10 devices that defined the decade
Jonah Falcon
AGENT47
> http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/30/ten-gadgets-that-defined-the-decade/
I don't know it's a hard call to ignore the PS2 over the 360.
The did give it an honorable mention but still , tough call.
The PS2 with the DVD format and gigantic library of games , it was
never really toppled by anything in its class.
Coming out in 2000 and ruling more than half the decade and still
surprisingly has sold well .
Tough call there for me...........
The Xbox360's success at start were carryovers from the XBOX-1.
The alMIGHTY N
I agree that the PlayStation 2 is a more important device than the
Xbox 360 but that last statement you made is much more applicable to
the PlayStation 2. Were it not for the *overwhelming* success of the
PlayStation, the PlayStation 2 would not have had the start that it
did. I say this is more appropriate because the PlayStation was much
more successful than the Xbox and thus benefited its successor
exponentially more.
AGENT47
The alMIGHTY N
ROTFLMAO
The description of the Stealth is the best. Even if it doesn't look as
obvious as the other products, what the hell are you going to say it
is?!
Funny shit, man.
argento32
I'd be up in the air between the Wii and the PS2.
The PS2 because it revolutionized the way we see consoles. As more
than just gaming machines.
The Wii because it really completely changed the way gaming was
thought of. Without the Wii I doubt very much we'd be looking forward
to a project natal right now.
I love my 360 but device that defined a decade. Not even close.
Jordan
> I love my 360 but device that defined a decade. Not even close.
They should have said Xbox LIVE was the gaming "device" that defined
the decade. Sega tried it in 1999 with SegaNet but couldn't make it
work effectively with dialup. Microsoft was not only successful but
transplanted the service across multiple platforms.
The PS2 had nothing equivalent and even the PSN on the PS3 is a bare
shadow of what is done on Xbox Live. Nintendo doesn't even really
comprehend services like this.
- Jordan
Jonah Falcon
>They should have said Xbox LIVE was the gaming "device" that defined
>the decade. Sega tried it in 1999 with SegaNet but couldn't make it
>work effectively with dialup.
Says you. NFL 2K1 was the best online gaming experience on PC or console.
BoodyBandit
It defined the way I view warranties!
One of the worst hardware failure rates in electronic history and it
was a top 10 device of the decade? LOL!
Yeah okay
The alMIGHTY N
>
> > On Dec 31, 4:52 pm, AGENT47 <ks...@4email.net> wrote:
>
> > > One to rule them all
>
> > >http://www.fleshlight.com/?link=50898&gclid=CIe2jZPUgZ8CFShtswodlnT4K...
>
> > ROTFLMAO
>
> > The description of the Stealth is the best. Even if it doesn't look as
> > obvious as the other products, what the hell are you going to say it
> > is?!
>
> > Funny shit, man.
>
> I'd be up in the air between the Wii and the PS2.
I agree. The PS2 defined video games the first half of the decade and
the Wii did it the second half of the decade.
All the Xbox 360 did was advance what the PS2 already established. The
Wii turned everything on its head and completely redefined the video
game market.
The alMIGHTY N
Xbox Live hardly defined the decade. All it did was bring online
gaming to the console world. Online gaming had already been around for
ages on the PC and still is. There are more people playing PC games
online than there are people playing console games online.
The PS2 and Wii were both far more important to gaming this decade.
The alMIGHTY N
It redefined people's patience with their electronic devices.
Doug Jacobs
> Xbox Live hardly defined the decade. All it did was bring online
> gaming to the console world. Online gaming had already been around for
> ages on the PC and still is. There are more people playing PC games
> online than there are people playing console games online.
Online gaming may have been around for years before on the PC, but the
last decade saw PC gaming sharply decline as consoles literally came in
and ate their lunch. Live wasn't even the first attempt at an online
service for consoles, but unlike the previous ones, Live succeeded and did
so in a big way. Ignoring WoW and Facebook's "games", console gaming is
now the majority of the market and Live continues to make up a significant
portion.
> The PS2 and Wii were both far more important to gaming this decade.
For the purposes of this list (all devices, not just gaming) yes.
--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
The alMIGHTY N
> The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Xbox Live hardly defined the decade. All it did was bring online
> > gaming to the console world. Online gaming had already been around for
> > ages on the PC and still is. There are more people playing PC games
> > online than there are people playing console games online.
>
> Online gaming may have been around for years before on the PC, but the
> last decade saw PC gaming sharply decline as consoles literally came in
> and ate their lunch.
The switch from PC gaming to console gaming occurred long before the
Xbox 360 came around so again Xbox Live can hardly be credited as
having defined gaming from 2000-2009.
> Live wasn't even the first attempt at an online
> service for consoles, but unlike the previous ones, Live succeeded and did
> so in a big way.
Nobody has argued against this statement. The dispute is about whether
Live's success warrants consideration as *the* device or technology
that defined 2000-2009 for gaming. Only an Xbox 360 fanboy could
possibly claim this.
The PlayStation 2 and Nintendo Wii both had a much greater impact on
gaming than anything Microsoft has produced.
> Ignoring WoW and Facebook's "games", console gaming is
> now the majority of the market and Live continues to make up a significant
> portion.
Like I said above, console gaming became "the majority of the market"
under the conditions you listed above well before the Xbox 360 hit the
scene and well before Xbox Live's success.
If you want to talk about console gaming taking over, you really have
to focus on the PlayStation 2 as it is Sony's console that all but
single-handedly made console gaming what it is today. Without the
changes in perception towards gaming caused by Sony's ingenuity with
the PlayStation and PlayStation 2, all the hardcore gaming elitists
today probably wouldn't even be playing video games at all since
everything would still be Mario and Pokemon.
If you want to talk about the state of gaming right now and what
directly impacted the current gaming industry climate, you have to
focus on Nintendo's Wii and DS long before even a thought of Microsoft
crossed your mind. The DS is *the* number one gaming system on the
market, bar none, hands down. Wii is *the* number one gaming console
on the market, bar none, hands down. Nintendo, and Nintendo only,
completely redefined gaming for the second half of this decade. The
video game world is Nintendo's, and Nintendo's alone, to win or lose.
> > The PS2 and Wii were both far more important to gaming this decade.
>
> For the purposes of this list (all devices, not just gaming) yes.
Especially for gaming.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
While I'm not sure all games would be "Mario and Pokemon", the PS2
certainly broke gaming into the mainstream in a way that other
consoles hadn't quite managed to. True, the NES and the Genesis were
both far from niche systems, but with GTA and Madden, the "active"
audience began to skew older and more "casual", if you will. While
both appeared on the Xbox (and let's face it, the GTA games on the
Xbox were better, because of the slight graphical bump and, more
importantly, custom soundtrack support), the PS2 was where those
franchises really succeeded. Also, the PS2 saw the evolution of the
platformer with games like Ratchet & Clank, was still the primary stop
for console RPGs at the time, and kept the 3rd person action/brawler
genre moving along with God of War and Devil May Cry (even if Ninja
Gaiden was still superior to those). The only major hole in the PS2
patchwork was the FPS genre; at the time, PC gaming was still more
healthy than it is now. So yes, the PS2 was certainly more
important. Was the 360 very important as well? Of course it was- but
it still wasn't as influential as the PS2.
The alMIGHTY N
My hyperbole aside, the video game industry was pretty much dominated
by Nintendo at the time Sony stepped in with the PlayStation and made
games "cool" again. A lot of gamers were deserting because Nintendo
was too focused on family friendly games and Sega was losing steam.
Sony significantly expanded the video gaming market by focusing on a
much broader variety of games for people of all ages and interests.
Especially important was the focus on sports games, which drew in many
older gamers who had all but given up on video games and people who
were not interested in the past time earlier because it was, well, all
"Mario" (Pokemon didn't even exist until 1996 but is an appropriate
representative for the types of games that dominated the market at the
time).
If it weren't for Sony's PlayStation efforts, Sega would have still
lost out since their problems were more due to poor management and
business logic than anything else. That would have left Nintendo in
control so we would never have seen games like GTA 3, Metal Gear
Solid, 3D Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, etc. and so forth.
As much as a lot of the more hardcore Xbox fanboy gamers here like to
bash Sony, there's no denying that we owe them a debt of gratitude for
the types of games we're playing now.
> True, the NES and the Genesis were
> both far from niche systems, but with GTA and Madden, the "active"
> audience began to skew older and more "casual", if you will. While
> both appeared on the Xbox (and let's face it, the GTA games on the
> Xbox were better, because of the slight graphical bump and, more
> importantly, custom soundtrack support), the PS2 was where those
> franchises really succeeded. Also, the PS2 saw the evolution of the
> platformer with games like Ratchet & Clank, was still the primary stop
> for console RPGs at the time, and kept the 3rd person action/brawler
> genre moving along with God of War and Devil May Cry (even if Ninja
> Gaiden was still superior to those). The only major hole in the PS2
> patchwork was the FPS genre; at the time, PC gaming was still more
> healthy than it is now. So yes, the PS2 was certainly more
> important. Was the 360 very important as well? Of course it was- but
> it still wasn't as influential as the PS2.
