The Official "Console War" and Video Game Thread

[IronAvatar]

Nintendo's "bully tactics" were something of a problem for 3rd party developers/publishers back in the day, and I do think that Nintendo should have loosened the shackles to some degree back then. However, I don't 100% disagree with what they did because I do think that by limiting the number of games that any 3rd party company could make for the system, it would push said company to make the best game that they could to try and get as many sales of it as possible. While there were bad games, plenty of good ones resulted as well.

How would it push any developer to make a great game? Even with Nintendo's completely restrictive anti-compete clause, there were still a truck load of awful games on the NES and SNES. Nintendo didn't limit the number of games any developer could make, but it did limit which platform you could make a game for and who made them.

Sony opened things up for 3rd party companies, but almost to a fault. They just opened the flood gates and let them have a field day. Some great games resulted, but A LOT MORE crap resulted as well. As a result, there's just tons of bad games being produced left and right, and it became more and more risky for a 3rd party company to try and do something truely brand new and innovative when coming up with an entirely new, never before seen game because since it wasn't already a recognizable title and franchise, it would be at great risk of getting lost in the mix of crappy games.

I call straw man on this. Are you trying to tell me that there was some long lost golden age of "only great games" in the 8- and 16-bit console days? Because that's absolute crap. There was just as high a percentage of god-awful games back then as there is now.

The only difference is that now, there are more of each kind. You don't have to like that, but this isn't Sony's "fault".

What has often resulted are game series that are popular having sequels and spin offs being pushed out the door left and right with little to no advancement upon the original premise. They feel more like the same game with a few new features rather than a true sequel, whih is sad. It also results in other companies making rip offs of the popular games to try and capitalize on their success.

And this happened on the Megadrive(Genesis) and SNES long before Sony came on the scene. So how is this Sony's fault? Did they somehow reach into the past and manipulate events? Good grief.

The big publishers were guilty of this long before the Playstation came around. How many Madden games were there before? How many different bloody versions of Final Fantasy? Mario platformers? Megaman?

And many 3rd party companies are less inclined to really put a lot of time and effort into creating something interesting and original because the cost to do so is great and if their game gets lost in the mix, then they are toast.

Actually, many 3rd party developers who aren't playing "lowest bidder" are desperatly trying to innovate. The cost is only greater because they're not being forced into operating on a shoe-string budget. Do you know what's going on with Ubisoft's great Wii support? Over 60% of the work is being passed on to those lowest bidder dev's like my previous employer.

And this is hardly a new thing either. Again, not Sony's fault.

Basically, the mediocre games have watered down the market in a way that may never be fixable. And we have Sony to thank for that. When you look at older Nintendo systems back when they had more 3rd party support, and look at the Sony systems, the ratio of good games vs. bad games was arguably much better (in favor of good games) back during Nintendo's reign than it has been during Sony's.

Give us some figures. Prove to use that your opinion is based on facts and not just mere supposition. I think your memory is being pretty selective here.

I'm sorry but Sony has done some aweful things for the video game industry... or more specifically, video game consumers. It might be great for 3rd party companies and people who work for them having jobs and all of that, but in the grand scheme of things more bad has happened than good.

Consumers have more to choose from, surely that's a good thing? The things is, apart from giving console developers more freedom, you can't tell us anything else that Sony have done wrong.

What other awful things have they done, pray tell?

[PJMania]

Too f'in long to actually quote...

While I don't like Sony as a company, I agree with some of the stuff IronAvatar just said. Other than some shoddy hardware with the PS2 (refer to DRE reports), Sony hasn't ruined the gaming industry like some would like to accuse them of. It's not Sony's fault that 3rd party developers wanted to shovel crap in our faces. Had Microsoft, or anyone other than Nintendo or Sega put out a game console for that generation before or instead of Sony when they put out the Playstation, chances are the same results would have come about.

If one wants to accuse Sony of ruining gaming, then one can likewise turn the argument around and throw the blame on Nintendo for dropping their partnership with Sony without warning. Blaming Nintendo would be taboo in reality, but blaming Sony makes blaming Nintendo a logical argument.

[hemanrep]

I really don't see the point in arguing the same things over and over again. I feel like the same issues were brought up the same time last year in this very same thread. What's the point of arguing the same things when no one is going to agree with each other? Why not just agree to disagree. People love Sony, while others like Nintendo or Microsoft. Can we move on from the Sony is GOD and Nintendo is the enemy topic? It's obvious from this generation how much a company's image can change, so just leave it at that.

I know this is a console war thread, but come on...

Please talk about something else.

[markatisu]

When did we start arguing, last I was reading we were complaining about devs not doing good on ps3 or wii because it was easier to make 360 games

I think some people want to beat the same tired drums, I just want good games

[IronAvatar]

I really don't see the point in arguing the same things over and over again. I feel like the same issues were brought up the same time last year in this very same thread.

Yep, they were.

What's the point of arguing the same things when no one is going to agree with each other?

It's quite simple. Although it's not a big deal, you're telling me that my opinion is wrong but you can't give any cold, hard facts to back it up. And any time that you do that, I'll defend my opinion even if it's only a matter of principal.

