics are great (hell, they made RE4 scarier than ever!), but without a new direction, what's the point? It's just the same old shit again. Like Resident Evil Zero was. I can't wait for RE5 (fuck, I hope Nintendo gets it), but it better be new! Hell, I think sports games are still being played about the same as they were back in the days of the SNES!

I can't wait to see what else Nintendo has up their sleeves about that controller that we haven't seen yet! Oh and don't worry, besides the "remote-style" controller, they're making an attachment to play the old-fashioned way as well--they'd have to for all the much older games!

(sorry about the length of this)

[Pulpmariachi]

42ndstreetfreak said:

Just finished "Call of Duty: Big Red One"

Now playing "Pariah"

All Xbox.

That's the other game I was playing! I got to the second level in Africa when you have to storm the airbase or something before I said, "I like Battlefront II better."

I mean, come on, you can have battles with Luke beating up on Evil Anakin. Or Yoda kicking the shite out of General Grevious.

A splendid time guaranteed for all.

[Phoenix]

Just finished "Call of Duty: Big Red One"

That looked good, do you recommend it? My bros love that kind of stuff.

I'm sure the industry will do better, but there's a lot of bad times ahead if the companies aren't ready to innovate.

Why do you think companies aren't 'ready' to innovate? It's not like they sit around and go 'I feel lazy this year, let's not think of any new ideas....'

That's silly. The whole concept of the consule turning into a 'full media center' is very innovative IMO. It takes baby steps too to build on what's already been done, and money. And I have an HDTV so I want HD gaming. That IS the future of television. Even if the majority don't have it yet, they will. Do I want shitty blurry graphics? no.

What do YOU hope to see? apparently not just improved graphics. What are YOUR innovative ideas? I'm assuming you want some crazy 3-D headset virtual gaming?

So was the delay of the PS3 confirmed, then? Or is that still a rumor destined to be true?

No Sony spokesman OFFICIALLY announced at CES that there was a delay but it's pretty much an unspoken given. They would have had a working demo if it was going to be released as soon as they hoped. All they had was a prototype behind glass and then screen shots from games, which was pretty lame.

(sorry about the length of this)

man dude, you sure can write a lot. you could be a politician.

I hope I didn't piss you off, I just like to be optimistic about these things, especially since I see companies working hard to create some cool stuff. That CES show was real eye-opener.

As for the movie industry....not so sunny future. Few are working their butts off to be innovative there.

[Quorthon]

It's not that I think that companies sit around going "hey man, let's not innovate" so much as they look at their sales and say, "let's stick with the same old thing--the one that's guaranteed to sell."

But historically, in the case of video games, constant innovation is a must. Sticking with what's selling fairly well right now will only work so long. Sony and Microsoft, no matter how much they may try no to, will have machines that will appeal to only to near-hardcore console gamers.

I, personally, am not interested in an all-in-one media decvice. That'll cost way too much, and then, the company has total control over my media center. A few years back, Sony had toyed with the notion that they want all your electornics to have the Sony label on them--that's a short step away from them only being compatible with other like-branded electronics, using a specific cable to hook everything up. I don't want to waste a bunch of money on a video game console that's only 50% meant for video games. A game console doesn't need to be a DVD player or a freakin internet-surfing half-assed computer. That's why I liked Nintendo and Sega--they made games. They knew games. They stuck with games. (Sega, however, made notoriously awful hardware-based decisions which eventually cost the company millions, when they finally had something successful, Sony out and killed them).

For as much as I like gadgets and electronics and shit, I just don't feel it's worth wasting the money on any of that crap. I don't even have a cell phone. And just because HD is the way of the future doesn't mean that future is happening in the next year or two. Hell, HD notwithstanding, Digital television is only now getting a solid chunk of the market, as I understand it.

Have you seen the demonstrational video of the Revolution controller in "use?" Or heard the comments developers are saying about it? No offense, but it doesn't sound like you quite understand how it works. But that's okay--while it's aimed at being simple to use, explaining it with the paltry information released is another thing!