I'm going even as far back as the PlayStation, though. The PlayStation
2 built off the incredible success of the PlayStation, which, as I
said above, reinvented video games for more mature audiences. We would
never have seen GTA on a console, Ratchet & Clank, Devil May Cry, God
of War, etc. were it not for the PlayStation.
Madden was around before the PlayStation, sure, but it was still the
relatively primitive top-angle-ish, 2D, sprite-based cartridge game.
Without PlayStation, who knows whether games would even be on DVDs
right now. Nintendo was still pushing cartridges and without
PlayStation to have proven how necessary the transition to CD was, the
GameCube generation may very well have still used cartridges.
Sony single-handedly reinvigorated the dying video game industry.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
Well, the SuperNES still had some nice, violent games like Contra 3
and Castlevania 4, so I don't think you had the single-minded focus on
"family" games yet until later in the N64 era.
My personal feeling on the original Playstation (and the Saturn as
well) is that 3D wasn't quite ready for prime-time. The controls were
clunky, and the graphics were eye-bleedingly bad. Also, I wasn't a
huge fan of the fighting games and survival horror titles that seemed
to get the most press at the time. Sure there were some bona fide
classics (Final Fantasy 7, Metal Gear Solid, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot,
Symphony of the Night), and I also understand that there were
necessary growing pains while the transition to 3D was
underway........but I don't feel 3D gaming was truly underway as a
polished form of entertainment until the PS2 era.
>
> Madden was around before the PlayStation, sure, but it was still the
> relatively primitive top-angle-ish, 2D, sprite-based cartridge game.
> Without PlayStation, who knows whether games would even be on DVDs
> right now. Nintendo was still pushing cartridges and without
> PlayStation to have proven how necessary the transition to CD was, the
> GameCube generation may very well have still used cartridges.
>
> Sony single-handedly reinvigorated the dying video game industry.- Hide quoted text -
>
I had forgotten about Nintendo's insistence on using cartridges
because "gamers are impatient and won't stand for load times". Real
great idea, Nintendo. Nintendo isn't the same company I grew up with,
sadly............
Doug Jacobs
>> Live wasn't even the first attempt at an online
>> service for consoles, but unlike the previous ones, Live succeeded and did
>> so in a big way.
>
> Nobody has argued against this statement. The dispute is about whether
> Live's success warrants consideration as *the* device or technology
> that defined 2000-2009 for gaming. Only an Xbox 360 fanboy could
> possibly claim this.
I'm not saying it's *THE* gaming technology/device of the last decade, but
certainly belongs in the top 10 somewhere - probably down around #8 or so.
Live brought online gaming to the console market, forcing Sony and
Nintendo to play catch-up - and they still haven't caught up as far as I'm
concerned.
If I had to choose the #1 device, it would definitely be the PS2. Hands
down the most successful console, ever. Largest library of any console,
longest selling console ever even going as far as to outsell its successor
for awhile in the week-to-week sale numbers.
Zee
>> My hyperbole aside, the video game industry was pretty much dominated
>> by Nintendo at the time Sony stepped in with the PlayStation and made
>> games "cool" again. A lot of gamers were deserting because Nintendo
>> was too focused on family friendly games and Sega was losing steam.
>
> Well, the SuperNES still had some nice, violent games like Contra 3
> and Castlevania 4, so I don't think you had the single-minded focus on
> "family" games yet until later in the N64 era.
Not to mention Super Metroid, non-Zelda RPGs like Chrono Trigger, FF 2&3, and
Secret of Mana, and then all the cross-platform games like Street Fighter,
Madden, NBA Jam, etc...SNES had a ton of good, "adult" games.
>> I'm going even as far back as the PlayStation, though. The PlayStation
>> 2 built off the incredible success of the PlayStation, which, as I
>> said above, reinvented video games for more mature audiences. We would
>> never have seen GTA on a console, Ratchet & Clank, Devil May Cry, God
>> of War, etc. were it not for the PlayStation.
>
> My personal feeling on the original Playstation (and the Saturn as
> well) is that 3D wasn't quite ready for prime-time. The controls were
> clunky, and the graphics were eye-bleedingly bad. Also, I wasn't a
> huge fan of the fighting games and survival horror titles that seemed
> to get the most press at the time. Sure there were some bona fide
> classics (Final Fantasy 7, Metal Gear Solid, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot,
> Symphony of the Night),
GT 1 & 2, Tekken 3, Wipeout XL -- the list goes on and on... :-)
> and I also understand that there were
> necessary growing pains while the transition to 3D was
> underway........but I don't feel 3D gaming was truly underway as a
> polished form of entertainment until the PS2 era.
Maybe not polished, but definitely underway with titles like MGS.
I think NES, SNES, PS1, and PS2 all had huge impacts on the future of console
gaming during their respective times. (Heck, you could even go back to the 2600
if you want.) It's hard to say which one was "more important" because they all
built on their predecessors (though I guess the 2D-->3D movement is often seen
as the major milestone for modern gaming).
jt august
Doug Jacobs <dja...@rawbw.com> wrote:
> The alMIGHTY N <natl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Live wasn't even the first attempt at an online
> >> service for consoles, but unlike the previous ones, Live succeeded and did
> >> so in a big way.
> >
> > Nobody has argued against this statement. The dispute is about whether
> > Live's success warrants consideration as *the* device or technology
> > that defined 2000-2009 for gaming. Only an Xbox 360 fanboy could
> > possibly claim this.
>
> I'm not saying it's *THE* gaming technology/device of the last decade, but
> certainly belongs in the top 10 somewhere - probably down around #8 or so.
>
> Live brought online gaming to the console market, forcing Sony and
> Nintendo to play catch-up - and they still haven't caught up as far as I'm
> concerned.
Online gaming came into existence back in the 80's. PCs had it quite
extensively. Migrating to consoles was evolutionary, not revolutionary.
And Sega had it before x-box.
> If I had to choose the #1 device, it would definitely be the PS2. Hands
> down the most successful console, ever. Largest library of any console,
> longest selling console ever even going as far as to outsell its successor
> for awhile in the week-to-week sale numbers.
Gross sales does not justify making it the number one device of the
decade. Again, the ps/2 was evolutionary. The only game console to go
revolutionary is the Wii, with its Wiimote wireless game play, which
brings new control options to the industry, and lured a casual audience
that the other consoles including its own predecessors could never grab.
And while this is big in console gaming industry, it is not big enough
to make it device of the decade.
jt
The alMIGHTY N
Of course not *every* game was family-friendly but it was quite clear
to the gaming population that the spotlight was focused on family
friendly fare. The overwhelming majority of Super Nintendo games,
especially in the couple of years leading to the release of the
PlayStation, were what many gamers considered "kiddie."
The other part of the problem was that gamers were starting to
recognize that Nintendo was going to keep recycling the same set of
mascots they always did - Pokemon was the first big addition to the
Nintendo family of gaming superstars and they didn't come around until
later.
Consider that for each "non-family" triple A title like Contra 3 or
Super Castlevania IV that you can list, I can come back at you with a
multitude of family friendly triple A titles like the three Donkey
Kong Country games, Yoshi's Island, Super Mario RPG, Kirby Superstar
and Dreamland 3, Mario Kart, Starfox, etc... and only one of the games
in that list came out before Contra 3.
You're right that Nintendo's family friendly agenda was much more
obvious with the Nintendo 64, but the plan was set into motion long
before PlayStation was a word in our vocabulary.
No doubt. Crash Bandicoot was an amazing programming accomplishment
but I still think it looked like ass even then.
Of course, it wasn't really the concept of 3D that drew everyone in
but the focus on a broader scope of gaming genres. Gamers had become
jaded with the constant barrage of Mario, Donkey Kong, etc. and wanted
something more alinged with their somewhat more mature sensibilities.
While you may not have loved the fighting and survival horror games of
the era, those really were key examples of what made the PlayStation
cool enough to expand the gaming market. Those kinds of thematically
mature games were what most people were looking for rather than more
fairy tale fantasy stuff.
> > Madden was around before the PlayStation, sure, but it was still the
> > relatively primitive top-angle-ish, 2D, sprite-based cartridge game.
> > Without PlayStation, who knows whether games would even be on DVDs
> > right now. Nintendo was still pushing cartridges and without
> > PlayStation to have proven how necessary the transition to CD was, the
> > GameCube generation may very well have still used cartridges.
>
> > Sony single-handedly reinvigorated the dying video game industry.- Hide quoted text -
>
> I had forgotten about Nintendo's insistence on using cartridges
> because "gamers are impatient and won't stand for load times". Real
> great idea, Nintendo. Nintendo isn't the same company I grew up with,
> sadly............
