|
ImpAtom posted:Even that ignores how you earn money in the Pokemon world, which is by fighting trainers and taking their money when you win. (Or losing your own money when you lose.) So either you'd have to include a bunch of NPC trainers to fight to earn money (in which case why is this a MMO again) or have to completely change how money is earned and in turn a number of the other dynamics of the game. This ultra-rigid thinking is what I don't understand. So what if they changed how money was earned? quote:Diablo 3 isn't a MMO. Christ, the most MMO element of the game (the Auction House) is largely considered to be one of the absolute worst features of the game and Blizzard has actively said they wish they could phase it out. 1.) Who the hell said Diablo 3 was an MMO? I was just citing it as an example of group-specific PvE instancing. 2.) What the hell does the Diablo 3's auction house have to do with anything being discussed?
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Toady posted:Your ultra-rigid thinking is what I don't understand. So what if they changed how money was earned? Well, to begin with, you'd need to them implement other ways to get money, which would involve changing the fairly straightforward structure of the game. You'd also have to take a more careful look at how the resources are handled because they wouldn't be available in the same way. You'd also have to reconsider things like the punishment for death, the cost of healing, the prizes for winning PVP battles, and countless other things which are currently streamlined in Pokemon in a good way. You can completely change the game but then what you're asking for isn't an online version of the main Pokemon game. It's a different game that happens to have Pikachu in it. (And lord knows Nintendo has marketed plenty of those but most of them suck.) Toady posted:1.) Who the hell said Diablo 3 was an MMO? I was just citing it as an example of group-specific PvE instancing. Because we're discussing MMO here, not group-specific PvE instancing which exists in many games, including (thanks to Japan's love of those kind of games) offline games. Christ, Pokemon has it for some of the lovely minigames. None of this establishes what a Pokemon MMO would have that a single player game can't and doesn't provide. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jul 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Toady posted:No one can make that prediction with that kind of certainty. Which is why I added the "disclaimer" that considering it's never coming out, it will never be proved that it wouldn't work. But, honestly, do you really think anyone here can't make that prediction? What MMOs do you know that weren't gigantic money sinks? Did you know that the U already has a MMO from an absurdly popular franchise (Dragon Quest) and that it failed miserably to get much attention? Combine these two and make your own conclusions -- everyone else seems to have already figured that in all likelihood there's no chance in hell that it would work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Considering how poorly DQX did as an MMO and it having just as much of a brand recognition as Pokemon, I wouldn't risk creating a Pokemon MMO game due to the inherit financial risk and drain on resources it would need to keep things running smoothly. If anything, Nintendo should move to release a separate Pokemon game on the WiiU with some sort of online competitions where you can upload your Pokemon from your 3DS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Louisgod posted:Considering how poorly DQX did as an MMO and it having just as much of a brand recognition as Pokemon, I wouldn't risk creating a Pokemon MMO game due to the inherit financial risk and drain on resources it would need to keep things running smoothly. If anything, Nintendo should move to release a separate Pokemon game on the WiiU with some sort of online competitions where you can upload your Pokemon from your 3DS. Now Pokemon Stadium Online is an online Pokemon game I can get behind. edit: Although with the new games being in 3D one of the big draws to the Stadium series isn't really relevant anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Louisgod posted:Considering how poorly DQX did as an MMO and it having just as much of a brand recognition as Pokemon, I wouldn't risk creating a Pokemon MMO game due to the inherit financial risk and drain on resources it would need to keep things running smoothly. If anything, Nintendo should move to release a separate Pokemon game on the WiiU with some sort of online competitions where you can upload your Pokemon from your 3DS. A Pokemon Stadium 3 (4? Whatever they're up to) for the Wii U with some kind of leaderboard/online challenge thing would make sense. It'd probably be a pretty minimal drain on resources since they could then recycle the Pokemon models they use there to a billion other things like they did with Stadium. I'm not sure how'd you sell it though considering that "Pokemon in 3D!" is gonna matter a lot less after Pokemon XY come out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Well, to begin with, you'd need to them implement other ways to get money, which would involve changing the fairly straightforward structure of the game. You'd also have to take a more careful look at how the resources are handled because they wouldn't be available in the same way. You'd also have to reconsider things like the punishment for death, the