Think of the Revolution controller as a computer mouse. But, one that's sensitive to total 3-D movement, rather than just the 2-D movement of a mouse. Move the controller forward in reality, same effect in the game; tilt the controller and tilt something in the game. Instead of jamming button presses on an Xbox button forest to slash at Darth Vader, you could just swing the controller like a sword, er, Light Sabre. Boxing games? You actually punch at the screen. First person games? The controller is already being viewed as superior to the keyboard-and-mouse set-up that has ruled for so long as the best way to play a first-person shooter. The thing is, it's a completely new way to play. It changes the way video games are played and made. It's a step of immersion that HD graphics don't offer. And again, despite the power, side by side, you'll be hard pressed to see which is really the better system. The GameCube is quite a bit weaker than the XBox, but Metroid Prime's graphics totally blow away Halo's when it came down to sheer detail. A powerful system did nothing there--that was just the artists. But did that ruin Halo? Hell no, the game was fun--you barely notice that you spend a massive chunk of the game running around bland grey interiors with no personality. (Until you play Metroid Prime and see just how deep the detail goes!)

Pretty graphics are always second string to great gameplay--unfortunately for you, you seem to prefer games with incredible graphics over originality. It's been shown over and over again in the history of video games that you don't need better graphics to make better games. Again, the DS is still pounding the PSP, and hell, the Game Boy Advance is still selling damn near as well as ever--despite the fact that GBA games can be played on the DS!

Speaking of crazy 3-D headsets--remember that the Revolution controller has yet to have all it's secrets revealed--and Nintendo has apparently taken some interest in a company making 3D VR headsets.

See, I'm not a game developer. But, I wanted to be (and never made it, now life has totally screwed that dream), and if I were to make an innovative game using the new Revo controller, I'd like to make a new Punch-Out!! where you actually box, physically punching at the screen, and sparring with your digital opponent.

Or make a new Zelda where the controller becomes Link's weapons. But these ideas are obvious, and, predicted to eventually happen. The point is, that that new controller has nearly limitless possibilities when it comes to immersing someone in a game environment. Why do you think shit like Dance Dance Revolution *shudder* are so popular? Because you're active while playing it, because it's easy to understand, because it's physically fun--same with old arcade shooters where you hold a gun. Imagine that in every game, but with a dozen times the depth. One idea tossed around was for a fishing game, where the controller is the fishing pole--you physically feel a nibble, and physically fight to reel in the fish. Anyone can do that.

Before this controller was revealed (what little we've seen so far), the best thing I came up with that it was going to be was a compeletly customizable controller, with a huge touch screen. Shows how creative I'm not!

It's worth noting that when it comes right down to video games, Sony and Microsoft are a long way from being innovative. They're copycats at best. A DVD player in a console is not innovative video game technology, and neither is online gaming. Nintendo invented video games as they are today. They first introduced the directional pad and buttons instead of an iffy joystick. Introduced characters with personality (Donkey Kong was the first), introduced the in-home light-gun, introduced the analog control stick, introduced vibration in controllers, introduced the complex side-scroller and the immersive 3-D environment with "simply aim in that direction and go" control. They were the first to have a polygonal, 3D game (Starfox), the first successful portable system. Which should be noted, was a black and white system which for years repeatedly slayed all portable systems that came up against it, despite horsepower, graphics, and color. The Game Boy was the longest lasting game console in history at 13 years without a serious upgrade. The NES lasted just 7. The Xbox replaced after 4. Sure, the Virtual Boy bombed like a failed nuke, but at least they had the balls to try something new, something different. Nintendo has a history of innovation and success, great games and memorable characters and experiences. (The Legend of Zelda was the first game in which I beat a final boss.) I have no reason to doubt that Nintendo will offer the world, gamers and non-gamers for once, something remarkable, fresh, and truly innovative.

I'm willing to bet that 4-6 years from now, Sony and Microsoft will be taking more ideas from Nintendo--again. Because Nintendo knows how to make games--Sony and Microsoft only know how to make hardware. They may hint that they're listening to consumer's complaints, but I still don't see them trying to expand the market or reach everyone not in the typical gamer demographic--which is typically males, age 16-30 these days.