The reason why I didn't bother with the PlayStation until much later
when Resident Evil 2 came out (and I *had* to play it) was because of
those f***ing load times. Having to sit through the stupid "opening
door" transition in RE 2 was like eating chocolate covered razor
blades for me... love the chocolate, not so fond of the slicing of the
esophagus.
The alMIGHTY N
> Nick Soapdish, Jr. wrote:
> >> My hyperbole aside, the video game industry was pretty much dominated
> >> by Nintendo at the time Sony stepped in with the PlayStation and made
> >> games "cool" again. A lot of gamers were deserting because Nintendo
> >> was too focused on family friendly games and Sega was losing steam.
>
> > Well, the SuperNES still had some nice, violent games like Contra 3
> > and Castlevania 4, so I don't think you had the single-minded focus on
> > "family" games yet until later in the N64 era.
>
> Not to mention Super Metroid, non-Zelda RPGs like Chrono Trigger, FF 2&3, and
> Secret of Mana, and then all the cross-platform games like Street Fighter,
> Madden, NBA Jam, etc...SNES had a ton of good, "adult" games.
It's all in the perception.
Super Metroid, while a decidedly "core" game, *looked* like a kiddie
game. Bright colors, shooting colorful aliens with laser beams,
relatively simple graphical design... gamers who entered high school,
college, the real world, etc. wanted games with more "mature" themes
(as if a game had to have hookers or blood to be mature).
As far as Zelda (not an RPG) comparisons with Square's work, Zelda is
no more "kiddie" than anything Square put out. Final Fantasy, Chrono
Trigger, Secret of Mana, etc. all looked like Zelda games. Many gamers
just got tired of playing with these cutesy little characters.
Madden and other similar sports simulation games were good but the
limitations of sprite-based 2D graphics and accompanying viewpoints
took their toll.
And NBA Jam is hardly an "adult" sports game.
> >> I'm going even as far back as the PlayStation, though. The PlayStation
> >> 2 built off the incredible success of the PlayStation, which, as I
> >> said above, reinvented video games for more mature audiences. We would
> >> never have seen GTA on a console, Ratchet & Clank, Devil May Cry, God
> >> of War, etc. were it not for the PlayStation.
>
> > My personal feeling on the original Playstation (and the Saturn as
> > well) is that 3D wasn't quite ready for prime-time. The controls were
> > clunky, and the graphics were eye-bleedingly bad. Also, I wasn't a
> > huge fan of the fighting games and survival horror titles that seemed
> > to get the most press at the time. Sure there were some bona fide
> > classics (Final Fantasy 7, Metal Gear Solid, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot,
> > Symphony of the Night),
>
> GT 1 & 2, Tekken 3, Wipeout XL -- the list goes on and on... :-)
>
> > and I also understand that there were
> > necessary growing pains while the transition to 3D was
> > underway........but I don't feel 3D gaming was truly underway as a
> > polished form of entertainment until the PS2 era.
>
> Maybe not polished, but definitely underway with titles like MGS.
>
> I think NES, SNES, PS1, and PS2 all had huge impacts on the future of console
> gaming during their respective times. (Heck, you could even go back to the 2600
> if you want.) It's hard to say which one was "more important" because they all
> built on their predecessors (though I guess the 2D-->3D movement is often seen
> as the major milestone for modern gaming).
Well, of course, every system has some sort of impact on the general
concept of video games. I was more referring to the PlayStation and
PlayStation 2's impact on the perception and popularity of video
games. Sony did their own sort of "blue ocean strategy" by targeting
people who had the admittedly wrong impression that video games were
just 2D Mario and Donkey Kong games.
The alMIGHTY N
> The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Live wasn't even the first attempt at an online
> >> service for consoles, but unlike the previous ones, Live succeeded and did
> >> so in a big way.
>
> > Nobody has argued against this statement. The dispute is about whether
> > Live's success warrants consideration as *the* device or technology
> > that defined 2000-2009 for gaming. Only an Xbox 360 fanboy could
> > possibly claim this.
>
> I'm not saying it's *THE* gaming technology/device of the last decade, but
> certainly belongs in the top 10 somewhere - probably down around #8 or so.
If we're talking about a list focusing on the top 10 devices that
defined the decade for gaming, sure. The list Jonah posted was of the
top 10 devices that defined the decade from a broad standpoint. Only
one gaming device is going to make a list like that, of course, and
the Xbox 360 does not deserve to be the one.
> Live brought online gaming to the console market, forcing Sony and
> Nintendo to play catch-up - and they still haven't caught up as far as I'm
> concerned.
Sony and Nintendo are in different boats. Sony definitely needs to
play catch up with their online service. Nintendo doesn't because they
don't even need to focus on online gaming. Most of their games aren't
even designed to have online gaming because their mission statement is
bringing people together in the same location to play. Almost every
multiplayer game is meant to be played in a "party" setting with
family, friends, etc. Nintendo isn't focused on having people play
with strangers on the other side of the country.
> If I had to choose the #1 device, it would definitely be the PS2. Hands
> down the most successful console, ever. Largest library of any console,
> longest selling console ever even going as far as to outsell its successor
> for awhile in the week-to-week sale numbers.
I don't see financial success as the core attribute for a device that
defined the decade. The PlayStation 2 has sold more than the Wii,
sure, but has also been around for the entire decade. There are over
64 million Wiis worldwide right now - by the PS2's third year, it was
only at 51 million.
This is not to say that the PlayStation 2 isn't the device that
defined the decade but that things like financial success, size of the
library, etc. are not appropriate criteria. Rather, the focus should
be on the impact to the gaming industry and the whole concept of
gaming.
Video games are much more mainstream now thanks to the Wii, which
effected much more change in the gaming world than any system before
it. In the second half of the decade, the Wii *was* video gaming for
the most part as the importance of the traditional "hardcore" gamers
waned. You *know* it's successful when third parties are clamoring to
get in on the action even when the chance of success is abysmally low
for anyone *besides* Nintendo.
On the other hand, during the first half of the decade, the
PlayStation 2 was video gaming. They made video games even cooler than
the PlayStation did, which was a remarkable feat at the time.
I would probably give the edge to the PS2 simply because its impact
was more prevalent during a greater portion of the decade and the
effects of this impact are still felt with the success of the Xbox
360, which really was built on the kinds of strides that were made in
the previous generation (more the PS2 than the Xbox).
But you can't rightfully ignore the greater overall impact of Nintendo
making people who aren't inclined to games want to play games over
Sony making people who were already inclined to play games start
playing again.
The alMIGHTY N
> In article <KIidnXKiAZ9Or9jWnZ2dnUVZ_u6dn...@posted.rawbandwidth>,
> Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Live wasn't even the first attempt at an online
> > >> service for consoles, but unlike the previous ones, Live succeeded and did
> > >> so in a big way.
>
> > > Nobody has argued against this statement. The dispute is about whether
> > > Live's success warrants consideration as *the* device or technology
> > > that defined 2000-2009 for gaming. Only an Xbox 360 fanboy could
> > > possibly claim this.
>
> > I'm not saying it's *THE* gaming technology/device of the last decade, but
> > certainly belongs in the top 10 somewhere - probably down around #8 or so.
>
> > Live brought online gaming to the console market, forcing Sony and
> > Nintendo to play catch-up - and they still haven't caught up as far as I'm
> > concerned.
>
> Online gaming came into existence back in the 80's. PCs had it quite
> extensively. Migrating to consoles was evolutionary, not revolutionary.
> And Sega had it before x-box.
Sega had it but didn't do it well. It was a half-decent first attempt
that went all but unnoticed by the majority of gamers.
The "revolutionary" aspect of what Xbox Live did can be seen in the
veritable "explosion" of online multiplayer console gaming within the
first year of the Xbox 360's existence.
Keep in mind that most console gamers at the time never played PC
games beyond the simple card games and casual games that now dominate
the market so for them online gaming really was revolutionary... and
it was a big deal for the console world.
However, I do think that online gaming as a concept can't be the key
ingredient to a decade-defining console especially since the lines
between "PC" gaming and "console" gaming have blurred to the point
where it's just one big "video game" market now (it wasn't *that* long
ago when people distinguished between "computer" and "video" games).
Zee
>> Not to mention Super Metroid, non-Zelda RPGs like Chrono Trigger, FF 2&3, and
>> Secret of Mana, and then all the cross-platform games like Street Fighter,
>> Madden, NBA Jam, etc...SNES had a ton of good, "adult" games.
>
> It's all in the perception.
>
> Super Metroid, while a decidedly "core" game, *looked* like a kiddie
> game. Bright colors, shooting colorful aliens with laser beams,
> relatively simple graphical design... gamers who entered high school,
> college, the real world, etc. wanted games with more "mature" themes
> (as if a game had to have hookers or blood to be mature).
>
> As far as Zelda (not an RPG) comparisons with Square's work, Zelda is
> no more "kiddie" than anything Square put out. Final Fantasy, Chrono
> Trigger, Secret of Mana, etc. all looked like Zelda games. Many gamers
> just got tired of playing with these cutesy little characters.