cost of healing, the prizes for winning PVP battles, and countless other things which are currently streamlined in Pokemon in a good way. Right, game designers would have to do what they already do and iterate on the details to turn it into a working game. But what you want is for people to provide answers for all these things in a forum post, and if they don't, then clearly it's an impossible idea. There's nothing to suggest the changes to accommodate an MMO would make it unrecognizable as a Pokemon game. quote:Because we're discussing MMO here, not group-specific PvE instancing which exists in many games, including (thanks to Japan's love of those kind of games) offline games. Christ, Pokemon has it for some of the lovely minigames. None of this establishes what a Pokemon MMO would have that a single player game can't and doesn't provide. I'm aware that we're discussing MMOs. Diablo III was an example of instanced PvE grouping that addressed one of your concerns. I could have cited WoW instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Toady posted:Right, game designers would have to do what they already do and iterate on the details to turn it into a working game. But what you want is for people to provide answers for all these things in a forum post, and if they don't, then clearly it's an impossible idea. There's nothing to suggest the changes to accommodate an MMO would make it unrecognizable as a Pokemon game. "Game designers do what they do" also involves when knowing something is a bad idea no matter how many people ask for it because there are a lot of things which sound great in concept but loving suck in execution. I don't want the answer to all these things in a forum post. I want people to actually say what they think an online Pokemon would be like and what it would offer that Pokemon already doesn't. This isn't a "make the game" question. So far the one answer seems to be an incredibly hardcore MMO which isn't made for children, features heavy competition, and possibly borrows from EVE Online, and I don't really think anyone needs to actually argue that "make an MMO for a smaller fanbase than your single player game, despite that fanbase already buying the single player game" is actually a profitable or wise decision from any marketing standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Saoshyant posted:Which is why I added the "disclaimer" that considering it's never coming out, it will never be proved that it wouldn't work. But, honestly, do you really think anyone here can't make that prediction? What MMOs do you know that weren't gigantic money sinks? Did you know that the U already has a MMO from an absurdly popular franchise (Dragon Quest) and that it failed miserably to get much attention? Combine these two and make your own conclusions -- everyone else seems to have already figured that in all likelihood there's no chance in hell that it would work. Well, DQX was only available in Japan, and it was only available on the dead Wii its first year. It seems crazy to me to predict that no successful MMO will be created again because previous ones were money sinks. A Pokemon MMO is an opportunity for a casual MMO focused on PvE grouping with friends mixed with light PvP. It's absolutely possible that such a game would be very successful for Nintendo, if they were ever capable of properly supporting an MMO. However, the argument about Nintendo's ability to financially support an MMO is different from the argument that adapting the game into an MMO is impossible, which is really what I was responding to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:A Pokemon Stadium 3 (4? Whatever they're up to) for the Wii U with some kind of leaderboard/online challenge thing would make sense. It'd probably be a pretty minimal drain on resources since they could then recycle the Pokemon models they use there to a billion other things like they did with Stadium. Pokemon in HD. Most of the time I've played pocket mans in the past has been at home. I dont really give a poo poo about an MMO, but a straight-faced console Pokemon would just be aces. And not like that lovely GC one, gawd.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Edit:awful app doublepost
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
One and the Same posted:Pokemon in HD. Most of the time I've played pocket mans in the past has been at home. I dont really give a poo poo about an MMO, but a straight-faced console Pokemon would just be aces. And not like that lovely GC one, gawd. To be honest, I think this is kind of what people mean when they say "I want a Pokemon MMO." They don't want a Pokemon MMO, they want a full-fledged console game that is like Pokemon but bigger. A big budget WiiU HD Pokemon RPG with a big explorable world and all that jazz. They don't want the online features or social aspects, they just want a Pokemon that isn't a handheld game. Unlike an MMO, I do think that this would be a massive seller, but Nintendo doesn't think it would be enough of a seller to give it a budget that could go to a much cheaper handheld Pokemon instead. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jul 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:"Game designers do what they do" also involves when knowing something is a bad idea no matter how many people ask for it because there are a lot of things which sound great in concept but loving suck in execution. People want to battle and trade with friends in an open world, become gym leaders, fly to different continents together to find Pokemon, etc. It just seems like what you're wanting is a design document that specifies things like the money market, healing costs, death punishments, and so on, and then when it's not provided, it's portrayed as proof that it's impossible. Practically speaking, such a game won't exist not only due to the financial cost of supporting it but the fact that the series creator wants players to go out and meet face-to-face, which is also why there's no console version.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
