i was appaled to find that tales of Legendia, the Symphonia sequel, is going to be PS2 only. Okay, i thought, Nintendo must be saving their money for better things.

Soul Calibur 3? Nope, Nintendo bought SC2, but the sequel to the one of the best games on the cube is not good enough for them.

what incredible releases have they chosen instead then?

anyone?

Actually, it's Sony throwing huge piles of money at Namco to make them release it for PS2 only.

For instance, Soul Calibur 2 sold a million copies on the Gamecube alone and was the most sucessful version. So it would make sense to release it for GC, right? It would, but Sony paid them for the exclusive. Probably quite a few million.

Thats some good news for sony fanboys.

dammit

*destroys plans for the PS4, that should set them back a few years.*

seriously though, Nintendo have gone into a slump. At the end of the N64 days, Nintendo were still churning out fantastic games (perfect dark...). We're not even close to the end of the Gamecube era, and what have we got?

Baten Kaitos 2, anyone?

There might not be a ps4 it could be a psp2 with ps3 features. The gamecube era was probably over before it started. But then again its some developers fault for nto making any good worthy nintedo gamecube games.

Technically, I'm a Sony Fanboy-Superficially though I want Nintendo not only to survive but use it's potential powers in synonimity with Sony to destroy Microsoft platforming (If I only I could work out the kink of losing Elder Scrolls...and a new Halo wouldn't be horrible, so long as it didn't get so boring so fast). Nintendo started it, and even if Sony finishes it Nintendo should at least pull in before Micro. But I think the problem with Nintendo lies in it's games...I mean there are some really great ones and the systems ingenuitous-but some of their games are crap or available for other systems. And in truth all of their games are perfect if your 8. So I think Nintendo needs to summon a harder edge, like Perfect Dark-but it's VERY good that they are coming out with a new Zelda installment...

*eyes well with tears of joy*

Outside of the Game Boy series, Nintendo has been in a slump since the PS1 became popular. Sure they had good games on N64, but that didn't keep them from losing the console war in that generation. Same could be said for this generation. They did better this generation to be sure, but Sony still ruled.

Perfect Dark was Rare's game. Rare is exclusive to Microsoft now. Why exactly Nintendo gave up on owning Rare, who knows? Probably because Rare's last few Nintendo games weren't really all that great, IMO. I myself was severly disappointed with Star Fox Adventures. Beat it, got rid of it. I usually don't get rid of games so quickly, either.And, this makes it different from PlayStation and Xbox, how?I'm 22. I enjoy most every new Mario platformer and RPG that comes out, I make it my business to obtain each new Mario Kart, I've owned every Zelda game at one point, I own several Kirby games (the latest being pretty difficult even at my age), and there's Super Smash Bros. Did I forget anything?

My point being, they make their games for "family", or essentially all ages. They don't usually make games that are super-violent or have a bunch of blood, because that's not who they're aiming for. They leave it to other developers to make the teen- and adult-oriented games. I mean, it's not like it's hard to find a T- or M-rated game on a Nintendo system.

I was attempting to be general, but some speculators are to precise. I will attempt to explain myself the way I tried to avoid the first time.

Before that though, I would like to say that you missed my meaning. I've owned every Zelda since the first and was raised on them. I grew on Mario 3, I owned all MarioKarts from SNES to Gamecube. I own all the games you speak of, but my meaning was that Gamecube games in particular are becoming the child's system. I enjoyed Tales of Symphonia greatly. I played the sh*t out of Windwaker, but it was not geared graphically towards our generation. And in no way do I mean this changed the greatness of it, I mean that the majority of the world as we know DOES judge a book by it's cover.

And Nintendo is internally oriented, Sony has rammified much more greatly into other sections and Nintendo has remained trying to please it's public. This shows in the graphics of the games, these are not appealing to Western culture in most cases, and so it falls to the composition to win us-but few of us in the U.K. and U.S. care beyond the graphics. That is the only thing Nintendo is lacking, global appeal-they rely on history (for sales) which can only carry you so far. Tales of Symphonia was great-partly because the graphics were inventive. The Pop Art style that is currently popular in Japan shows, and our culture is concerned with the cutting edge and the bad-ass. These graphics orient the system towards children, and often the dialogue is bouncier in Nintendo games-which again is a deterrent for teenagers in love with Dante and Auron, but a plus to Japanes gamers.
These are family games, but family is not what sells-that is all I mean.