I know I write a lot here, but this is something I really had a passion for for a long time. I was quite a gamer nerd. I can say about this that, "I know what I'm talking about"--and do it with almost no ego at all! The Metal site I frequent has a high number of gamers on there as well (Metal and Gaming apparently are a good fit), and the general consensus is that the Xbox 360 is a waste of money, some people are curious about the PS3, and there's a lot of anticipation to see what Nintendo pulls off with their new innovation. Especially with the knowledge that Nintendo execs and spokespeople and designers have repeatedly hinted that there's still a lot of surprises in store. Hopefully, they aren't crappy surprises like what Microsoft has shown with their X360's that freeze after 30 minutes or that mysterious fact that the system's backwards compatibility is only offered on a handful of games--and the harddrive is required to play them! I thought spending $40 on a remote to "unlock" the DVD player in the original Xbox was a joke!

And is it just me, or does the PS3 look like a laser printer? (low jab!)

[Termination]

The PS3's controller is shaped like a Boomerang & the system does in fact look like a laserjet printer but when I'm playing a game, I'm not looking at either.

Innovation, well I guess wireless controllers don't fit this criteria sinse they have been around for quite some time, but it is nice to see it manditory for the X-box & PS3.

The entry price is a no brainer. You think $400 US is bad? How much did the PS1 cost when it was released back in 1995? ...$400 US & I bought it for that price. I think the PS2 was a bit cheaper.

Sony knows a lot of people will want this thing & because it has a built-in BD-Rom drive of course a delay is inevitable. I agree the PSP is pointless. I can't figure out why 500,000 units were sold in the first few months but that is a record for any game console to date. There is word that the PS3 will be able to playback UMD as well as CD, (maybe even SACD & DVD-A) PS1, PS2, DVD & Blu-Ray.

I have nothing bad to say about the competition because honestly, I don't care.

[Quorthon]

termination said:

Sony knows a lot of people will want this thing & because it has a built-in BD-Rom drive of course a delay is inevitable. I agree the PSP is pointless. I can't figure out why 500,000 units were sold in the first few months but that is a record for any game console to date.

As far as I recall, highest/fastest sales records were set by the N64, then broken by the ill-fated Dreamcast (Don't remember the numbers). The Game Boy Advance sold through something like one and a half million in it's first, I think, month. By stark contrast, the awkward N*Gage (Nokia's video-game phone) sold a whopping 5,000 units it's first month. Ouch. In all of the UK, a total of 500 N*Gages were sold at that time. That's terrible.

The last report I read (about a week or two ago) was that the DS was outselling the PS2 and PSP in Japan. But, it makes sense that PS2 sales would drop later into it's lifecycle. Still, aside from the PS2, the top selling system in Japan for the last 4-5 years was the Game Boy Advance. The Xbox was so poorly received there that it might as well not exist.

I could've sworn that the PS1 cost about $300 when it came out. Might have been aroung $350. The N64 was $250 when it was released--Nintendo's most expensive console.

While Term may not be big on what the console looks like, a lot of people care about that kind of thing. The Revolution has been receiving early praise, not just for the innovative controller with it's near endless possibilities, but also around the seemingly iPod-influenced design of the whole package--it's extremely sleek and fairly compact.

But while some people are into the way the system looks, a lot of people (who I consider to be foolhardy) will no doubt snap up the PS3 as bragging rights over their equally shallow friends. "Hey man, check it out--most powerful video game system ever made! I got it and you don't!" "Wow... So, how's Call of Duty 3?" "Exactly the same as Call of Duty 2 on the Xbox, but now with 5 million more shades of red!" It's the same kind of thinking that drives some inner-city, or crowded suburbanite yuppie to buy the world's largest SUV--big truck means he's got big bucks. Want proof? Some people were spending over a grand or two on the Xbox 360. Bet you anything, many of they wanted that as a status symbol--"Look here, Clayton, I have the world's currently most powerful video game console. Because I had the money to do so, pip pip!! Now, let's find the butler to see if he can tell us what a 'video game' is... Most powerful you know... oh yes..." (This is actually how I picture all the rich bastards that have that kind of money to waste. Really.)