One and the Same posted:And not like that lovely GC one, gawd. I don't get this at all. Every pokemon console game has had the 3d battling, stadiums etc. But the GC ones had an rpg mode in addition to that. What exactly do Colosseum and XD lack that pokemon stadium / battle revolution have? EDit VVV - The only way I think you could get being a gym leader to work is by making it a streetpass thing. You streetpass someone playing pokemon? Now you can go fight his/her gym. MrFlibble fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Toady posted:People want to battle and trade with friends in an open world, become gym leaders, fly to different continents together to find Pokemon, etc. It just seems like what you're wanting is a design document that specifies things like the money market, healing costs, death punishments, and so on, and then when it's not provided, it's portrayed as proof that it's impossible. Except, again, almost none of that requires or benefits from an MMO and in most cases it's already available in-game. The exception is something like becoming a gym leader, and you have to really really push to think that allowing only certain players to become the thing everyone wants to be is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Except, again, almost none of that requires or benefits from an MMO and in most cases it's already available in-game. The exception is something like becoming a gym leader, and you have to really really push to think that allowing only certain players to become the thing everyone wants to be is a good idea. Seriously, does no one remember Star Wars Galaxies? The clusterfuck surrounding Jedi in that game was ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
Well, the title of gym leader, or a whole new title invented for player characters, could exist only among a player's club of friends rather than game-wide. I'm not sure why people think MMO means Everquest/WoW. The game could focus on PvE co-op with a persistent PvP hub world where people form their groups and battle each other for fun. Obviously, the makers of the game could create whatever design would be necessary, and so what if it wasn't the exact same ruleset as the single-player games. Apparently, the Jedi in Star Wars Galaxies are in the Random Reasons It Won't Work bin along with the Diablo 3 auction house.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:To be honest, I think this is kind of what people mean when they say "I want a Pokemon MMO." MMO or not I'd prefer if they would just overhaul the entire franchise for a change, there's only so many times I can play Pokémon Red/Blue with a few extra tweaks and different sprites. I was watching my partner play Ni No Kuni, and every battle segment had me thinking "drat, just swap out the monsters and change the characters to trainers and this would be fantastic!". Turn based battles do have their place, but it's been done to death in Pokémon; a bit more action and input would do it wonders, especially in multiplayer. As for the Wii U; What's the loving hold up with the games? I swear the release date for the Wonderful 101 keeps getting further away, and I don't see why Rayman Legends got pushed back either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Super Slash posted:As for the Wii U; What's the loving hold up with the games? I swear the release date for the Wonderful 101 keeps getting further away, and I don't see why Rayman Legends got pushed back either. Nintendo's struggle to adapt to HD development has slowed them down. Maybe third-party developers are no longer devoting as many resources to the console.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
I could see a Pokemon on the consoles working in a Dragon's Dogma sort of way but a full-fledged MMO? It'd be a nightmare to deal with and run. It's one of those ideas that sounds neat in theory but would probably play like absolute balls in practice. A fully 3D pokemon world in HD would certainly move units though if there was some muscle behind it. But an MMO? Just what my Pokemon experience was missing, xXxAshXKetchupxXx throwing a poke'ball at the monster I'm trying to capture and DawnsFeeties shrieking racial epitaphs at the pokemon center.