Also...it's a bit weird this one. Anytime you tell me I'm mistaken about something like Sony's impact on the games industry, it's also like your telling me my experiences in the games industry over the last 10 years are irrelevant. I know how my job changed when Sony came onto the scene and how peoples perception of video games changed too.

I saw more and more people buying video games. I saw more and more new video games on the shelves, and many developesr doing some really innovative stuff too. They were getting a whole lot more bang for their buck...with PS1 games not much more expensive than games in the 16-bit day, it was a pretty good deal.

People love Sony, while others like Nintendo or Microsoft. Can we move on from the Sony is GOD and Nintendo is the enemy topic? It's obvious from this generation how much a company's image can change, so just leave it at that.

See? The very wording of that second sentence is exactly why this debate has gone on as long as it has. You seem to think that because I defend Sony, I think they're the second coming or something and immediately assume that I'm pulling stuff out of my arse in some pique of fanboyism.

Look at it this way. Sony have never actively done anything to force a developer out of business. Nintendo how ever, is quite a different story. Let me tell you of the really fun things they did on my one and only DS title.

1) Messed us around with WiFi libraries. Why would they not supply us with a version that didn't eat almost all of memory until it was almost too late for us to add wifi functionality? After all, Mario Kart was using the wifi library so obviously there had been a working version for quite a long time. Why were 3rd party developers not being given it too?

When we asked them this, a working version mysteriously appeared. But only for us. I'm told by some former colleagues that their new wifi libs didn't appear until after Christmas.

2) Reproduction times were suddenly increased. about 8 weeks before we were due to master, almost all 3rd party developers got a nice little e-mail informing us that reproduction agreements and schedules would not be kept. DS cartridge reproduction was now increased from 8 weeks to 16.

As we had already wasted time waiting for Nintendo to give us wifi libraries there was nothing we could do. We couldn't request an earlier time for reproduction. We and many others would miss the 2006 Christmas period, and our publisher would not make any profit on it's investment.

If anybody is wondering why Nintendo dominated the DS chart for Christmas 2006, it's because they made sure they didn't have to compete with 3rd party developers. Oh...and their games were rather good....but then, judging from review scores so was ours.

[sarcasm]
But that's ok....Nintendo's business practices may be underhand but they ensure that you only get games of the highest quality, right? It's all for the benefit of the consumer and the good of the industry!
[/sarcasm]

I know this is a console war thread, but come on...

Please talk about something else.

I will if you start making sense.

[hemanrep]

Look, I'm not even going to reply to your last post in detail. I could easily look up some information on the net to defend Dynamo's point, but like I said before, we're going in circles. It's a moot point. You love Sony. I'm not the only person who sees this. It's great you want to support them, but I'm not a blind loyalist. Say what you want..."I am a game developer...blah blah blah." I understand you have a different perspective on things, but every time you bring up you're a game developer, it makes it seem like our opinions don't matter. When have you ever said anything positive about Microsoft or Nintendo? I have a lot of love for Sony...hell, it seems like I'm not the only person here who probably would have given Uncharted Game of the Year. That's how much I loved that game. I'm not against Sony...but I'm not against Nintendo or Microsoft either. My posts have, for the most part been neutral. Your posts speak for themselves and other posters just turn a blind eye to it...just like I will from now on. It seems like every time you post, there is a lot of controversy. LOL.

Let's agree to disagree and move on and stop attacking people.

[TheDeviot]

J@ck 7r@/\/\!31 ftw! 1111010101010101010111


Had to lighten up the mood.

[hemanrep]

J@ck 7r@/\/\!31 ftw! 1111010101010101010111


Had to lighten up the mood.

Yeah...sorry guys! Hey looks like the Queen loves the Wii!

MAKE WAY FOR THE Q Wii N
Elizabeth hogs Wills' Xmas gift from Kate ROYAL EXCLUSIVE
By Dean Rousewell

The gadget-loving Queen has become HOOKED on Prince William's new Nintendo Wii games console.

William's girlfriend Kate Middleton bought him the £200 gift for Christmas - but he now has to share it with his grandma.

A Palace source told The People: "When she saw William playing a game after lunch at Sandringham she thought the Nintendo looked tremendous fun and begged to join in.

[markatisu]

Let's agree to disagree and move on and stop attacking people.

I agree, none of the consoles need a defense force. If you want to do that then join over at gamefaqs.

When Sony does something positive I will be more than glad to discuss it, I really liked Uncharted and think that Sony themselves bailed on their own system this christmas in the hopes 2008 would be better. I have charts, graphs and financial numbers to back that up but there is no point as I am not trying to argue that anyone else is better (Nintendo has 3rd party concerns and MS has hardware issues that 1 year later still are not being fixed outside of a super long warrenty).

Now getting back to better things than fighting amongst fanboy issues, Sony is reporting it sold about 1.3 million PS3's between Nov 28-Dec 31st. If that holds true (they have exaggerated numbers last month and October as well that the NPD showed were over stated) then that means that for December they will have probably between 850k-1 million sold, which is a vast improvement (even with Decembers heavy sales avg).

That is good news for the other 2 platforms as well since the 360 has always been about 20-50% ahead of the PS3 from month to month and the Wii remains sold out to this day at least in the US.