I'm still planning on perhaps picking up a PS3--so I can sell it on eBay like most of the other people picking one up. I sold my PS2 on eBay for $576. Paid off my credit card at the time. Heh heh... Suckers. This year, I'll use the money to buy a Revolution, some games, and hopefully, pay off some debt.

...If it's not delayed until 2007....

At least Twilight Princess is slated to come out in a couple months....

[Termination]

Dreamcast, now that was sad. SEGA finally released a system that was real good & then gave up.

I was there waiting in line on launch day to get one. Was blown away! The controller, system, graphics, loading times etc. etc. were & still are on par with PS2's latest. SEGA finally got it right, I said & then the annoucement came that they would only make games for other consoles.. well, thats just mean.

[Quorthon]

termination said:

Dreamcast, now that was sad. SEGA finally released a system that was real good & then gave up.

I was there waiting in line on launch day to get one. Was blown away! The controller, system, graphics, loading times etc. etc. were & still are on par with PS2's latest. SEGA finally got it right, I said & then the annoucement came that they would only make games for other consoles.. well, thats just mean.

The PS2 played a heavy hand in killing the Dreamcast. Released only months later, slightly more powerful, but they hyped up the DVD player so that people normally uninterested in a video game consoles rushed out to get it. They made the Dreamcast's CD-format games look antiquated almost instantly. Hell, most of the people I knew of that bought it right then bought it for the DVD player more than the gaming! It was a gimmick that payed off handsomely for Sony.

And forget Xbox--the Dreamcast is what really ushered in the era of console-based online gaming. I still need to get the Typing of the Dead. God, that game is uncommonly fun.

I still think Nintendo should've bought Sega when they had the chance. The best game designers and artists outside of Capcom, Konami, Square, and Namco would've been under the house that Mario built. At least Capcom and Namco are still supporting Nintendo, and Square-Enix is going multi-platform for the next generation (supposedly), so no more exclusive Playstation support.

The more I yammer on about this, the more anxious I get for the Revolution's debut (or any new information on the thing--E3 is just 4 1/2 months away!!). EA (just about the biggest 3rd party developer these days thanks to abundant sports licensing) is already throwing their support to the Revo. The more and more I look at the next generation of consoles, it seems like almost all 3rd party games will be multi-platform, except maybe for a few from Konami (MGS--which has already began it's multi-platform jump with an Xbox MGS and remake of the first MGS for the Cube--so who knows?) and Rockstar Games (another company leaving Sony in the dust to develop for everyone, a Game Boy Grand Theft Auto already exists, and GTA is also on Xbox. Rumor had it that Sony did something to piss off Rockstar, so they jumped ship from "exclusivity to Sony" and started developing for the Xbox and Game Boy). Square's been trickling our classic Final Fantasy games to the Game Boy Advance for a couple years now. All Microsoft has left is Bungie and Rare--and thus far, Rare has almost totally failed Microsoft--even the new Perfect Dark is getting lackluster reviews. All the wizards that used to work for them when Nintendo owned the company have long since moved on. The Big N could end up being the company with the most exclusive titles and franchises (albiet, most of them are home-grown, but Soul Calibur II and all the Sonic games fared better on the Cube than on the Xbox or PS2)--almost everything Sony's got will be on all three consoles soon. Even Resident Evil will be multi-platform next time.

So all three companies will have about the same thing, except the X360 will be the most problematic system (and loudest from what I've heard), the PS3 will be the priciest, and the Revo will be... yet to be seen. Almost no games have been announced for it (aside from a new Smash Bros), and the only info given out is that several companies are excited about the possibilities with the system. It's almost a given that major 3rd party games--sports games, the Call of Dutys, Medal of Honors, "retro collections"--all the stuff that generally always goes multiplatform will almost be guaranteed to show up on the system.