Simple, the others sell more. And in many cases have games more beloved by the public due to their style. There are more of the other games than Nintendo (PS3 especially, but Micro. has crappier games in my oppinion), I mean both this in the # of games period. There are TONS of games for all three systems, but the majority are crap or movie titles (bassically the same). If you really want to count a systems games, count only the memorable ones, and all I mean is that there are less for Gamecube because there are less games on the whole. Xbox spits out games like mad but the majority are crap, not like the Gamecube who puts dedication into the real originals, though I feel that the originals are great-but they should spawn more originals rather than get the originals spawning. PS3 has more games than either competitor and therefore a bigger library of quality games, plus they are oriented to suit Other communities as well.

You see why I was generic the first time? Too much time...

Eh, I probably haven't payed enough attention to the GameCube scene enough lately, then. Or maybe not to the Sony scene. Eithere way, I haven't noticed that the graphics of Nintendo-console games in general were somewhat kiddier than Sony-console games. Well, aside from there being no "Nintendo"-like publisher on the Sony system as far as I know of.

As for which system has a better quality game vs crap game ratio, one can't really say. (Except Xbox.) I myself found more games that I liked on the GameCube, but I'm being a bit biased there since half of them are Mario games. Usually I don't take risks getting new franchises. Anyway, one could argue that the PS2 has more quality titles than the GameCube, but this isn't too hard considering the PS2 has more titles than in general. It really doesn't help that Nintendo has this whole kiddie image going on.

...I take it back. Nintendo needs to get a couple serious games out there. I mean, besides the new Zelda game coming out. I think they made one once, a game called Sin and Punishment, but that wasn't released here, which probably didn't help. It probably wasn't real serious, but it was like a shooter that wasn't Star Fox or something. I think. It's been a while since I've read about that game, so I could very well be wrong.

I think Nintendo is doing pretty good. It has been my favorite videogame company ever since 3rd grade(I am in 8th grade now) when I got an N64 and played Donkey Kong 64. My favorite Nintendo series in Zelda. Second is StarFox, and third is Advance Wars and Fire Emblem. The two are alot alike in gameplay.

It's my personal opinion that Nintendo's current slump started years ago. Many years ago. Like, the very end of the Super Nintendo age. I've explained this several times to people on AIM and in person, but I may as well get my viewpoint out into the open on a forum for all to see and freely critisize.

I am a complete supporter of Sony. I've completely sworn off Nintendo, and did so long ago. Most people often expect the answer of "Nintendo suxxors!!!!~!~" when they ask someone like me why they don't like Nintendo anymore. Well, I have my reasons.

I was raised on Gameboy and Super Nintendo as far as gaming goes. I started gaming gaming with titles such as Boogerman, or The Flintstones on the Super Nintendo, or Kirby's Dream Land on the gameboy. Kirby Golf. Kirby All Stars. Super Mario World 2, 3. Lawnmower Man. Tetris Attack. It was my years before I was, like, 9 years old. Then I got Chrono Trigger.

Chrono Trigger. We all know that game. Everyone who plays games these days knows of, and almost definitely has played and beaten CT at least once. It's like the FF7 of yesteryear. I went from that to things like Secret Of Evermore, Super Mario RPG, various older Final Fantasys. Remember all these? and the countless others that I'm not naming?

They all have something in common. Even the ones I didn't name, but go in the same vein. This is the time Nintendo ruled the world. Most of their games that ever made a name for itself had two things: signature Nintendo graphics that made it possible to identify a game as a Nintendo game from just a screencap, and great stories to back them up. It was the greatest years of gaming.

No other system at the time had that. The graphics were never consistent, and the stories often blew, if there was even a story at all. This is precisely the reason Nintendo kicked ass. They spent money on everything. 8bit, 16bit... they'll always be held on a higher tier than anything else.

... Then the next generation started. Nintendo started focusing more on the graphics that their system was capable of. Other newer-age systems from other companies were springing up with similar - comparable, yet maybe better or worse - specs on them. Sadly, though, all the systems slowly began to merge as far as graphics went. Realism, realism, realism. Nintendo lost it's signature graphics, one of the two great things that made them awesome.

Slowly, the good titles that had decent-to-good stories were more often popping up on other systems than Nintendo's systems. Since the others didn't have much experience with money and making games compared to Nintendo, they kept things balanced. Time spent on graphics and time spent on the stories themselves made for more good titles on Playstation and the like.

Nintendo at this point was spending more money on graphics than anything else in the effort for realism. Catering to the new generation cost them both the graphics and the stories. What's left? A company with little to nothing that would bring a gamer such as myself back to them.