The only thing that will hurt Nintendo is if they could not deliver systems to stores, if thats the case then Microsoft will win December for the 2nd time this year (remember they won October by only 20-30k)

I fully expect MS to have massive software sales again, as GH3 remains constantly sold out, COD4 (which sold excess of 1 million) dropped by $20-35 the day after christmas and Assasins Creed looks to be a solid 360 seller.

Mass Effect also has sold more than 1.5 million copies worldwide so that is excellent news for Bioware!

On the PS3 side we know that Uncharted has sold VERY well in the UK/EU, it bombed in Japan (which was expected given the genre), and we all await US sales to see if it could do better than the 117k it did (which still to date is the largest non launch PS3 game release).

Nintendo stayed about the same, Mario Galaxy shifted a ton more units, Mario and Sonic Olympics is selling incredibly in the UK/EU as well as Japan and the US, and the Wii Guitar Hero has over 1.5 million people playing over Wifi per week.

[mannyscollectibles]

So can we start part 2 of this thread???

[Dynamo of Eternia]

My reply follows. These are merely my opinons on the matter. I respect that others may not feel the same way, and that's fine, but this is just what I have to say on things, and I apologize for the length in advance.

How would it push any developer to make a great game? Even with Nintendo's completely restrictive anti-compete clause, there were still a truck load of awful games on the NES and SNES. Nintendo didn't limit the number of games any developer could make, but it did limit which platform you could make a game for and who made them.

I recall reading somewhere that at least back in the NES days, Nintendo did at one point limit how many games each company could make for the system. The result was companies creating separate divisions under other names (i.e. Ultra games, the company that TMNT 1 and 2 on NES was released under, which was really Konami) to squeeze around this issue.

There were indeed bad games, and plenty of them. I admited that in my original post. I just don't think the ratio of them back in thoes days was as huge as it is today.

I call straw man on this. Are you trying to tell me that there was some long lost golden age of "only great games" in the 8- and 16-bit console days? Because that's absolute crap. There was just as high a percentage of god-awful games back then as there is now.

The only difference is that now, there are more of each kind. You don't have to like that, but this isn't Sony's "fault".

Sony opening up the flood gates allowed developers/publishers pretty much make whatever they wanted whenever they wanted with little to no restrictions. The shear number of games coming out increased, thus making it increasingly difficult for any one game (particularly any brand new game that wasn't a sequel or spin-off of an existing popular title) to get noticed. The result has been a lot of mediocre efforts for fear of spending too much on any one title because doing so could mean disaster.

And this happened on the Megadrive(Genesis) and SNES long before Sony came on the scene. So how is this Sony's fault? Did they somehow reach into the past and manipulate events? Good grief.

The big publishers were guilty of this long before the Playstation came around. How many Madden games were there before? How many different bloody versions of Final Fantasy? Mario platformers? Megaman?

It's not a numbers issue. It's not a question of how many, but how different each game was. While I personally am not a huge Final Fantasy fan, that game series is one that at least seems to make each sequel unique and different from the previous games, while keeping enough common elements to make it familiar enough... and even today that still seems to be the case.

The Mario games are another exception (meaning the primary series of Mario games... I don't count all of the odd random games that Nintendo makes that happen to feature Mario in some capacity), as well as the Zelda games.

The Megaman games were also quite good at adding something new each time. I admit that esspecially back during the NES days, each new game wasn't quite as original when compared to things like the Mario sequels, but that series still did a better job IMO than many games to today.


The Madden games have likely always been repetitive (with maybe the excetion of the transition to new platforms with new graphics, capabilities, etc). That seems to be the case with most sports games that have a new edition every year from what I can tell. Though, I've personally never been a big sports fan in general, let alone a fan of sports related video games, so I've never played many of those myself.

The point is that speaking as a gamer who has owned ( and still owns) and of course played many game systems and the games for then over the years (I still have Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Gameboy, Genesis, Sega CD, 32X, PS1, N64, Saturn, GBA SP, Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube, Xbox, Nintendo DS, Xbox 360, Wii, and PS3), I found that around the time Sony started taking things over, this is where the trend began to change.

I really didn't notice it so much during the PS1 days originally, because at the time 3D graphics were still new and almost everything seemed new and original around that time. But it was during the PS2 era where the repetitiveness of many games seemed more and more obvious.

It may not be Sony's direct fault... it's not like they dictated for companies to make games in this manner. And this problem is not limited to games on Sony systems, either, but it just seemed to really start more when Sony was really gaining steam and dominating in the video game market.

But I just find many games these days, particularly ones that tend to be designed more for the PS and Xbox systems, to have sequels that feel more like the equivelant of adding an expansion pack to the previous game rather than a brand new sequel experience. Games on the Nintendo systems (particularly the first party games) are generally the exception to this. They seem to truely try and add something new to the mix each time. I'm not saying that I love every new change each time, but I applaud them for not just sticking to the same old thing and throwing flashy new graphics on it and claiming innovation for it, which seems to be the trend with many games (not all, but many, and from my perspective, it seems like a much bigger % than back in the 8 and 16 bit days) these days made by third party companies and first party companies of the two competing systems.

Actually, many 3rd party developers who aren't playing "lowest bidder" are desperatly trying to innovate. The cost is only greater because they're not being forced into operating on a shoe-string budget. Do you know what's going on with Ubisoft's great Wii support? Over 60% of the work is being passed on to those lowest bidder dev's like my previous employer.

