Nintendo VP speaks: past-gen, Nintendo-created titles free!

[Cmosfm]

Strange, isn't it?

I love Nintendo but I HATE threads about Nintendo. They always turn into this childish bickering where at least one forum member embarrasses me.

How can I make it stop?

Lock all Nintendo Threads!

....or just this one? I dunno.

[boatofcar]

i'm not defending anything against whomeever, i'm just telling you how ridiculous it is to compare the Revolution with the 7800.


Sigh...ok, once more, with feeling.


We don't know a lot about the Revolution.

One of the few things Nintendo has made known about the Revolution is that:

1. It will be backwards compatible with the Gamecube.
2. Older games will be available for purchase online, possibly with new added features such as online play.

Two facts about the Atari 7800:
1. It was backwards compatible with the Atari 2600
2. Older games were available for purchase, possibly with new added features.


If you say it's ridiculous to compare the two machines, I don't know what to tell you, other than not seeing the similarities puts you in extreme denial.

I was mistaken earlier when I was talking about Millipede-I meant Centipede.

http://www.atari-computermuseum.de/carts2600/atari_centipede_s.jpg http://www.gamegrid.de/bilder/video/centipede.jpg

EDIT: Fixed image tags.

[Lost Monkey]

It is still ridiculous to compare the 7800 to the Revolution, because the 7800 offered little other than the arcade remakes... the reprogrammed games on the 7800 (your example being Centipede) were the "meat and potatoes" of the 7800 - the Revolution will have its own entirely distinct catalogue apart from the added bonus of the back catalogue.. why is this not sinking in?

Not to mention, that the 7800 was released as an attempt by Atari to cash in on the market Nintendo had revitalized - the 7800 was 3 year old hardware that had been sitting fallow. It was not a "serious" contender, ever - it was a half-assed stab at the market from the Tramiels.

[Ed Oscuro]

Well, your point's well taken yet Nintendo faces some different challenges. Nintendo sorely needs backwards compatibility and the downloadable games would at worst have no effect on a prospective buyer, but I can't see the idea being seen badly.

One of the key facts that makes the Revolution's approach fundamentally different from that of the 7800 was that Atari was selling outdated games as their best offering. Nintendo is saying that they're going to concentrate on gameplay more than graphics this round, and (with the notable exception of Mario 64x4 for the DS) they aren't going to be peddling old titles as their frontrunners. Heck, look at Twilight Princess - Nintendo's going to lengths to keep their not-so-current console alive.

[Leo_A]

Centipede was a title programmed to take advantage of the 7800, wasn't a rereleased 2600 Centipede. Show me all these Revolution titles like the hi res Duck Hunt game that have been reprogrammed to take advantage of Revolution's capabilities.

Your argument is flawed. These 7800 games were unique and much closer to their arcade countparts than the 2600 titles like Ms. Pac-Man, and they were full price games. They were completely original programming, not something that was repackagaed with maybe higher res graphics and some new feature. Nintendo is not doing this, your stretching things here to find some remote correlation between the two so you can say the Revolution is in trouble because there's some small bit that is faintly similar to something Atari did 18 years ago with a system that didn't do well when compared to the competition.

[goatdan]

Wow. What a strange thread...


But Nintendo hasn't been even trying to introduce new franchise games as of late. For the Gamecube generation we got what, Animal Crossing? Maybe Pikmin. N64? Pretty much zilch. Other companies milk the popular sellers to be sure, but they also attempt to release games based on new characters and concepts. With first-party Nintendo games you see the same recurring characters that have been around since the days of the NES, and virtually nothing else (with some odd exceptions). Sony and Microsoft milk their respective franchises to be sure, but they also release just as many, actually more, games based on unique properties.

It depends. One could argue that GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, WaveRace, Conkey, Banjo Kazooie, Mario Party, 1080 and so on were new franchises for the N64. Some (like GoldenEye) only had one released game, but not all new games end up becoming franchises. The N64 was actually better in this regard in my opinion than the GameCube.

On the GameCube, we have games like Pikmin and Animal Crossing that you mentioned, as well as the resurgence of a new style of Metroid, Luigi's Mansion (based on an existing franchise, of course), the Wario games, and so on. Sure, most of Nintendo's games are based on already existing franchises, but Nintendo has a million and five of them to exploit, so they might as well do it. They're already established.