I bought a Playstation 1 about two and a half years after its introduction. The new gaming world has FF7 as its greatness. I fell in love with titles like Grandia the First, Final Fantasy 9, Legend of Dragoon, Lunar 2, Vanguard Bandits... and Nintendo was offering me Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Something graphics heavy and story lacking.

There's nothing special about Nintendo's graphics anymore. There's nothing great about the stories. It has fallen from a tier of greatness down to being mediocre at best. Other systems didn't care as much about graphics, they were actually making quality games (despite good looking CGI scenes, the stories were still up to par or better than old SNES gems)..

... and all the while, Nintendo decided to change things they'd said about age-old characters in the past, or make fat plumbers able to jump ten feet in the air or play with water guns, or make X and Y fight eachother for absolutely no reason. Falling more and more into the hole they sunk themselves into at the end of the Super Nintendo's life.

The end.

Tales of Symphonia is the God of RPGs, IMO

Wow. Although I am a Nintendo supporter, I see your reasoning.

DANG, Reki....your hands must be really tired from all that typing...

So, you're saying that OoT was story-lacking? I beg to differ. OoT had a much bigger story than LttP, IMO. Sure it wasn't anywhere near Final Fantasy-calibur, but what Zelda game or even any Nintendo game was?

I also fail to see what you mean about the graphics. Sure every game had their own style during the SNES era. I mean, you were playing with animated art. When N64 came out, there was no style. Style was not an option. The 3D polygons either were very dull and grainy for a realistic look or shiny and smooth for a cartoony look. ...Well, okay, I take that back, there was room for some style (Paper Mario comes to mind), but it wasn't the same as it was with art. And I think that might be why some companies like to use cel-shaded graphics as well as 2D and well-animated characters in this generation; to get back into creating the old but much varying style.

I see your reasoning Lone.

But I add this- Sony was mainly focused on graphics too. I think if Nintendo didn't offer bigger games with new gimmicks, kids would have flocked to the Playstation even more. I think this is when graphics began to mean a lot to consumers, at least a good portion of them.

Plus, I enjoyed SM64. I thought that was pretty damn cool. And I loved Oot. There's story- it just isn't jammed down your throat with mediocre translations like FFVII.

Fay:
Yeah, I acknowledged that Sony spent a significant amount of time on graphics as well. But while doing that, they didn't pay too little attention to gameplay and the story of the game itself. It made for all around better games.

Most systems had their own style when it came to how the graphics looked back in the day, but now they all look pretty damn similar. Thus, we're essentially forced to pick the one that doens't lack in other categories, and for me that ended up being Sony.

I used Zelda OoT as an example for what Nintendo was offering me solely because it was graphics heavy compared to other Nintendo releases, and the story was pretty basic in itself. I never once said there WAS no story, I just said the story itself was lacking. It could have had a lot more depth to it than it did, and as it was there wasn't much that could keep my attention.

Personally I have to disagree with FF7 being as great as people make it out to be. It's as if it is the new CT to people, but I don't think it's anywhere near the scope of awesomeness that CT achieved. Even so, I have to acknowledge what actually is, not what I think is. Which is why I put FF7 on the higher tier.

Draygone:
I'm curious as to how you don't see my point about the graphics.. you pretty much said it right there. SNES's games were really in-your-face in the sense of graphics, they were different and stylistic a lot like other systems of the time (Genesis was pretty stylistic too, but not in as good a way in my opinion).. the stylism in SNES is one of the things that made Nintendo great, and they lost that in the transition to N64 and on. There isn't much stylism in games anymore, just the race for realism.

darklinkomega:
No, not really. That's a good warmup at best. You must not type much..

Zelda Oot had a fantastic story, it was one that doesnt need to be told in many words. It spanned time for crying out loud.

Because spanning time makes for brilliant games.

Ahem. At this specific moment, I am Reki! Yep.
Or at least Reki is stupid and decided to forget to log out of goth's account and thus ended up posting as her. huh.

Also if you forget to note the sarcasm in the above post, I will kick you in the genitals.

i dunno. i wasnto much of a nintendo fan till N64 came out. yea. it had some good games and some bad games for graphics. but sometimes graphics dont count. like..look at FF9. ppl ranted about the game having sh*tty graphics...but overall the story was good. (of course this is for sony) but then i lost interest in nintendo after i got my playstation..welll..after the fact good games stop being made for n64 and then GC came out,,..blah blah blah.

but im a sony fan for life now. cuz it impressed me with some of the games it put out. but i may give the "revolution" a try... cuz..the DS got my attnetion but i wouldnt be to excited for the thing to come out...