I dunno, is it the look of the game or the theme of the game that matters?
Metroid may have looked more like a kiddie game, but it had a mature theme.
Zelda looked and felt much more like a kiddie game to me than FF, Mana, etc.
though it sounds like you feel otherwise. Chrono Trigger's characters were not
any more "cutesy" than similar games on the Sega or PS1.
So while I agree that as first-generation gamers got older they wanted more
mature games in general (either in theme or look), I don't necessarily buy that
SNES was seen as lagging behind the other consoles in this regard. The primary
reason my friends bought Genesis over SNES was the difference in graphics and
performance of sports games, not really any perception about kiddie vs. adult.
But that's just my own experience from my circle of friends at that time.
> And NBA Jam is hardly an "adult" sports game.
Heh, well I was about 21 at the time and played the HELL out of it. :-)
AGENT47
jealous of the more adult oriented titles on the Playstation platform
in the video store where all of the game rentals were located .
I would eyeball all of the new releases and wish I had more adult
themed games to choose from on the N64 but was always displeased .
While the N64 IMO had the best game of that generation Goldeneye ,
other than that not much else in terms of more adult oriented and not
jumping around in a fruity world.
Other than Turok, goldeneye and some others that I can't think of
right now the N64 platform in my eyes from experience was VERY MUCH
the 'kiddie' based platform. It's been Nintendo's mission statement
from day one and still is to this day.
Eman
I remember games on SNES being censored. Mortal Kombat on the Genny
had all of the fatalities from the arcade and SNES took out the blood
and changed the fatalities. I think they redemmed themselves with
MK2. But I also recall a side scroller brawler like Final Fury or
something where they replaced female thugs with male thugs. I vowed
to never buy another Nintendo console again, because I was always
envious of the more "mature" themed Genny.
The alMIGHTY N
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> >> Not to mention Super Metroid, non-Zelda RPGs like Chrono Trigger, FF 2&3, and
> >> Secret of Mana, and then all the cross-platform games like Street Fighter,
> >> Madden, NBA Jam, etc...SNES had a ton of good, "adult" games.
>
> > It's all in the perception.
>
> > Super Metroid, while a decidedly "core" game, *looked* like a kiddie
> > game. Bright colors, shooting colorful aliens with laser beams,
> > relatively simple graphical design... gamers who entered high school,
> > college, the real world, etc. wanted games with more "mature" themes
> > (as if a game had to have hookers or blood to be mature).
>
> > As far as Zelda (not an RPG) comparisons with Square's work, Zelda is
> > no more "kiddie" than anything Square put out. Final Fantasy, Chrono
> > Trigger, Secret of Mana, etc. all looked like Zelda games. Many gamers
> > just got tired of playing with these cutesy little characters.
>
> I dunno, is it the look of the game or the theme of the game that matters?
It doesn't really matter which. It could be one, the other or both.
Take, for example, Legend of Zelda: Windwaker. The game is actually a
very good traditional adventure game, save for a somewhat tedious
sailing mode and less dungeons than earlier Zelda games. However, most
"hardcore" gamers were unwilling to give it any chance at all because
of the cel-shaded "kiddie" visual design the developers chose to use.
A recent example is Viva Pinata on the Xbox. The game is too deep and
complex for most kids. However, it looks like a kid-friendly game and
even had a Saturday morning cartoon marketing tie-in. Hardcore gamers
ignored it and kids couldn't tolerate the more adult-oriented asset
management gameplay.
Going back to the generation we're discussing, you could Super Mario 3
and Super Mario World as really great hardcore games. Are the themes
"kiddie?" Maybe. Did they look "kiddie?" Most certainly. And lots of
gamers who were "growing up" just didn't want to play these kinds of
games anymore. Same with Donkey Kong Country, which was an awesome
series of games that could be quite challenging...
> Metroid may have looked more like a kiddie game, but it had a mature theme.
I don't know about that... you're running around killing space pirates
and aliens. "Kiddie" might not be the best term... more like "family
friendly." I mean, kids watch space adventure movies, too, right? I
think it was more a desire from these gamers who were entering their
teens or early adulthood and wanted "adult-oriented" games - they
didn't want to feel like they were playing the same things that
younger gamers would but the goal of Nintendo for the most part
towards the latter half of the 16-bit generation was to focus more on
games that were for "all" ages (which meant that kids could play them,
too).
> Zelda looked and felt much more like a kiddie game to me than FF, Mana, etc.
> though it sounds like you feel otherwise.
Zelda and Square's 16-bit RPGs all looked and felt "family friendly"
to me. All "cutesy" characters. All fantasy-based adventure games in a
cartoony, color-saturated world. Granted, Square's games, being
"RPGs" (and I use that term loosely), were a bit more complex with the
stat building and party management.
> Chrono Trigger's characters were not
> any more "cutesy" than similar games on the Sega or PS1.
Final Fantasy VII, Square's first entry on the PlayStation, while
still not overly sophisticated, still looked a lot less "kiddie" than
the squat, colorful, 2D sprites of their 16-bit titles.
Nevertheless, the whole spread of games on the PlayStation and Saturn
had a more "grown up" feel and look about them. Of course, there were
some mascot titles like Crash Bandicoot and Spyro, but Sony and Sega
did a great job of expanding the variety of genres and styles of
gaming with their software libraries.
In contrast to Nintendo's strategy of focusing on games that,
individually, were for players of all ages, Sony and Sega simply
wanted their library as a whole to have something for everyone instead
of trying to make every game please everyone.
> So while I agree that as first-generation gamers got older they wanted more
> mature games in general (either in theme or look), I don't necessarily buy that
> SNES was seen as lagging behind the other consoles in this regard. The primary
> reason my friends bought Genesis over SNES was the difference in graphics and
> performance of sports games, not really any perception about kiddie vs. adult.
> But that's just my own experience from my circle of friends at that time.
Genesis? I'm not referring to the Genesis. I'm referring to the Sony
PlayStation. During the time period I'm talking about, the Genesis was
all but out the door as Sega rushed the Saturn to the market. Remember
that the SNES actually came out *after* the Genesis and took a couple
of years to dominate that generation.
> > And NBA Jam is hardly an "adult" sports game.
>
> Heh, well I was about 21 at the time and played the HELL out of it. :-)
I was in high school for that game and loved it because it *wasn't* a
strict simulation of the sport.
The alMIGHTY N
That's exactly my point although by the time the Nintendo 64 hit the
market (2 years after the PlayStation in Japan and a year after the
PlayStation in the U.S.) the writing was on the wall for Nintendo.
Fans had already made the switch to the "more mature," "less kiddie"
PlayStation (and to a much lesser degree the Saturn).
If you look at the list of major Super Nintendo releases in 1994 and
1995 (the period during which the PlayStation hit the worldwide
market), most games are very family friendly focused. Most of the
"mature" games had already come out on the system the years before.
The alMIGHTY N
And it was such a big deal because of the fact that the general
perception of video games, especially those on a Nintendo platform,
was that they were for children. These days, mature themes are part
and parcel with video games but back then it was huge controversy.
Zee
> It doesn't really matter which. It could be one, the other or both.
> Take, for example, Legend of Zelda: Windwaker. The game is actually a
> very good traditional adventure game, save for a somewhat tedious
> sailing mode and less dungeons than earlier Zelda games. However, most
> "hardcore" gamers were unwilling to give it any chance at all because
> of the cel-shaded "kiddie" visual design the developers chose to use.
Really? I thought it sold very well. I figured most folks with a GC played it,
especially since at the time "cel-shaded" was a buzz word. Viewtiful Joe was
another cel-shaded game that did really well and felt more adult-oriented
despite the cartoon-y graphics.
> Going back to the generation we're discussing, you could Super Mario 3
> and Super Mario World as really great hardcore games. Are the themes
> "kiddie?" Maybe. Did they look "kiddie?" Most certainly. And lots of
> gamers who were "growing up" just didn't want to play these kinds of
> games anymore. Same with Donkey Kong Country, which was an awesome
> series of games that could be quite challenging...
Don't get me wrong -- many SNES titles (first-party titles especially) had that
kiddie feel. Nintendo games usually do. I'm just saying that SNES had plenty of
other games that FOR IT'S TIME felt more mature, either in look or theme. It's
unfair to compare it completely to PS1 in this regard because PS1 came later and
had better hardware. A game like MGS simply couldn't have been made for SNES.
I'm just questioning the notion that hardcore gamers were giving up on SNES
because it was all about kiddie games. My friends and I were all in college and
playing 3-4 hours a day back then (which I consider pretty hardcore), and the
SNES was getting plenty of game-time until GT, MGS, Wipeout, and the rest of the
PS1 library took over. The PS1 opened us up to new types of games that we had
never seen before, and there's no question that it changed console gaming, but
that's different from saying that we were already sick of SNES before that
happened (as evidenced by the fact that we still played Zelda64, Mario64, and
MarioKart64 when the N64 came out, even though PS1 was taking probably 80% of
our game time at that point).