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Super Slash posted:As for the Wii U; What's the loving hold up with the games? I swear the release date for the Wonderful 101 keeps getting further away, and I don't see why Rayman Legends got pushed back either. Everyone asking where the gently caress are the games, like we don't have release dates, are the reason the AAA model exist. "Gamers" want everything now, and since devs have been making tabloids instead of long lasting games, we get a new version of the same poo poo every year. This is why you won't see EA Sports, maybe ever again on Wii U. They want quick and dirty ports across all systems so they can make money. All the money they have to spend making something worthwhile for someone to consider buying it on a Wii U can be spent on advertising or not be spent at all. Having their own console, allows Nintendo to put out quality games that will last longer than the time it takes you to get to the end of the story, owed to their focus on gameplay and not narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:Everyone asking where the gently caress are the games, like we don't have release dates, are the reason the AAA model exist. "Gamers" want everything now, and since devs have been making tabloids instead of long lasting games, we get a new version of the same poo poo every year. Well, it certainly helps to have games. A high-minded focus on quality is nice, but not having many games for your console at launch makes it suffer one of the worst launches in company history, and leads to third-party games not showing up or going multiplatform, such as Rayman. This is same BS Quality over Quantity argument Nintendo tried to pull during the N64 years. Remind me, how did those go again? I know it's hip and hilarious on Something Awful to always blame developers and publishers and the AAA scheme for the Wii U's woes, but they have no reason to support the system, Nintendo has done a terrible job courting more support, and many of the games that could be driving sales from Nintendo are all delayed. You won't see third party games in general on the system if it keeps selling as badly as it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
One of the main reasons the Wii U is selling bad is because most of these new "gamers" who jumped on the "video games make you cool" bandwagon are ignorant and love to hate on Nintendo for the stupidest reasons ever. It's sad, but that's how it is. Fanboys are cancer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Magossa posted:One of the main reasons the Wii U is selling bad is because most of these new "gamers" who jumped on the "video games make you cool" bandwagon are ignorant and love to hate on Nintendo for the stupidest reasons ever. It's sad, but that's how it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Out of curiosity: how old are you? I figured he was being ironic
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
Toady posted:The game could focus on PvE co-op with a persistent PvP hub world where people form their groups and battle each other for fun. I love this idea. but what if, they had single player instancing and local co-op but did in a mobile environment? Like you can take your pokemon to your freinds house and actually hang out with him in person and then do co-op pve instancing. Then you can have an optional PvP overworld where you can go and battle with people all around the globe! ....oh wait.... that's already what the game is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:This is same BS Quality over Quantity argument Nintendo tried to pull during the N64 years. Remind me, how did those go again? Super Mario 64 Sep 26, 1996 Pilotwings 64 Sep 29, 1996 Wave Race 64 Nov 1, 1996 Wayne Gretzky's Nov 11, 1996 Killer Instinct Gold Nov 25, 1996 Cruis'n USA Dec 3, 1996 Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire Dec 3, 1996 Mario Kart 64 Feb 10, 1997 Turok: Dinosaur Hunter Feb 28, 1997 Blast Corps Feb 28, 1997 That's launch window. Then in the fall, the wave of the Rumble Pak rolled through with Star Fox and Golden Eye, among others. My family only had Mario, Wave Race and KI Gold until Star Fox and we didn't cry about new games. The N64 was the fall of Nintendo's exclusives with a bunch of companies jumping ship to Sony because Nintendo was run by an old rear end in a top hat. The N64 loving revolutionized 3d gaming with Mario 64, analog control, and the rumble pak. Being smug about Nintendo quality when they weren't even at their peak says a lot about people that hold the same opinion as you. I won't even bring up the AKI games. Nintendo quality distilled in to video form: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgEZJt911Qw When this came in the mail, I played it over and over again watching the game highlights at the end. Also, 3rd party was supposed to be filling out the schedule, but instead dropped poo poo on to the market place, and expected informed customers with better versions of the games to double dip. Nintendo is loving up with HD development schedules, but to hand wave their quality when none of their games require day one patches due to being rushed is ridiculous. Microsoft is releasing Forza 5 literally unfinished, but Nintendo needs to hurry their games out the door.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 07:37
|
|
|