And this is hardly a new thing either. Again, not Sony's fault.

Ok.

some figures. Prove to use that your opinion is based on facts and not just mere supposition. I think your memory is being pretty selective here.

I never said that what I am presenting is anything more than my opinion. Though, I know I am not alone in this opinion. Many people I speak to about gaming who aren't complete and total fan boys of any one system and/ or company feel the same way about gaming today compared to how things used to be (and I am not saying that you are a fan boy, but I've met fan boys from all sides of the spectrum, whether they be PS fans, Xbox fans, Nitnendo fans, etc, all of whom are just blinded by their inability to even give the competition a chance).

But most of my point is what the general quality of games seem to be these days, which is all a matter of individual subjective opinion anyway. It's kind of hard to have facts and specific figures to back that up, so I don't see why you are asking for them.

I just know what the trend has been for me, and as Sony rose to popularity (and mind you, I own PS1 and PS2, so I was right there along for the ride), gaming seemed to become more medicore in many respects. And I know I am not alone in feeling that way.

Consumrs have more to choose from, surely that's a good thing? The things is, apart from giving console developers more freedom, you can't tell us anything else that Sony have done wrong.

What other awful things have they done, pray tell?

(warning, long response ahead)...

Choice is a good thing to a certain extent. Being stuck with very few options isn't ideal, but having too many options to me seems just as non-ideal. If you have too many choices, then it's often harder to make one. And it's harder for any one option to be a success. Surely you must at least somewhat see the logic in this.

As for the other evil things that Sony, and Microsoft as well have done is taking the practice of making an overly expensive system and underselling it to the masses with hopes of recouping the expenses with the sales of games to the extreme.

The problem is that they have forced the technology along faster than it logically should be evolving. And this is where competition and choices become a problem.

A trend has occurred in which roughly every 5 years new consoles get released, whether it's technologically logical to release them at that time or not.

The result has been the console makers trying to up the technology each time around. Of course, the problem is that if technology, in general, hasn't affordably moved along quickly enough to justify this, then the companies have to find other ways around this issue.

And that's where the problems of Sony and Microsoft come into play. They push the technology ahead faster than it should occur. Of course, they both have other means of profits from other products they sell to subsidize what would in some cases otherwise be a failing line of systems.

And of course this often comes at the expensve of proper quality control and good customer service. I've heard many cases of PS2 disc read error problems with out of warranty units in which Sony wouldn't repair the system for free, even though the owner didn't abuse it. And let's not forget the RROD issues with the 360, in which out of warranty systems were sent in over and over and people has to pay Microsoft $180 or so to have the system fixed. Granted, since that time they have extended the warranty to 3 years on the systems and offered refunds to people to previously paid for repairs, but only because they were facing a class action lawsuit over the problems with the systems. Granted, the PS3 has prove itself to be an overall solid system, but it also cost so much that it's now way behind in the game.

Nintendo, on the other hand, has always made systems that profit from day 1, and from most cases that I've heard have had good customer service in the event of a system going bad. In many cases (at least from the stories I have heard), regardless of warranty status, they will repair a system at no cost to the customer, with maybe the exception of the customer having to pay to have it shipped to them if it is out of warranty.



But getting back to my overall point, the process of releasing systems every 5 years no matter what is absurd, and prematurely pushing the technology along is a bad idea (and yes, I know this turn over time frame existed before Sony was in the mix, but before that time the tech could be largely upgraded within that time frame and still be reasonably affordable and profitable.. . the same cannot be said for today).

Realistically speaking, the current generation of systems shouldn't even be available yet. We should still be gaming on the PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube (though technically even the PS2 and Xbox were a little ahead of their time for their own good).

The Xbox 360 and even more so the PS3 have been designed as Hi-Def systems. But Hi-Def is still pretty new and people are still gradually jumping on board. Realistically, it would have made more sense for gaming systems to go Hi-Def maybe a year or two from now, not a year or two ago like they did.

The tech would be more affordable, and a larger Hi-Def ready audience would have been there from the start.

And in addition to the rather large cost of these newer systems, we've seen more changes to these systems in a short period of time (i.e. the Xbox 360 adding the HDMI output, as well as the changes to the spec of PS3 to make it more affordable) than we've seen with any other previous system just to adjust them to be affordable and adapting to the Hi-Def market (rather than just being more ready for it from day 1), which is just further evidence of how they prematurely came to the market.

The Wii, IMO, is the only logical system of this generation in the sense that it is profitable from day 1 and it truely has given something new to the gaming experience beyond just graphics. Graphically, this system is more on par with the last gen of systems, but my whole arguement is that's where we should still be right now. The Wii mainly exsits though since Nintendo had no other choice but to release a new system around the same time as these others in order to compete.... thankfully it has really paid off for them.


However, logically, the PS3 and 360 for the purposes of logical, affordable, completitively priced consoles that are relatively profitable from day 1 should not exist right now.

I know that many fans of these systems (which to a certain extent I am part, as I own them both) might disagree, esspecially the ones who are really really into the Hi-Def graphics, but they come from a place of being spoiled.

