M$ tried to buy Nintendo

[Saint of Killers]

Originally posted by supermario
Big deal that Nintendo started by making cards, the fact is that they FIRST made video games THEN made hardware. Sony and MS did the opposite.

They were making love testers and those electronic shooting range things before they ever made a video game. Hardware? Your call.

Go pick up a copy of Game Over. It really should be required reading for any Nintendo fanboy. It's interesting, paints Nintendo in a VERY favorable light, and is chock full o' interesting facts about Nintendo which will make you realize they got into video games to make a profit, just like everyone else.

When the first crash came no one thought people would even BUY video games, let alone weather they are 2-D or not. So much for that reasoning.

Umm, no. Computer games and arcade games did fine during the so called "crash". It was only home consoles that suffered. So people were still buying and playing videogames.

Why can a person say a 2-D game is good for GBA but when its on a big system they dont like it? Its called stupidity. And its Sony that made them like that will their anti 2-D philosophy.

Sony made them like that? No one was forced to buy a Playstation (which had MANY 2D games on it, although I think you were already involved in this argument in another thread). The consumers chose 3D. If people were buying 2D games, do you really think Sony would prevent them from coming out? They aren't some evil conglomerate out to end 2D goodness. They just want to sell a product that does well in the market. 3D sells. 2D doesn't. It's as simple as that.

[supermario]

Originally posted by Kidnemo




No sequels?

Donkey Kong, 1-2-3

Super Mario 1-2-3, world, land 1-2, Advance 1-2.

Mario Golf 1-2, Mario Tennis 1-2

Wario 1-2-3?

Metroid 1-2-3

Zelda 1-2, links awakening, the last two on GBC, OooT, Majoras Mask

F-zero 1-2, F-zero on GBA

These are just the ones I came up with off the top of my head, Nintendo is one of the most sequel heavy developers in the business! Not that I mind, but still...



Innovation?

The Super Mario Movie?

The Super Mario show?

The Zelda show?

Nintendo Cereal?

Those crappy CDI zelda games?

Those look like a bunch of cash runs to me...

Don't get me wrong, I love Nintendo as much as the next guy, and I'm not trying to start an argument, I just feel while Nintendo is a better all around company than most, there still in it for the money...

Once again you dont understand Nintendo games, they may be "sequels" because they share the same name but you cannot tell me Mario 1, 2, 3, super mario world 1, 2 and Mario 64 play exactly the same as every other game in the series?

Donkey Kong country was not made my Nintendo. I hate Rare and the crap they make.

Your gonna tell me that you get tired of every Zelda game? They may be similar but you are not saying how bored you are from playing every game. This goes with any really good game thats like its sequel...aka Metal Slug.

Super Metroid, was extremely different than Metroid. The whole idea of having a map made the game so much more enjoyable, and they added so many new weapons and enemies.

F-zero may be the only Nintendo game that falls under the normal sequal virus.....but then again what racing game dosent'...cough..Grand Turismo.

I dont think you can add that much to sport games, the same with fighters, and shooters. So that takes care of Mario Golf.

I dont care for Wario games.....I acknowlege that they are not that good.

Ummm...and quite with the licencing crap....they are not games...Im just talking about Nintendo games here.

[Kidnemo]

Originally posted by supermario
Once again you dont understand Nintendo games, they may be "sequels" because they share the same name but you cannot tell me Mario 1, 2, 3, super mario world 1, 2 and Mario 64 play exactly the same as every other game in the series?...

And with that comment, I will take my leave of this thread...

[supermario]

[i]Originally posted by Saint of Killers [/i

Sony made them like that? No one was forced to buy a Playstation (which had MANY 2D games on it, although I think you were already involved in this argument in another thread). The consumers chose 3D. If people were buying 2D games, do you really think Sony would prevent them from coming out? They aren't some evil conglomerate out to end 2D goodness. They just want to sell a product that does well in the market. 3D sells. 2D doesn't. It's as simple as that.

It was common knowledge in the Plastation vs. Saturn era, that if you wanted 2-D games buy a Saturn, and if you wanted 3-D games buy a Playstation. Sure there were games of the other kind on each system, but count how many 2-D games where on Saturn and you will see the difference. Also Sega made 2-D games. Where are your supposed 2-D Sony games?

I also heard many stories that Sony told developers if you gonna make a 2-D game go to Saturn and do it. Sony wanted to be known as the 3-D machine.

[supermario]

Originally posted by Kidnemo


And with that comment, I will take my leave of this thread...

Prove me wrong.

In Mario 1 you had your basic platforming structures layd out.

In Mario 2 you took all of Mario's moves and put them away, why because he had new moves. You could'nt simply jump on enemies heads or get a fire flower. You had to pick vegetables to kill them.

In Mario 3, you got your basic Mario 1 gameplay again, but they added how many new moves and suits? About 12 or so? Not to mention you could pick your own stage.

In Mario World, mario has at least 30 new moves, not including Yoshi. Its similar but they added lots of stuff.

Mario World 2, surprised doesnt even have mario as the same character. You use Yoshi as your main guy and you throw eggs at enemies to deafeat them!

Mario 64 basically structured how a proper 3-D game should be.

Now its spelled out for you. You cannot say the same thing about Tomb Raider or Metal Gear Solid.