If anything, I would make that argument more about the N64, since that had more
computing power than PS1 and yet aside from the above games plus GoldenEye we
much preferred the PS1 selection.
But again, maybe my group of gamer friends were different from the norm.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
> On Jan 6, 9:44 pm, Zee <no_...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > Nick Soapdish, Jr. wrote:
> > >> My hyperbole aside, the video game industry was pretty much dominated
> > >> by Nintendo at the time Sony stepped in with the PlayStation and made
> > >> games "cool" again. A lot of gamers were deserting because Nintendo
> > >> was too focused on family friendly games and Sega was losing steam.
>
> > > Well, the SuperNES still had some nice, violent games like Contra 3
> > > and Castlevania 4, so I don't think you had the single-minded focus on
> > > "family" games yet until later in the N64 era.
>
> > Not to mention Super Metroid, non-Zelda RPGs like Chrono Trigger, FF 2&3, and
> > Secret of Mana, and then all the cross-platform games like Street Fighter,
> > Madden, NBA Jam, etc...SNES had a ton of good, "adult" games.
>
> It's all in the perception.
>
> Super Metroid, while a decidedly "core" game, *looked* like a kiddie
> game. Bright colors, shooting colorful aliens with laser beams,
> relatively simple graphical design... gamers who entered high school,
> college, the real world, etc. wanted games with more "mature" themes
> (as if a game had to have hookers or blood to be mature).
>
> As far as Zelda (not an RPG) comparisons with Square's work, Zelda is
> no more "kiddie" than anything Square put out. Final Fantasy, Chrono
> Trigger, Secret of Mana, etc. all looked like Zelda games. Many gamers
> just got tired of playing with these cutesy little characters.
I disagree with your definition of "family friendly" or "kiddie" in
this situation. At that point, _all_ games had that similar kind of
bright colors/simple design, because of the technology. And when I
was in college in the early '90s, no one was complaining about things
being too "kiddie" in games in general. When I think of Nintendo's
"family friendly" direction, we're talking about Nintendo almost
_exclusively_ relying on party-oriented games and "ultra" cutesy
games, with simpler controls.
> just 2D Mario and Donkey Kong games.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I still feel the interaction of control of onscreen action and a
needed degree of graphical "smoothness", which both are huge factors
in a game fully succeeding as entertainment, didn't reach the level it
had to be at until last generation. The best games of the PS1
generation succeeded _in spite_ of the hardware.
The alMIGHTY N
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > It doesn't really matter which. It could be one, the other or both.
> > Take, for example, Legend of Zelda: Windwaker. The game is actually a
> > very good traditional adventure game, save for a somewhat tedious
> > sailing mode and less dungeons than earlier Zelda games. However, most
> > "hardcore" gamers were unwilling to give it any chance at all because
> > of the cel-shaded "kiddie" visual design the developers chose to use.
>
> Really? I thought it sold very well. I figured most folks with a GC played it,
It didn't bomb. In fact, 3.07 million people bought it. Unfortunately,
that's basically just people who already owned a GameCube. The game
wasn't much of a system seller, failing to draw back the fans who had
given up on Nintendo. Consider:
a) Luigi's Mansion, far from a "hardcore" game and derided by many
gamers, sold almost as many units with 2.64 million.
b) Mario Kart: Double Dash, considered by most fans of the series to
be substantially weaker than the Nintendo 64 version, which itself was
considered weaker than the SNES version, outsold it with 4.86 million.
c) Both Ocarina of Time (7.6 million) and Majora's Mask (3.36
million), considered a substantially weaker game than Ocarina, outsold
it on a system that itself had also been abandoned by the hardcores.
> especially since at the time "cel-shaded" was a buzz word.
Hardly. Try to think of any cel-shaded games you remember being major
blockbuster hits. Then, ask yourself how many of them looked "kiddie"
versus just animated? For example, Borderlands is cel-shaded but
there's nothing "kiddie" about it. Jet Set Radio is another one...
again, not "kiddie." Grabbed By the Ghoulies and Looney Tunes: Space
Race, though? Definitely "kiddie" and both bombed.
> Viewtiful Joe was
> another cel-shaded game that did really well and felt more adult-oriented
> despite the cartoon-y graphics.
Viewtiful Joe was a great game. It could be taken as either adult-
oriented or not, though. There's some complexity and maturity to it
but at its core it still comes off as a family friendly game. Further,
it decidedly did NOT do "really well." The game sold 275,000 worldwide
on the GameCube and 46,000 on the PS2. MAJOR failure. In fact, that
performance is considered the main reason Clover Studios was closed
before it could even really get going (they only did two other games -
Okami and Godhand).
> > Going back to the generation we're discussing, you could Super Mario 3
> > and Super Mario World as really great hardcore games. Are the themes
> > "kiddie?" Maybe. Did they look "kiddie?" Most certainly. And lots of
> > gamers who were "growing up" just didn't want to play these kinds of
> > games anymore. Same with Donkey Kong Country, which was an awesome
> > series of games that could be quite challenging...
>
> Don't get me wrong -- many SNES titles (first-party titles especially) had that
> kiddie feel. Nintendo games usually do. I'm just saying that SNES had plenty of
> other games that FOR IT'S TIME felt more mature, either in look or theme. It's
> unfair to compare it completely to PS1 in this regard because PS1 came later and
> had better hardware. A game like MGS simply couldn't have been made for SNES.
I don't disagree with that. You're right that there were games that
felt more mature but they came along earlier in the system's life and
the sales trends showed those developers that they were better off
moving their games to a system with less "kiddie" perception. Plus,
when you consider just how many games there were for the SNES and what
ratio there was of "mature" to "kiddie" games, it's very clear exactly
where the SNES stood.
> I'm just questioning the notion that hardcore gamers were giving up on SNES
> because it was all about kiddie games. My friends and I were all in college and
> playing 3-4 hours a day back then (which I consider pretty hardcore), and the
> SNES was getting plenty of game-time until GT, MGS, Wipeout, and the rest of the
> PS1 library took over.
It's tough for me to fathom, too. My friends and I would play hours a
day (I'm ashamed to admit I ditched quite a few classes to beat A Link
to the Past, Secret of Mana, etc.). But we were the minority amongst
hardcore gamers, willing to look simply at the gameplay and "fun
factor" and not just at whether the game had mature themes or
advanced, non-cutesy graphics. I *loved* Donkey Kong Country. I
*loved* most of the games for the 64. I *loved* most of the games for
the GameCube.
Unfortunately, most hardcore gamers didn't. While I knew people who
still played with me, I also knew many more people who used to play
games but said specifically they "outgrew" video games because
specifically of Mario, Donkey Kong, etc. Of course, they were first in
line for the PlayStation and Saturn systems.
> The PS1 opened us up to new types of games that we had
> never seen before, and there's no question that it changed console gaming, but
> that's different from saying that we were already sick of SNES before that
> happened (as evidenced by the fact that we still played Zelda64, Mario64, and
> MarioKart64 when the N64 came out, even though PS1 was taking probably 80% of
> our game time at that point).
People weren't playing the Nintendo 64... that's the problem. The
Nintendo 64 only sold 33 million units worldwide and a significant
portion of those sales were in Japan, where there was still a love for
all things Nintendo. And the Nintendo 64's demographic was skewed
heavily towards younger gamers.
When you consider that the Nintendo 64 came out two years after the
PlayStation, what it shows is that older, hardcore games were
generally unwilling to give Nintendo another shot even with the
release of such iconic, important games as Mario 64, Ocarina, Mario
Kart 64, etc. Of course, there were SOME... but for the most part the
older gamers had long decided that Nintendo just wasn't the place to
be anymore.
> If anything, I would make that argument more about the N64, since that had more
> computing power than PS1 and yet aside from the above games plus GoldenEye we
> much preferred the PS1 selection.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the SNES was single-handedly
responsible for the downfall of Nintendo. I'm saying that Nintendo's
intentions towards the end of the system's life were what drove the
hardcore gamers away. Like you said, there was plenty of reason early
on for gamers to love the system, but Nintendo was basically a company
that refused to change with the times, to adapt to the changing needs
of their constituents, which resulted in the downward spiral for the
company until Miyamoto and crew had the blue ocean epiphany.
The alMIGHTY N
Not at all.
Yes, games were limited by technology, but that didn't mean they all
had to use super saturated primary colors and "cutesy" character
designs. Look at the visuals of the SNES Final Fantasy games, Chrono
Trigger, Zelda, Mario, Secret of Mana, etc. and then compare them to
games like Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Alien 3, Alien vs Predator,
any other Capcom fighting or action side scrolling game, etc.