Sony and Microsoft (especially Microsoft) both don't have as many franchises to milk because they are newer to the game. They have to spend the time and money to establish new franchises. Before the Xbox came out, people weren't eager awaiting Halo like they were for Halo 2. Nintendo can get people to get really excited just by saying that a new Zelda game is coming out.


How does Super Mario 64 DS at launch grab ya? You know, when it was 1 of 10 (or whatever) games available?

Seriously, are there any other remakes beyond Mario 64? If you discount the GBA, I think that it is just Super Mario 64 and the two different Zelda packs for the GameCube that were standalone remakes / repackages. And since the Zelda compilation had been free, I would suggest that it doesn't really count as Nintendo wasn't making tons off it.

There are older Nintendo games hidden on some discs, but they aren't the bread-and-butter of the games they are on.


1. It will be backwards compatible with the Gamecube.
2. Older games will be available for purchase online, possibly with new added features such as online play.

Two facts about the Atari 7800:
1. It was backwards compatible with the Atari 2600
2. Older games were available for purchase, possibly with new added features.

As has been mentioned, the 7800 released these games at full price. Something tells me that Nintendo won't be charging you $50.00 to play Super Mario Brothers on the Revolution. Atari was essentially charging that much for the remakes of the 7800 games.

And if a remake is good, I see no problem charging more money for it. Remakes -- like Tempest 2000 on the Jaguar, for instance -- that offer a LOT of new features and are good enough to stand alone are a different beast entirely.

But that isn't what we are talking about. We're talking about downloadable games that won't be remakes -- but will be essentially emulated ROMs of the original games, perhaps with small changes to involve net play with them. And there will still be real Revolution games, that will look different than the downloadable NES games and will cost more.

I don't see this as an issue like the 7800. The 7800 didn't offer Centipede and Centipede 2. They offered a very similar version of Centipede and other games that were already released, and not much more.


Well, your point's well taken yet Nintendo faces some different challenges. Nintendo sorely needs backwards compatibility and the downloadable games would at worst have no effect on a prospective buyer, but I can't see the idea being seen badly.

Exactly. If you're looking at getting the system, and the sales material says "Download over 200 classic Nintendo, Super Nintendo and N64 games and play them on your Revolution* (* downloading games will cost a small fee)" that will not cause anyone to put the system down and not want it.

If you want to use the games, you have that option. If not, you don't have too. This is as strange a conversation as having someone argue that PS1 backwards compatibility in the PS2 is a bad idea because people won't buy it with that option. You don't _have_ to use it.


One of the key facts that makes the Revolution's approach fundamentally different from that of the 7800 was that Atari was selling outdated games as their best offering. Nintendo is saying that they're going to concentrate on gameplay more than graphics this round, and (with the notable exception of Mario 64x4 for the DS) they aren't going to be peddling old titles as their frontrunners. Heck, look at Twilight Princess - Nintendo's going to lengths to keep their not-so-current console alive.

That point beared repeating...

[Wavelflack]

Strange, isn't it?

I love Nintendo but I HATE threads about Nintendo. They always turn into this childish bickering where at least one forum member embarrasses me.

How can I make it stop?

I free copy of the DP Advance guide would probably keep me from coming back to this thread.

:)

[hydr0x]

@boatofcar

lol i was about to write a long reply to your "argumentation", but then i saw others already did that. please read those posts if you didnt already and maybe you'll finally get why you are comparing apples with oranges here

[lendelin]

Strange, isn't it?

I love Nintendo but I HATE threads about Nintendo. They always turn into this childish bickering where at least one forum member embarrasses me.

How can I make it stop?

I free copy of the DP Advance guide would probably keep me from coming back to this thread.

:)

I second that!! PLUS: I want complete Dragon Warrior 2 to 4, the CD with the first 50 issues of DP, AND...a Genesis system.

...ok, ok, I'm a nice guy, one of the above will do it. IF my demand is not met, I'll go on for pages with reasons why the Revolution isn't the Atari 7800 (just typing the sentence makes my skin crawl), why the Mario franchise is underdevelopped, plus I'll prove (with pics) that Reggie Anime has a secret love affair with the wives of Robbie Bach AND Joe Santulli, and how he influenced the decision of France not to join the Iraq war.