Basically, the die hard fans who would probably rip me apart for what I am saying here and wouldn't want to give them up no matter what the cost are (IMO) suffering from a Veruca-Salt-like "I WANT IT NOW" attitude, and Sony and Microsoft are like Veruca's parents spoiling her (or in this case the fans) left and right, thus essentially being responsible for creating the "I WANT IT NOW" attitude, which wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Sony and Microsoft spoiling the marketplace and the fans with technology that is too advanced for it's own good. Nintendo is like the logical, well balanced parent advnacing the systems as the technology logically, affordably allows for it to do so, and not forcing it along at great consequences.

But what this means is that come 2009-2011, it will be the general time frame for the new systems to come out, Sony and Microsoft will have to try and top these systems, and what will be left for them to do in that regard? I know Sony claims that they want the PS3 to last 10 years and don't plan to have a successor for it right away, but if the other two competing companies make new systems around that time and Sony doesn't, it will look like they are holding onto outdated tech (even though it's actually the more logical tech for that time period), and could hurt them more than help them by not making something new to stay in the market.

But how will they advance beyond the PS3 at that time with that being the case? They'll have to create something so much better and more powerful that the production cost will likely be just as high if not higher than that of the PS3, which would only mean taking the problems they've had (i.e. being competiviely priced) and making them worse.

The problem with this practice is that with the tech being pushed along so prematurely, I would imagine that it must therefore prematurely increase the cost to develop games for these platforms. While the increase in graphics and power opens up many possiblities, I would assume it also increases costs, and I would think for that reason that 3rd party developers would be better off if the tech advanced on what I would consider to be a more logical and affordable time frame.

It's a terrible effect that is spiraling out of control more and more as time goes on, and it's unfortunate.

Sony isn't the sole guilty party in this, as Microsoft is also a large corporate conglomerate doing the same thing. Though, Sony did pave the way and Microsoft sort of followed, so IMO Sony is slightly more guilty for that reason, and also because they pushed the tech a bit farther along this time around than Microsoft did (though Microsoft is having the greater problems with malfunctions, so I guess that evens them out to being about as guilty).

You can disagree with me if you want to. Everyone is entitled to their opinon, but this happens to be mine and I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else in anything I've said. Even my comparison to Vercua Salt being a spoiled brat from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory isn't meant to be insulting, but it's just a somewhat extreme comparison that I am using to prove a point. Being given THAT many options is like giving a kid everything that they say they want on a whim. It just often stops them from being able to appreciate any one thing that they have as much as they would if it wasn't for all of the other distractions out there. Options are good, but within reason.

[CowboyGuy]

Wow, omg. After reading through this whole page I don't even know where to start!

All I will add is this:

There is no doubt that Sony broadened and improved the gaming industry. To me, after the Playstation...gaming became even more "cool" and "hip".

The real question is not whether they are "god" or number one or anything. The real question is if the Playstation console is still groundbreaking and RELEVANT today.

Nintendo has found a way to make a differentiation between itself and it's competitors. I think Sony jumped the shark, made a powerful...amazing system. But it's ahead of it's time. Clearly the tech is great, but pricey. Most people I know want a PS3. But will never own one because it's "too expensive".

When the time comes, I can only imagine what a Mario or Zelda game could do on a future Nintendo system similar to PS3's power!

Before I get killed, I will add that I asked for/received a 360 for Christmas. And I love it! But I still have more fun playing the Wii. Publishers need to stop thinking about graphics and make the games fun and enjoyable, otherwise people will not want to pick the controller back up!

[Dynamo of Eternia]

There is no doubt that Sony broadened and improved the gaming industry. To me, after the Playstation...gaming became even more "cool" and "hip".

Or in otherwords became more mainstream.

And what unfortunately happens is when things go mainstream, they get watered down to try and appeal to more people. I know, it's business and all, and there are the positive aspects of it. But the more mainstream gaming has become, the more watered down and repetitive many of the games that have come out have seemed to be IMO. And it all just goes back to what I've been saying.

[PanMan]

Wow, that's some pretty heavy discussion going on here.

I just want to ask who has ever played Fire Emblem? I really enjoyed LOTR: The Third Age (GBA), which is a turn-based strategy game, so I read up on IGN and found that this game was heavily influenced by the Fire Emblem series. So I put some time into the first Fire Emblem (GBA) and have really grown to enjoy it. I'm not a big RPG guy, but now I want to get Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance (Gamecube) and Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn (Wii). The trouble is, I'm having a hell of a time finding the Gamecube game, and I would rather play that one before the Wii game.

I just wanted to ask who has played it and how did you enjoy it? Also, it appears as though the console games are essentially exactly the same style as the handheld games. Is this so? How similar are they (I would assume the console games are more in-depth)? And any suggestions on where I could get this online (preferably Canadian stores but I may resort to a US store if I have to). I don't want to go ebay though.

Or should I just get the Wii game and look for the Gamecube game at my own leisure? I heard the Wii game is a sequel of sorts to the Gamecube game though.

Anyways, I've gone on long enough. Hopefully some of you have played these games before.

[redskyy]

If I may chime in during this period of crossfire...