Again I rant, oopsy. But, you wouldn't be reading it if you didn't want to--or if you didn't want to find some way to analyze my wording in an effort to destroy my e-ego.

Whattya think? Should I apply for a job with Nintendo promoting their products? I think I could do it. Now how do I do it??

[Termination]

I don't have time to rant right now but will say You cannot go wrong with buying a Nintendo peroid. I didn't buy their CUBE mainly because I was getting sick of the company still releasing Mario & Zelda stuff.. I know they have support & that there is more to it than those 2 types of games but in the end felt it just wasn't worth buying.

I've read articles that totally agree with you about Nintendo's future gaming concepts such as that very unique looking controller. Putting the fun back into gaming is something not easily acheived, but Nintendo always seems to find a way. I just hope they have more tricks up their sleeve than a fancy controller..

[42ndstreetfreak]

phoenix said:

Just finished "Call of Duty: Big Red One"

That looked good, do you recommend it? My bros love that kind of stuff.

It's pretty good. You are pushed around a bit (as in it's a very set route and you can't even open doors on your own), but the biggest pain is that there are no saved saves until the very end of a level.

You have save points in case you die (and you WILL) BUT if you turn off the XBox you lose it and have to start the whole level again.
OR keep the XBox turned on, OR play through until you finish a level so you have a permanent save!

[Quorthon]

termination said:

I don't have time to rant right now but will say You cannot go wrong with buying a Nintendo peroid. I didn't buy their CUBE mainly because I was getting sick of the company still releasing Mario & Zelda stuff.. I know they have support & that there is more to it than those 2 types of games but in the end felt it just wasn't worth buying.

..

And Square-Enix is still releasing Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior
And Konami is still releasing Castlevania (3 Castlevanias alone for the Game Boy Advance) and Metal Gear Solid
And Rockstar is still releasing Grand Theft Auto
And Capcom is still releasing Resident Evil, Mega Man, Viewtiful Joe was a success and became an instant new franchise...
And Sega is still releasing Sonic the Hedgehog--hell, you'd need all your fingers and toes to count the number of games with Sonic in them--and that still wouldn't be enough.
EA releases pretty much the same sports games every year, with slightly updated player rosters and a few new features.
There's a new Medal of Honor (or like WWII game) every year.
Namco's moving onto Soul Calibur III (the 4th game in that series), Tekken 5, another Tales of Symphonia...
There are more than 8 games based around Mortal Kombat--and there will always be more.
There are probably about 20 games themed around Street Fighter these days.
There are countless versions of Doom & Quake.
There are 4 Burnout games now.
There are at least 4 or 5 games with Virtua Fighter in the title.
There are 4 or 5 Twisted Metal games.
How many versions of The Sims does one need...?


What's Microsoft hoping for out of their purchase of Rare? Great new games? Hell no! Their first original game (Grabbed by the Ghoulies or something) was largely abhored by reviewers and the masses. Updates of games originally on Nintendo systems is what they're counting on! Perfect Dark, Conker...


Nintendo can hardly be singled-out and ripped on for sticking with proven franchises--everybody in gaming fucking does it--Sony and Microsoft bank on it every bit as much as Nintendo does--so did Sega. Shit, there are two dozen games belonging to the Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior franchises alone. There are about as many Zeldas as there are Final Fantasys--at least Zelda games try to change once in a while (don't get me wrong, I was an old-school FF fan--I even have the soundtrack to part VI. FFVIII sucked though)! What was the most anticipated Xbox game? A sequel--Halo 2. If you own video games, you own sequels or, as has been the case the last couple years, remakes (Ninja Gaiden, Contra, etc.).


Every other game these days is a sequel to a previously proven franchise. And everyone stupidly looked away whenever anything new or creative was made. Pikmin (brilliant game, but too short) didn't sell all that well, Eternal Darkness (easily one of the best horror games ever made), was considered a failure. Killer7 also did poorly. What sold well? Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime, Zelda... Final Fantasy XI, MGS3, GTA:The Latest Incarnation, Halo 2, Prince of Persia...