They *could* have employed a different graphic style but *chose* to
stick with the cutesier designs because earlier on that was the
perception of the video game market. The problem for Nintendo
ultimately was that while they kept thinking everyone should pull a
Michael Jackson or Peter Pan, the companies making its games realized
that most of their growing fans were clamoring for more mature themes
and style than a bright colorful fat plumber or an ape in a tie.
Nintendo's direction with the Super Nintendo towards the latter half
of the system's life sent a clear message to both gamers and
developers that Nintendo was always going to treat all of its gamers,
regardless of their age, the same.
> And when I
> was in college in the early '90s, no one was complaining about things
> being too "kiddie" in games in general.
Then you, like Zee, are seeing things from a different perspective.
I'm not talking at all about the earlier years of the Super Nintendo.
I'm talking about the second half of the system's life, during *my*
college years. My first year in college, 1993, which was the system's
second year on the market in the States, it was still "cool." Quickly,
though, I started seeing a LOT of people deciding that the SNES just
wasn't cool enough anymore. Arcade games? Sure. But the "cartoony"
graphics and the limited breadth of genres, with too much focus on
kiddie licenses, kiddie art styles, etc. were just not interesting to
a lot of people anymore.
Zee
> Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the SNES was single-handedly
> responsible for the downfall of Nintendo. I'm saying that Nintendo's
> intentions towards the end of the system's life were what drove the
> hardcore gamers away. Like you said, there was plenty of reason early
> on for gamers to love the system, but Nintendo was basically a company
> that refused to change with the times, to adapt to the changing needs
> of their constituents, which resulted in the downward spiral for the
> company until Miyamoto and crew had the blue ocean epiphany.
Fair enough. I've always been someone who focused on the quality and fun-factor
of games, and the same goes for the folks I play with. I stopped playing many
Nintendo titles because I became bored with the same formulaic game-play
repeated over and over, not because of the kiddie vs. mature factor. But I'm
certainly not a gaming historian.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
I think the difference was not as great as you perceive it, although
you do make a point. The thing is that those isometric adventure
games were pretty much all limited by how much room the character
could take up on the screen, which I think players at the time
accepted. I still think it was only later on that there was a
conscious choice to skew younger, when you see how limited the N-64's
genre selection was, notwithstanding Goldeneye/Perfect Dark.
> They *could* have employed a different graphic style but *chose* to
> stick with the cutesier designs because earlier on that was the
> perception of the video game market. The problem for Nintendo
> ultimately was that while they kept thinking everyone should pull a
> Michael Jackson or Peter Pan, the companies making its games realized
> that most of their growing fans were clamoring for more mature themes
> and style than a bright colorful fat plumber or an ape in a tie.
>
> Nintendo's direction with the Super Nintendo towards the latter half
> of the system's life sent a clear message to both gamers and
> developers that Nintendo was always going to treat all of its gamers,
> regardless of their age, the same.
>
> > And when I
> > was in college in the early '90s, no one was complaining about things
> > being too "kiddie" in games in general.
>
> Then you, like Zee, are seeing things from a different perspective.
> I'm not talking at all about the earlier years of the Super Nintendo.
> I'm talking about the second half of the system's life, during *my*
> college years. My first year in college, 1993, which was the system's
> second year on the market in the States, it was still "cool." Quickly,
> though, I started seeing a LOT of people deciding that the SNES just
> wasn't cool enough anymore. Arcade games? Sure. But the "cartoony"
> graphics and the limited breadth of genres, with too much focus on
> kiddie licenses, kiddie art styles, etc. were just not interesting to
> a lot of people anymore.
>
Well, perhaps it was a question of timing (first half vs. second half
of the SNES's life). I do remember people still having plenty of fun
with games like Sonic.
> > generation succeeded _in spite_ of the hardware.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
AGENT47
Sonic was SEGA genesis which I still have to this day found my old
genesis in my Grandparents garage when they passed away.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, I know, but since Sonic is one of those games that people
associate with the "kiddie" image in gaming....
argento32
>
> Yes, games were limited by technology, but that didn't mean they all
> had to use super saturated primary colors and "cutesy" character
> designs. Look at the visuals of the SNES Final Fantasy games, Chrono
> Trigger, Zelda, Mario, Secret of Mana, etc. and then compare them to
> games like Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Alien 3, Alien vs Predator,
> any other Capcom fighting or action side scrolling game, etc.
>
>
The point here was well made in the games you chose. The SNES games
were well done, extremely good games that could be played by most all
players.
The others you mentioned were not that good and limited in appeal.
I don't see Nintendo having done anything to alienate there audience
in the slightest. In fact they are the one video game company that
consistently tried to please the largest audience and because they do
games they consistently did.
Sony and Microsoft jumped into the gaming much much later and they had
to pull the "look we are edgy and more adult card" to get there foot
in the door.
All Nintendo had to do was what they always do put out great games
that people actually want to play.
The proof is right now. Far from being behind in the times Nintendo's
motion control system the Wii has sold incredibly well. It has a
strong gaming library for all ages and Sony and Microsoft(who both
balked at motion controls and said it was gimmicky) are now clamouring
to get there motion controls out to the consumer.
So just as they try and catch up Nintendo already has a significant
lead.
Wii, DS, Gameboy..rumble, motion controls, d-pad, shoulder buttons,
trigger, analog stick you can look to Nintendo first to give you the
latest innovations in gaming.
The alMIGHTY N
I myself never gave up on Nintendo. I've always liked their products.
However, I knew I was in an ever-shrinking demographic from other
gamers, from magazine articles, from online stories and postings, and
from sales figures.
The alMIGHTY N
No, it was most definitely in the Super Nintendo era. As I clarified
elsewhere, it wasn't the entire span of the Super Nintendo's lifetime
but the latter half of it. Games like Metroid, Castlevania, Contra,
etc. were all in the first half of the system's life. During the last
few years (I'm talking 1995-7 because I don't count 1998-9 when the
SNES was still being manufactured but few companies made games anymore
and Nintendo wasn't one of them), the major releases were all heavily
skewed towards a "family friendly" theme - movie tie-ins, games with
cutesy graphics and/or games based on children's properties.
The Nintendo 64 was certainly a slap in the face to hardcore fans but
the last few years of the SNES were the hand rearing back and getting
ready to smack.
Sonic on the Sega Genesis or Sonic on the Sega Saturn? Ironically,
Sonic was Sega's attempt at doing what Sony did, which was to steal
market share by citing how "kiddie" the Nintendo platform was. And it
worked for a couple of years as the Genesis was the system of choice
in the 16-bit market early on. Nintendo was of course able to change
all that when they got into the market but unfortunately were not able
to do the same thing with the Nintendo 64.
Anyways, the last Sonic game of the 16-bit era came in 1994 when
gamers were still fawning over the SNES.
The alMIGHTY N
> > Yes, games were limited by technology, but that didn't mean they all
> > had to use super saturated primary colors and "cutesy" character
> > designs. Look at the visuals of the SNES Final Fantasy games, Chrono
> > Trigger, Zelda, Mario, Secret of Mana, etc. and then compare them to
> > games like Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Alien 3, Alien vs Predator,
> > any other Capcom fighting or action side scrolling game, etc.
>
> The point here was well made in the games you chose. The SNES games
> were well done, extremely good games that could be played by most all
> players.
Just because a game *can* be played by most all players doesn't mean
all those players will want to.
> The others you mentioned were not that good and limited in appeal.
>
> I don't see Nintendo having done anything to alienate there audience
> in the slightest. In fact they are the one video game company that
> consistently tried to please the largest audience and because they do
> games they consistently did.
If by "there audience" you mean the Nintendo loyalists who stuck with
them through the Nintendo 64 and the GameCube - in other words, people
like me - then I'm in agreement with you. I'm one of the rare gamers
who enjoys not only the "edgier," "more mature" games found on the
Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 but also the "pure fun" games that only
Nintendo can produce.
On the other hand, most gamers developed a taste for the "more mature"
themes and technology that the PlayStation and Saturn offered and gave
up on Nintendo's "wholesome," "family friendly" mission.
You're looking at things from a slightly wrong angle. Nintendo didn't
try to please the largest audience - they tried to make their games
accessible to everyone, but like I said above, just because a gamer
*can* play a game doesn't mean that they will. Games like Mario,
Zelda, etc. lost their appeal to many gamers who felt the Nintendo
line-up was stagnant and stuck in a time period when they were younger
and liked those kinds of games.
> Sony and Microsoft jumped into the gaming much much later and they had
> to pull the "look we are edgy and more adult card" to get there foot
> in the door.
And it worked like a charm, at least for Sony. The PlayStation crushed
the Super Nintendo *and* the Saturn and then proceeded to dominate the
Nintendo 64 as well. Things didn't get any better for Nintendo in the
following generation where the GameCube, alongside newcomer Microsoft,
was thrashed by the PlayStation 2.
> All Nintendo had to do was what they always do put out great games
> that people actually want to play.