No company is without fault. I think every company shoulders some of the blame, be it Sega, Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony. They've all made plenty of mistakes, which has contributed to the current state of gaming. As for the argument about the degradation and quality reduction of games around the PSone/Saturn/N64 era, I don't think you can necessarily point fingers. An argument could be made over the movement and issue of 2D vs. 3D and the effects it had on the industry, but placing Sony in a negative light over less restrictions and Nintendo in a positive over having more is a bit odd.

Your argument over Nintendo's 'innovation' versus Sony/Microsoft/third-party's 'stagnation' seems to be more about game preference. I'm not discrediting Nintendo for trying new things with the DS and Wii. The sales numbers will show how successful they have been with consumers. But your harsh criticism of games not released on Nintendo's platforms or from Nintendo themselves seems a bit unfair. Your first point about the quality control of the pre- and post-16 bit era seems to go hand-in-hand with your disapproving attitude over the affects of gaming becoming mainstream, which aren't necessarily related. Having less restrictions means more room for creativity and innovation, the things you're praising Nintendo for in their first-party games. There has always been a saturation of bad video games during any given console era, but this recent generation only sticks out more because gaming has become more mainstream, especially with the DS and the Wii. Nintendo's platforms aren't exempt from this saturation either, with many games either having gimmicky controls tacked on or being reduced to a mediocre party game.

If you want to point fingers about the quality of Sony/Microsoft ("high def graphics & expansion packs") versus that of Nintendo ("innovation"), then that's purely subjective. How was the GameCube and its great first-party/bare third-party support better than the PS2/Xbox, which had both quality first and third-party support? How is the PS3/360's game offerings any better or worse than that of the Wii's, with the latter mostly comprised of a good first-party games and a huge mess of party games. If you want to blame the problems on gaming becoming more mainstream, then I guess you can also blame Nintendo for creating consoles with the most casual appeal. Non-gamers are the majority of Nintendo's latest sales numbers, which is causing a massive release of 'watered down and repetitive' party games on the Wii. This is how the video game industry has always been. It didn't intensify because Sony or Microsoft decided to start making consoles.

I do agree about this latest generation of consoles being released too early. The PS2, GameCube, and especially the Xbox could have had a lot longer console life. With the PS2 pretty much dominating, many would have bought into the Xbox later on with series like Halo if Microsoft didn't completely kill support with the release of the 360. The anticipated motion control add-on for GameCube could have added the renewed life and casual appeal to the GCN that the Wii currently has. However, I think you'll see a lot more innovation on the 360/PS3 in subtle and less obvious improvements, such as improved and realistic AI, real-time rendering, and other such changes. Even if this latest batch of consoles waited a couple of years before release, we still wouldn't have seen a giant leap. The Wii is showing to be very capable with its motion controls, but this 'creativity' has been slow to spread to third-parties.

I agree with some of your points, Dynamo, but others seem to show your personal preference for Nintendo rather than being objective. I know you stated that it was your opinion, but you shouldn't make assumptions and accusations because of it.

Wow, that's some pretty heavy discussion going on here.

I just want to ask who has ever played Fire Emblem? I really enjoyed LOTR: The Third Age (GBA), which is a turn-based strategy game, so I read up on IGN and found that this game was heavily influenced by the Fire Emblem series. So I put some time into the first Fire Emblem (GBA) and have really grown to enjoy it. I'm not a big RPG guy, but now I want to get Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance (Gamecube) and Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn (Wii). The trouble is, I'm having a hell of a time finding the Gamecube game, and I would rather play that one before the Wii game.

I just wanted to ask who has played it and how did you enjoy it? Also, it appears as though the console games are essentially exactly the same style as the handheld games. Is this so? How similar are they (I would assume the console games are more in-depth)? And any suggestions on where I could get this online (preferably Canadian stores but I may resort to a US store if I have to). I don't want to go ebay though.

Or should I just get the Wii game and look for the Gamecube game at my own leisure? I heard the Wii game is a sequel of sorts to the Gamecube game though.

Anyways, I've gone on long enough. Hopefully some of you have played these games before.

Radiant Dawn is a direct sequel to Path of Radiance, but you don't need to play PoR to understand anything in RD. There really isn't much Wii-specific improvements in the sequel, so it would be better to start with PoR first. You can actually load up your PoR save in RD for special incentives. While they do a good job of explaining story elements from PoR, it would be much more enjoyable to experience them first-hand. You see many of the same characters and see some of the same locales.

As for where to find Path of Radience, keep checking GameQuestDirect. They are generally good at having out-of-stock games, but they don't currently have PoR in stock.

[krosfyah]

sigh, I hate the 'war' part of this thread, i've said it before but it just becomes so pointless. arguing your point online (and most times offline too) never gets anyone anywhere it's just a contest to see who can yell louder and longer. no offense to anyone that likes doing it, but I was loving this thread when we verged away from the war part and started discussing games and such. sure there some personal opinions thrown in that showed 'loyalty' or fandom but it wasn't the zealotry that usually happens when discussing gaming.

anyway I just felt like venting a bit. (and not to say that anyone who talked a lot on this stuff is being a zealot... )

[Skullface]

Call me when this thread gets back to being fun......

And can we stop the giant posts please? It's one thing to make or debate a point, but to get into every single little detail about something not only wastes bandwidth, but so much time in reading or sorting past to get to the next post.......