MGS, Castlevania, Mega Man, Final Fantasy, Ninja Gaiden, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Contra--all these games, and countless others, all date back to the 80'--and aren't just Nintendo.

Besides, anyone who dismisses Zelda: Wind Waker without actually playing that game is ignorant. That was some of the most beautiful imagery of this last generation. No one's gonna stop making games that sell. That aside, I'm still anxious as all hell for the next one--with adult Link again!

Mario Sunshine, however, was actually pretty disappointing. "Mario & Luigi" on the Game Boy Advance? Brilliant. Pokemon--guaranteed crap (but I hate Pokemon anyway, fuck you pikachu!!). Pikmin was great, and a new franchise (one that might not be continued due to poor sales of Pikmin 2, but damn if it wasn't different). Ikaruga was one of the best shooters ever made--and largely ignored (but it did have a following).

This actually comes back to what I was saying before--games are too redundant. Sure, the next Zelda is going to be a fucking blast--but it'll play pretty much the same as the previous three 3D Zelda games. But they're still too redundant--all sequels and remakes--and original games are becoming more and more rare. It costs too much to bank on something different now, the market isn't big enough to take risks. And now, there's a bottleneck forming--no market expansion, financially-based fear of making original (new or creative) games, and every new game is a sequel and is more and more like the ones that came before--desperate to maintain sales.

This was the point I was trying to make before. Except you only looked for redundancy in Nintendo--and missed it in everyone else. It's an industry-wide problem. Nintendo's radical new console might fail or succeed this (or next) year--but at least they tried to fix the problem before it got out of hand. That's what I respect. And if Nintendo succeeds? Don't be surprised if Sony and Microsoft again follow suit. That's if the PS3 doesn't totally obliterate the X360 like the PS2 did the Dreamcast...

[Termination]

True there have been a lot of sequels but Nintendo is the only one that banks on Mario & Zelda.

The PS2 didn't bank on Ridge Racer which was PS1's most successful game out of the box sorta speak.

X-box 360.. Well I have Halo for X-Box & that game is one of thee most overated pieces of shit & when a sequel was mentioned.. I just stop right there.

Capcom is GOD for Street Fighter II but I agree they milked it to death with all the sequels later on I could not care about. Square, well not much to say about them except do they have a game that isn't Final Fantasy oriented? Mind you I loved the original for the NES. All hail the classics! Thats right, games from Sega Master System & NES. I would sell all my current game crap for a mint NES system in a heartbeat.

Genesis, Altered Beast I think was "out of the box" & later Sonic to charge of that system & SEGA but the thing SEGA always tried & failed at doing was releasing games from high-end arcade systems to their consoles. While the idea wasn't bad, the graphics sure were not.

Out of;

Atari
Coleco
Nintendo Entertainment System
Sega Master System
Neo-Geo
GameBoy
Sega Genesis
Turbo Grafix 16
Super Nintendo
Panasonic 3DO
Atari Jaguar
Sony Playstation
Nintendo 64
Sega Dreamcast
Sony Playstation 2
Nintendo Gamecube
X-Box
GameBoy Advance
Sony PsP
X-Box 360

...I would rate Turbo Grafix 16 the best overall for game originallity.

[Quorthon]

I'll take the NES over the TurboGrafix16 any day.

But that's a system I always wanted when I was younger, but no one carried it. Bonk was their main draw, as I recall.

[Pulpmariachi]

I'm playing the computer game: THE MOVIES. I had to start a new studio because the first one I started fell under when I was making this giant war movie. The movie pretty much bankrupted my studio, all my writers quit, my actors and director were stressed and about to quit after the picture was complete, and in order to somehow get some more money I sold some of my sets...as it turns out I also sold one of the sets I needed to finish the movie and didn't have the money to buy it back. The only solution was to destroy everything.

And that movie would've been great too. What with all the battle sequences then a dog attack and great shootouts. Grrr.