You seem to have glossed over the entire fifth and sixth generation of
consoles. Neither the Nintendo 64 nor GameCube came anywhere near
first place in their generations. Nintendo was certainly not leading
the industry in any way, shape or form in the decade from 1996 to
2006. Sure, they played to "their audience" but nobody else. People
had long given up on Nintendo as a viable video game company because
they seemed trapped in the past.
> The proof is right now. Far from being behind in the times Nintendo's
> motion control system the Wii has sold incredibly well. It has a
> strong gaming library for all ages and Sony and Microsoft(who both
> balked at motion controls and said it was gimmicky) are now clamouring
> to get there motion controls out to the consumer.
>
> So just as they try and catch up Nintendo already has a significant
> lead.
LOL
You seem to have a very distorted view of reality, my friend. You act
as if Nintendo has been successful from SNES all the way up to now,
completely ignoring the debacles of the Nintendo 64 and the GameCube.
Nintendo's recent success is due to some very smart business
decisions, specifically the strategy of targeting children, people who
gave up on gaming entirely after the SNES, people who have never
played video games, and people who are just casual gamers (as in
Bejeweled, Tetris, Diner Dash, etc.).
They don't compete in the "traditional gamers" space because they have
no shot... they can't possibly beat Microsoft or Sony at that game.
They succeeded this generation because they *created* a new market -
they're not worried about the "traditional" video game market and
instead are focused on pushing this totally new territory.
> Wii, DS, Gameboy..rumble, motion controls, d-pad, shoulder buttons,
> trigger, analog stick you can look to Nintendo first to give you the
> latest innovations in gaming.
I don't disagree here... except when it comes to the actual media on
which games came. Another big contributing factor to Nintendo's
downfall was their refusal to adopt an optical format for the Nintendo
64.
Eman
> I don't disagree here... except when it comes to the actual media on
> which games came. Another big contributing factor to Nintendo's
> downfall was their refusal to adopt an optical format for the Nintendo
> 64.
Who knows how today's gaming landscape would look if the Nintendo /
Sony developed optical drive deal actually came to fruition. Maybe
not much different, the Wii would still be whooping tail and the PS
and Xbox probably would have never been made.
The alMIGHTY N
a) Sony would have had no need to create their own standalone console
because they would have had ownership rights of any and all games made
in the SNES-CD format. This is the reason why Nintendo cancelled their
partnership with Sony, leading Sony to develop their own console,
weather an infringement suit from Nintendo, who owned the name "Play
Station," make a truce with Nintendo whereby the "Play Station" would
have an SNES port for cartridges, then decide to ditch the big N and
change the name to "PlayStation."
b) The Saturn would still have bombed (which it did in our history
because of mismanagement by the executives, building on the loss of
trust from the developers and consumers after how they mishandled the
end of the Genesis).
c) The Dreamcast would still have bombed for the same reasons it did.
d) Microsoft still would have seen the opening for a third console and
may have seen it earlier since it would have been Nintendo/Sony
against Sega. In fact, I think that Microsoft would have been in an
even better position than it is today since it would have been
Microsoft who was able to step in and "bump up the age group on video
games" instead of Sony, who would have been relying on Nintendo and
their publishers to do all the development work.
argento32
I definitely understand that the n64 and gamecube didnt do as well as
they should have but i don't see it as Nintendo's downfall at all.
Like you I did stick with Nintendo sure i had the other systems to but
to me Nintendo has always had more pure gaming.
I preferred the imagination used for a game like Zelda or Mario(though
wasnt the biggest Super Mario Sunshine fan sadly)
I guess I am weird that way when everyone wanted the next shooter
clone or yet another skateboarding games I was more impressed with the
Nintendo games. Hell they even put out the best versions of Resident
Evil 4.
Ya know i am probably alone on this but i miss the old carts.
Doug Jacobs
>> I'm not saying it's *THE* gaming technology/device of the last decade, but
>> certainly belongs in the top 10 somewhere - probably down around #8 or so.
>
> If we're talking about a list focusing on the top 10 devices that
> defined the decade for gaming, sure. The list Jonah posted was of the
> top 10 devices that defined the decade from a broad standpoint. Only
> one gaming device is going to make a list like that, of course, and
> the Xbox 360 does not deserve to be the one.
Agreed.
> Sony and Nintendo are in different boats. Sony definitely needs to
> play catch up with their online service. Nintendo doesn't because they
> don't even need to focus on online gaming. Most of their games aren't
> even designed to have online gaming because their mission statement is
> bringing people together in the same location to play. Almost every
> multiplayer game is meant to be played in a "party" setting with
> family, friends, etc. Nintendo isn't focused on having people play
> with strangers on the other side of the country.
I think Nintendo is going to have to focus on online play eventually.
While it's fun to be able to play table tennis with your friends in the
family room together I can't see why you shouldn't be able to play with
friends elsewhere in the country or world. And while you may be able to
get a group of people together to play the latest Mario Party title once
or twice, I'm sure there's a group of people scattered across a wider
geographical area that would love to keep playing, but can't because
they've run out of local friends.
As for Nintendo's thrust towards family-friendly, they shouldn't then be
complaining about the lack of "Serious gamer" titles. It's like watching
history repeat itself. Even when a serious gamer title arrives - like Mad
World - then people get upset that Nintendo isn't staying family
friendly. I think finding a balance between these two extremes is
Nintendo's real challenge. Either that, or they should just eschew the
serious gamer market altogether, and only go after casual and
family-friendly fare.
> I don't see financial success as the core attribute for a device that
> defined the decade. The PlayStation 2 has sold more than the Wii,
> sure, but has also been around for the entire decade. There are over
> 64 million Wiis worldwide right now - by the PS2's third year, it was
> only at 51 million.
>
> This is not to say that the PlayStation 2 isn't the device that
> defined the decade but that things like financial success, size of the
> library, etc. are not appropriate criteria. Rather, the focus should
> be on the impact to the gaming industry and the whole concept of
> gaming.
This would lead me back to my arguments about why Xbox Live (not the
consoles - just Live) should be on the list.
> Video games are much more mainstream now thanks to the Wii, which
> effected much more change in the gaming world than any system before
> it. In the second half of the decade, the Wii *was* video gaming for
> the most part as the importance of the traditional "hardcore" gamers
> waned. You *know* it's successful when third parties are clamoring to
> get in on the action even when the chance of success is abysmally low
> for anyone *besides* Nintendo.
The PS2 certainly popped open the door to the mainstream market. I'm sure
you can remember all the craziness and hype from folks trying to buy one
who hadn't even played a video game before in their life. I remember a
coworker of mine at the time coming up to me and saying "I don't know what
a PS2 is, but all I know is I have to get one!" He ended up getting one
off eBay for $500 or something. He played a few games on it, then decided
he just wanted a real DVD player so he put it up for sale a year later.
If the Wii had launched alongside or even earlier than PS2, do you think
it would have had such a huge reception? Personally, I'm not entirely
sure. I definitely think the higher prices of this generation definitely
helped Nintendo, but without that perception of "It's only $250!" it may
not have been as appealing to so many people at first.
> On the other hand, during the first half of the decade, the
> PlayStation 2 was video gaming. They made video games even cooler than
> the PlayStation did, which was a remarkable feat at the time.
>
> I would probably give the edge to the PS2 simply because its impact
> was more prevalent during a greater portion of the decade and the
> effects of this impact are still felt with the success of the Xbox
> 360, which really was built on the kinds of strides that were made in
> the previous generation (more the PS2 than the Xbox).
>
> But you can't rightfully ignore the greater overall impact of Nintendo
> making people who aren't inclined to games want to play games over
> Sony making people who were already inclined to play games start
> playing again.
I'm not downplaying the Wii, just saying my personal pick for top 10
gaming devices/innovations would be the PS2. The Wii would be high on the
list too, maybe even #2 for bringing back that magic of playing with
family I haven't felt since the days of the 2600, with heated 4-player
games of Warlords, and trying to take down mom's high score in Breakout
and Pinball. (mom's competitive streak continues as she battles my
step father for dominance in Wii Fit...)
--
It's not broken. It's...advanced.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
The only new Sonic on the Saturn was that crappy Sonic racing game
(Sonic R?). Not a good sign when they couldn't get a proper entry for
their flagship title out for the new console.
The alMIGHTY N
You don't count Knuckles' Chaotix and Sonic 3D Blast? Both came out
before the Sonic Racing game.
The alMIGHTY N
I guess it depends on what you think "downfall" means.
I look at Nintendo as the pioneer and leader of the video games
industry after the crash that ended the Atari and Intellivion's time
in this world. They innovated with the NES and the SNES and ruled
living rooms worldwide for a good decade (and for a kid, as I was at
10 years old when the NES first hit U.S. shores, that's a LONG time).
I consider the transitional period around the mid-90s Nintendo's
"downfall" because their arrogant refusal to change with the times and
adapt to the changing needs of fans who had outgrown Mario, Zelda,
"cutesy" graphics, "family friendly" themes, etc. resulted in them
hanging onto a distant second place only because the idiots in control
of Sega f***ed things up, and then falling into an even more distant
third place in the following generation to a point where many of the
people who loved Nintendo growing up now ridiculed it for its "kiddie"
presence.