[hemanrep]

sigh, I hate the 'war' part of this thread, i've said it before but it just becomes so pointless. arguing your point online (and most times offline too) never gets anyone anywhere it's just a contest to see who can yell louder and longer. no offense to anyone that likes doing it, but I was loving this thread when we verged away from the war part and started discussing games and such. sure there some personal opinions thrown in that showed 'loyalty' or fandom but it wasn't the zealotry that usually happens when discussing gaming.

anyway I just felt like venting a bit. (and not to say that anyone who talked a lot on this stuff is being a zealot... )

I 100% agree. That's why I like to discuss video games here rather than going to an actual gaming forum...posters there just end up arguing in circles about the same things.

This thread is usually relaxed on the "war" aspect and is why I enjoy reading and posting here.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't care about graphics or the technology in consoles, but at the end of the day, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all have contributed to advancing the industry forward in it's own way. Sony brought the industry into the mainstream; Microsoft added an amazing online infrastructure that other companies should copy; and Nintendo continues to develop high quality, innovative games, and bring in non-gamers. Each has it's faults, but those faults help make each company better in the long run.

[IronAvatar]

So, so many points....so much time spent at your poor worn out keyboard!

I actually agree with quite a few points you've made there, particulary the spiraling cost and forced hardware revisions. These are two reasons that I'm sitting out of console development right now, because it's not a substainable business model the way it stands. And I really don't want to get caught in the middle when that model crashes.

But my basic opinion still stands....I know how tough Sony actually are when it comes to scrutineering concept approvals for games. While I was working on Stargate, we didnt actually have concept approval for a long time because they would say; "uh guys, this is pretty much like any mediocre FPS on the PC. That's not something that we want on the console."

They wanted us to do something more unique, and just having the Stargate licenses wasn't enough.

But regardless, crap games still got made. There's only so far you can go to limiting what get's released before somebody like EA who has enough cash to say "you're ruining our business, so we're going to sue you". And keep in mind, this is exactly what caused Nintendo to make its licensing model less restrictive.

With this in mind, I'm still going to say that Sony are not to blame for this, and from my experiences, policed this as best as they could. The blame for mediocre games lies squarely on the developers and publishers themselves. And I know this because I've worked on quite a few stinkers in the past that could have been so much better if things had been done differently.

The more I think about it, the more I can say there was a "golden age" of vidoe games but only because it was still a pretty small business. It wasn't main stream the way it is today, and so the market was a lot more focused and the needs of more hardcore video gamers were serviced on a regular basis.

But now before you even get to pre-production you have to work out who your target audience will be, when before you just said "err...everybody who owns console x". And also, the last console generation was really telling in what was wrong with development practices as people concentrated on the technology side rather than making sure the gameplay was pretty solid.

It was almost as many people said "Gameplay? Oh yeah, we'll fit that in last". Christ...I know my last PS2 project was like that, because most of the time we were struggling with an engine that just wasn't suited to the task. So much so, the gameplay sort of became a secondary objective, atleast for me. My daily mantra became "I just want to get this sucker working and out the door". At no point did I think "Oh yeah, and fun to play too".

But that wasn't Sony's fault...that was mine for not convinving my superiors that we needed to do things differently.

[GeologyMule]

Call me when this thread gets back to being fun......

I finally got the Wii Zapper. It's pretty neat, moving around with the numchuck is awkward, but it's still pretty cool. Link's crossbow training is hard!

Ok, back to warcraft :0)

[markatisu]

Fire Emblem rocks!! The new one is super duper hard in comparison to its predecessor so anyone who wants to get into Fire Emblem should definitly start with the GC Path of Radiance (it will also get you filled in more on the story that continues in the Wii one). Its a very traditional game, in the sense it does not have super flashy graphics or CGI movies, its based on pure strategy gameplay and thought. The Wii version though has some beautiful CGI rendered movies, and they have made some tweaks to the gameplay engine to take advantage of the Wii, but nothing that probably could not have been done on the GC.

When we play the Wii version I turn off the fighting movies, change the speed to fast, and the game plays a lot better imho.

I am still hoping for a remake of Fire Emblem 1 on either the DS or the Wii or an English translation on the Virtual Console, it should be noted that the Wii version has sold 2x what Path of Radiance did on the GC in both JP and the US so we should see another Wii one announced sometime in the next few years (it takes them about 2 years to make one for consoles). They have already announced another DS version, but the storyline is still a secret.

Its amazing that Fire Emblem was all but banned from the US by Nintendo until its popularity spiked with Super Smash Bros Melee appearances by Marth and Roy. The Fire Emblem additions to Super Smash Bros Brawl are amazing as well with the destructible castle.

Speaking of the Wii Zapper, the next Zapper game has a new trailer

House of the Dead 2 and 3 Return

I do not remember the House of th Dead 3 being that fast before, I loaded up my Xbox copy and it did not seem to be that fast. Hopefully a higher quality trailer comes available on Sega's site but I am definitly getting this game.

And last but not least the VC releases for today

WII-KLY UPDATE: TWO NEW CLASSIC GAMES ADDED TO WII SHOP CHANNEL

Jan. 7, 2008

Can't believe it's already 2008? Soothe that sense of future shock with a visit to the Wii Shop Channel, where we've just added a pair of awesome vintage games from way back in the 20th century. This week's new offerings include an unpredictable island-hopping adventure and a legendary fighting title, each guaranteed to deliver classic gaming excitement throughout the new year and beyond.