[Saint of Killers]

Originally posted by supermario


It was common knowledge in the Plastation vs. Saturn era, that if you wanted 2-D games buy a Saturn, and if you wanted 3-D games buy a Playstation.

Common knowledge is often wrong.

Sure there were games of the other kind on each system, but count how many 2-D games where on Saturn and you will see the difference.

It's pretty close. You have to count imports, though.

[Hero]

well, any point I'm trying to make is getting ignored, so I'll quit on this note:

Nintendo is a remarkable company. But they are a company. Like anyone else, they want to pay the peeps in the company and reap some profits. Unlike some other companies, they stand out as a creative force. Is this Nintendo or the just the devs behind them? Don't the devs make the company what it is? Maybe what makes game companies so weird is they're a grand mix of business, art, and technology. The devs alone don't make a company, the hardware does, and the suits don't. It's a big mix of all parts, but the one that's most notable to many is the dev side. In that respect, I would say Nintendo knows what it's doing and loves to do it. Otherwise why would Miyamoto be making games? I hope Yamauchi didn't hire Yakuza to keep him in captivity.

Anywho, same rant applies for all great game companies.

[Johnny]

I was just trying to help you out. Everyone seems to have done a good job refuting your points even if you choose to ignore them. I'll drive the points again though.

Nintendo and SEGA both had their starts outside of the videogame industry, fact. Now for the sake of argument let's say they started with videogames, how does this make them any more 'real' than MS and Sony?

Now you say that Nintendo is real because they developed software before hardware, well MS has developed PC games outside of the flight sim genre before the release of the XBOX. Sony developed some SNES games as well before releasing the PSX. Tell me again why Nintendo is more 'real'?

You say they care about games unlike Sony and MS who are money-hungry. How did you come to this conclusion? Nintendo seems to have alot of cash, why don't they use it to deliver their games more cheaply, or expand their development power? They seem as money-hungry as the rest, especially after the whole monopoly thing. Now granted people like Miyamoto care about the games, however I'm sure the same can be said for those creating games over at Sony and MS.

Okay onto the 2D games. Well there are plenty, don't you own a GBA? I'm in 2D heaven right now, maybe it's different for you.

The first 'crash' was simply the 2600 dying off. Games were still popular in the arcades and on the computer.

How is Nintendo original? Here are some Mario games off the top of my head.

Mario Bros.
Super Mario Bros.
Super Mario Bros. 2
Super Mario Bros. USA
Super Mario Bros. 3
Super Mario Land
Super Mario Land 2
Super Mario World
Super Mario World 2
Super Mario 64
Dr. Mario
Mario Paint
Mario's Wrecking Crew '98
Mario Tennis (N64/GBC)
Mario Golf (N64/GBC)
Mario Kart
Mario Kart 64
Mario Kart Advance
Mario Party
Mario Party 2
Mario Party 3

I'm sure I'm missing some here, but that's alot right there. You can give me some line about not understanding Nintendo games but I know for a fact that many of these are platformers, three racers, three party games and the others various franchise stuff. They turn out some great games, but I'd hardly place them at the front of the innovation pack. Pikmin is innovative for instance, however there's a whole lot of sequels out there.

Now onto the 2D PSX scene. You haven't been looking hard enough because there are plenty of great 2D games for the platform, many imports. Saturn really cleaned up with the fighters, sure. However the PSX was home to a superior version of SOTN for instance. It also had exclusive stuff like the Abe games, and Metal Slug X.

That's far too much text, hopefully you'll read it.

[EightBit]

Originally posted by Hero
well, any point I'm trying to make is getting ignored, so I'll quit on this note:

Nintendo is a remarkable company. But they are a company. Like anyone else, they want to pay the peeps in the company and reap some profits. Unlike some other companies, they stand out as a creative force. Is this Nintendo or the just the devs behind them? Don't the devs make the company what it is? Maybe what makes game companies so weird is they're a grand mix of business, art, and technology. The devs alone don't make a company, the hardware does, and the suits don't. It's a big mix of all parts, but the one that's most notable to many is the dev side. In that respect, I would say Nintendo knows what it's doing and loves to do it. Otherwise why would Miyamoto be making games? I hope Yamauchi didn't hire Yakuza to keep him in captivity.

Anywho, same rant applies for all great game companies.

Excelent post.

I'm a bit tired of the, "Becuase it's a company, it's all about profit." line. Yeah, a company needs to make a profit. Theres diffrent ways to go about it though. In MY eyes, Nintendo is a smart company, that has people that love to make games. That to ME makes Nintendo just a bit more respectable than a few other companies I know. Sega.. well Sega I think obviously loves to make video games. Whether continuing when hope and money were almost gone was the result of that love of games, or the idocy of the managment is up to the individual... but I guess Im getting off topic here. I guess what Im trying to say is that not all companies are equal.


Cant think of anything better to say~
Z-roe

[supermario]

Whatever, I am a stupid dinosaur that died along with 2-D games 5 years ago.

Im also a kiddie asshole that loves Nintendo games.

Im also an jerk for wanting more than just ports of 2-D games on GBA.

Im aslo a morone for wanting 2-D games on a home console.

You are right, I am wrong, have fun with your nintendo bashing.

Have fun with your 3-D movies, that is all.