Of course, personally, I didn't care so much. I bought a Nintendo 64
shortly after launch, never owned a Saturn and bought a PlayStation
for the sole purpose of playing Resident Evil 2 (and later 3, of
course). I was almost exclusively a Nintendo gamer until the Xbox came
out and didn't own a PlayStation system until this generation when I
bought both the PS3 and the PS2.
> I preferred the imagination used for a game like Zelda or Mario(though
> wasnt the biggest Super Mario Sunshine fan sadly)
I love the creativity that goes into most of Nintendo's titles. Their
games are ones that only they could make - others try to copy the
formula but always fail because there's just something about that
Nintendo kind of imagination, quality, etc.
I actually loved Super Mario Sunshine. It's the only Mario game I
fully and absolutely completed (got every single blue coin). I could
never bring myself to finish Super Mario 64 because the camera
controls were so horrid.
> I guess I am weird that way when everyone wanted the next shooter
> clone or yet another skateboarding games I was more impressed with the
> Nintendo games. Hell they even put out the best versions of Resident
> Evil 4.
Not according to, well, pretty much everyone else. Resident Evil 4
actually started out as a GameCube exclusive but Capcom later realized
that the market just wasn't there with the GameCube (***downfall***)
and so ported the game to the PlayStation 2. The port was done so well
that few gamers or reviewers thought ill of it - in fact, it has
better graphics, better display (progressive scan and true widescreen
as opposed to the letterboxing of the GameCube version), controls just
as well, and has additional content and gameplay that makes it a much
stronger package.
Of course, GameCube had it first. ;-)
> Ya know i am probably alone on this but i miss the old carts.
As do I. I still fire up my Nintendo 64 and SNES every so often. I
don't have many games left as I sold most off on eBay, but I still
have some good times with them. I even have a redesigned SNES that I
got relatively unused on eBay ages ago and the top loading NES from a
retro gaming website that has long since closed down. Not too many NES
games but some good ones - The Adventures of Little Nemo, Chip 'n'
Dale's Rescue Rangers to name a few.
The alMIGHTY N
The question, though, is whether there are enough situations like this
to warrant a new focus on online gaming.
I think that the next-generation hardware will include a new
perspective on online gaming only if Nintendo aims beyond its current
casual, "family friendly," "party with friends" mentality. I'm not so
sure that Nintendo's anywhere accepting this new kind of thinking,
though.
> As for Nintendo's thrust towards family-friendly, they shouldn't then be
> complaining about the lack of "Serious gamer" titles.
Nintendo isn't the one complaining...
> It's like watching
> history repeat itself. Even when a serious gamer title arrives - like Mad
> World - then people get upset that Nintendo isn't staying family
> friendly.
Conservative, right wing, "family values" type people do. Most gamers
don't, though. In fact, the stronger sentiment is from hardcore gamers
who wonder why there aren't more games like that on the Wii.
*THOSE* gamers, however, have no right to complain because they didn't
buy a Wii.
> I think finding a balance between these two extremes is
> Nintendo's real challenge. Either that, or they should just eschew the
> serious gamer market altogether, and only go after casual and
> family-friendly fare.
The "serious gamer" market is not compatible with Nintendo's current
"family friendly" strategy. The market would really have to change in
order to give Nintendo the kick in the ass it needs. I don't think
that's going to happen, though. Consider:
a) Wii sales were better this holiday season than last year.
b) Mario Galaxy 2 is coming out this year.
c) A new Zelda game is coming out either this year or next.
d) That new Metroid game is coming out.
They're doing well. They're going to do well. Nintendo needs the 360
and PS3 to really start encroaching on its space and neither platform
seems able to do that even with massive price cuts and hot titles.
> > I don't see financial success as the core attribute for a device that
> > defined the decade. The PlayStation 2 has sold more than the Wii,
> > sure, but has also been around for the entire decade. There are over
> > 64 million Wiis worldwide right now - by the PS2's third year, it was
> > only at 51 million.
>
> > This is not to say that the PlayStation 2 isn't the device that
> > defined the decade but that things like financial success, size of the
> > library, etc. are not appropriate criteria. Rather, the focus should
> > be on the impact to the gaming industry and the whole concept of
> > gaming.
>
> This would lead me back to my arguments about why Xbox Live (not the
> consoles - just Live) should be on the list.
It didn't have more of an impact on the gaming industry as the PS2 and
Wii did. Again, on a list solely targeted at the industry, Xbox Live
would be high up on the list but after the PS2, the Wii and the DS.
> > Video games are much more mainstream now thanks to the Wii, which
> > effected much more change in the gaming world than any system before
> > it. In the second half of the decade, the Wii *was* video gaming for
> > the most part as the importance of the traditional "hardcore" gamers
> > waned. You *know* it's successful when third parties are clamoring to
> > get in on the action even when the chance of success is abysmally low
> > for anyone *besides* Nintendo.
>
> The PS2 certainly popped open the door to the mainstream market. I'm sure
> you can remember all the craziness and hype from folks trying to buy one
> who hadn't even played a video game before in their life. I remember a
> coworker of mine at the time coming up to me and saying "I don't know what
> a PS2 is, but all I know is I have to get one!" He ended up getting one
> off eBay for $500 or something. He played a few games on it, then decided
> he just wanted a real DVD player so he put it up for sale a year later.
>
> If the Wii had launched alongside or even earlier than PS2, do you think
> it would have had such a huge reception? Personally, I'm not entirely
> sure. I definitely think the higher prices of this generation definitely
> helped Nintendo, but without that perception of "It's only $250!" it may
> not have been as appealing to so many people at first.
The hype for non-gamers was not nearly as big as you recall. Most of
the expansion of the market was actually just bringing gamers who had
abandoned video gaming once they graduated high school by putting out
more sophisticated games like GTA 3 (that was really the big one that
cemented the PS2's place as the generation leader).
Wii, on the other hand, is bringing in people who never even conceived
of playing video games. Soccer moms, grandparents, people "too cool"
to play "nerdy" games, etc.
> > On the other hand, during the first half of the decade, the
> > PlayStation 2 was video gaming. They made video games even cooler than
> > the PlayStation did, which was a remarkable feat at the time.
>
> > I would probably give the edge to the PS2 simply because its impact
> > was more prevalent during a greater portion of the decade and the
> > effects of this impact are still felt with the success of the Xbox
> > 360, which really was built on the kinds of strides that were made in
> > the previous generation (more the PS2 than the Xbox).
>
> > But you can't rightfully ignore the greater overall impact of Nintendo
> > making people who aren't inclined to games want to play games over
> > Sony making people who were already inclined to play games start
> > playing again.
>
> I'm not downplaying the Wii, just saying my personal pick for top 10
> gaming devices/innovations would be the PS2.
The PS2 is also my pick for "defining the decade."
> The Wii would be high on the
> list too, maybe even #2 for bringing back that magic of playing with
> family I haven't felt since the days of the 2600, with heated 4-player
> games of Warlords, and trying to take down mom's high score in Breakout
> and Pinball. (mom's competitive streak continues as she battles my
> step father for dominance in Wii Fit...)
1. PS2
2. Wii
3. DS
4. Xbox 360
5. Xbox Live
Uh... are there *even* 10 entries?
I suppose you could really get specific and say something like Guitar
Hero, which had a HUGE impact on the gaming space.
Nick Soapdish, Jr.
They weren't on the Sega Saturn, though. Chaotix was a 32X add-on
game, and 3D Blast was the Genesis. As far as I remember, Sonic R was
the only Sonic game for the Saturn, and it's not even considered a
full-on main entry in the series. One of the big things about Sonic
Adventure was that it was the first "main sequence" Sonic games in 4
years.
One of the biggest disappointments for old-school Sega and Nintendo
fans is how the Sonic & Mario "partnership" was squandered on a stupid
Olympic license cash-in. A full-on platformer with both characters
used for different sections would've been a great idea, but
instead............
The alMIGHTY N
You're right that Chaotix was a 32X game (forgot about that add-on)
but I know 3D Blast was released on both the Genesis *and* the Saturn.
> As far as I remember, Sonic R was
> the only Sonic game for the Saturn, and it's not even considered a
> full-on main entry in the series. One of the big things about Sonic
> Adventure was that it was the first "main sequence" Sonic games in 4
> years.
>
> One of the biggest disappointments for old-school Sega and Nintendo
> fans is how the Sonic & Mario "partnership" was squandered on a stupid
> Olympic license cash-in. A full-on platformer with both characters
> used for different sections would've been a great idea, but
> instead............
I'm very much in agreement with you here. I was never a fan of Sonic's
but was able to recognize what a massive waste it was to have the
first cross-over be some half-assed sports-esque title. A dual
platformer would have been an interesting concept...