Two new classic games go live at 9 a.m. Pacific time. Nintendo adds new games to the Wii Shop Channel every Monday. Wii™ owners with a high-speed Internet connection can redeem Wii Points™ to download the games. Wii Points can be purchased in the Wii Shop Channel or at retail outlets. This week's new games are:

Star Tropics™ (NES®, 1 player, Rated E for Everyone-Mild Fantasy Violence, 500 Wii Points): Find out just how resourceful you can be in this classic game, with its mixture of adventure and RPG elements. Step into the shoes of Mike Jones, a teenage star pitcher from Seattle who has come to the tropics to visit his famous archeologist uncle, Dr. Jones. After being told that his uncle has been abducted, Mike begins a perilous quest in order to rescue him and figure out the mysterious plot behind his disappearance. Luckily for Mike, he meets helpful villagers and finds more powerful weapons as he explores numerous locations and island-hops using his uncle's submarine. You'll never know what to expect next as the cosmic story unfolds over the course of eight action-packed chapters, ranging from Dr. Jones's lab on C-Island to an alien spacecraft. Who knew a tropical vacation could turn into a mission to save the world?

THE KING OF FIGHTERS '94 (NEOGEO, 1-2 players, Rated T for Teen-Animated Blood, Mild Language, Mild Suggestive Themes, Alcohol & Tobacco Reference, Violence, 900 Wii Points): As the first game in the long-running KING OF FIGHTERS series, THE KING OF FIGHTERS '94 brought together popular characters from other well-known franchises and pitted them against each other. Match warriors from Fatal Fury against favorites from its sister series, Art of Fighting. Or see if the casts of the Ikari Warriors and Psycho Soldier series better suit your fighting style. Plus, there's a set of brand new characters, exclusive to the KOF series, who are willing to join the fray. But there's a twist: Instead of the standard best-two- out-of-three-rounds fight setup, players choose one of eight teams, each made up of three teammates. To win, all members of the other team must be eliminated before your fighters are knocked out. Use the game's power gauge to inflict maximum damage and end the round with a devastating finishing move. It's a battle royal unlike anything else-a game whose inspiration is easily seen in the fighting games that followed it. Can your team be the last one standing?

For more information about Wii, please visit wii.com

[Skullface]

I finally got the Wii Zapper. It's pretty neat, moving around with the numchuck is awkward, but it's still pretty cool. Link's crossbow training is hard!

Ok, back to warcraft :0)

A buddy of mine got the zapper for me for X-Mas, but I have yet to try it out. I did buy the shotgun style shell a while ago and tried it with RE4 and had a "blast".

[krosfyah]

I 100% agree. That's why I like to discuss video games here rather than going to an actual gaming forum...posters there just end up arguing in circles about the same things.

This thread is usually relaxed on the "war" aspect and is why I enjoy reading and posting here.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't care about graphics or the technology in consoles, but at the end of the day, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all have contributed to advancing the industry forward in it's own way. Sony brought the industry into the mainstream; Microsoft added an amazing online infrastructure that other companies should copy; and Nintendo continues to develop high quality, innovative games, and bring in non-gamers. Each has it's faults, but those faults help make each company better in the long run.

yeah I can't STAND going to the real video game forums...I cut that out in 1999. With the last part of what you said - YES! see THAT is why competition is good. it makes things better for consumers and the industry, I'd rather we have a healthy competetive market than one where only one company makes consoles and everyone just licenses out the tech from them (what Sony stated they wanted to do around the time the ps2 was released. ) I won't lie I'm still kind of sour because of that idea, but I can still give props when due.

Speaking of the Wii Zapper, the next Zapper game has a new trailer

House of the Dead 2 and 3 Return

does dance of joy!!! can't WAIT for this!!

[GeologyMule]

yeah I can't STAND going to the real video game forums...

There are other forums on the interweb ? Interesting...


Anyways. I've noticed that my WiiMote and Zapper jumps around on the screen a lot. I have my sensor bar placed on top of the tv, but here is the problem The top of my tv is slightly slanted so the bar isn't perfectly flat, so I think that is the problem. I can't put it at the base of the TV because the tv is too big. uhg.

[markatisu]

I've noticed that my WiiMote and Zapper jumps around on the screen a lot. I have my sensor bar placed on top of the tv, but here is the problem The top of my tv is slightly slanted so the bar isn't perfectly flat, so I think that is the problem. I can't put it at the base of the TV because the tv is too big. uhg.

Do you have the Wii set to see the sensor bar above the TV?

It has 2 Sensor bar placement settings in the Wii settings area, also look at the sensitivity setting in the main Wii setup and see if lowering it helps it read better. Also try changing out the batteries, sometimes they are low and the wiimote does not alert you because its still in the safe zone.

The sensor bar does not always have to be placed at the base of the TV, especially if you have a big one that sits on the floor

Also with Ghost Squad and Links Crossbow Training it has calibration settings that it uses to determine where your gun is at. REUC does not but then again it plays more like a regular game then a light gun game.