No one's really judging Nintendo's quality but if the games aren't out there the quality is kind of moot. Also Nintendo has needed patches in the past. Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword have both had game breaking bugs in them. The solution ended up having to be to print whole new discs to mail out and replace them or just tell people not gently caress up in ways that are quite easily possible, because the Wii has no patching system. There's no question there's a rise in bugs in games but it has more to do with the complexity of the games today as opposed to decades ago, and less about developer incompetence. The Wii's lack of a patching system really hosed it up on situations like this and it's really dumb to act like the ability to patch games is somehow a worse evil than the requirement that you get it right on on the first pass, because everyone can make mistakes. RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:Super Mario 64 Sep 26, 1996 It's like you missed the whole point of the question. All of those things you listed did nothing to prevent the N64 from taking a DISTANT second to its main competitor. It wasn't even close. The successor to the N64 managed to sell even WORSE. Their peak was the Wii, their best performing console since the NES, breaking a streak of declining sales in the face of actual competition across three console generations, a system where pretty much only their games were huge successes, and yet that has done poo poo all in translating to Wii U sales. quote:The N64 loving revolutionized 3d gaming with Mario 64, analog control, and the rumble pak. Being smug about Nintendo quality when they weren't even at their peak says a lot about people that hold the same opinion as you. How much good did all that do for them? Nintendo dragged their rear end getting quality software to the N64, both from themselves and from third parties in general, and failed to court third parties, and delivered a system that was not even close to forward-thinking, and the result was a system that got its rear end kicked by a newcomer that nobody expected anything from at the time until after it blew up. YOU might not have complained about the barren line up and the fact that you only had three games to play until another good game arrived, YOU might not have cared about Nintendo basically falling apart the entirety of a console generation after failing to recover what they'd lost early on, but the results of that generation speak for themselves. The silly part of it all is they seem to have done it again, but thankfully they have people like you to run interference for them in this time of need. quote:Also, 3rd party was supposed to be filling out the schedule, but instead dropped poo poo on to the market place, and expected informed customers with better versions of the games to double dip. It is NOT the responsibility of third party developers, for ANY console, to carry a system to success alone. Blaming them as the primary reason for a console floundering in the market is shortsighted at best, the nicest possible terms that could be described in. The maker of the console must be able to market the stupid thing, actually convince third parties to do more than work on ports for the system, and be ready at the launch of the console itself with software that really shows or hints at why it's worth the money being asked for. Nintendo failed to do all of this with the N64, and managed to do the same with the GameCube, and did it AGAIN with the Wii U, which is why it's currently in the state it's in. I want to believe they can turn this around like the 3DS, but unlike the 3DS, Nintendo's home consoles actually HAVE competition to speak of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 10:08
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:It's like you missed the whole point of the question. quote:How much good did all that do for them? quote:
Nintendo knows, a single game won't sell a system but to a few people. You need a lineup to sell to everyone. Nintendo is the only company being asked to dump all of it's first party games at launch. Everyone else money hats. Nintendo stopped doing this, because they were getting disrespected because of the poo poo their money was bringing in. You say early on, as if 3rd party developers had much of a choice. They could go to Nintendo, or Sega. Once the PlayStation came, with it's cheap discs, everyone started leaving. I wish people would stop acting like Nintendo had great 3rd party relationships back then, when they were pretty much monopolizing the entire market.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Has Nintendo ever REALLY had good relations with third parties? I mean the NES was the only market in town for a while and they had an iron grip over the system and cartridge manufacturing. The SNES eased up a bit but after that it's all been downhill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
The Gamecube had great third party support. A few great exclusives and a port of almost every multiplatform game. People talk about how it was a failure but it didn't really sell that much worse than the X box. The game boy advance(and Color before that) probably had the best third party support of any Nintendo system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
Yeah now that I think about it Nintendo handhelds have always done well but I wonder if that's just like the NES situation where it has such a massive market share. I mean what serious competitors did they have before the PSP? Game Gear/Lynx both ate AA batteries like a fat kid and the NGPC/Wonderswan didn't dent the market in the US. Japan I can't comment as much on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
The Wonderful 101 is lookin really good. I hope people start to realize it's a new game and it doesn't go the Xenoblade road. Then again...
Magossa fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Trollologist posted:I love this idea. but what if, they had single player instancing and local co-op but did in a mobile environment? Like you can take your pokemon to your freinds house and actually hang out with him in person and then do co-op pve instancing. Someday, we won't have to travel to other people's houses for multiplayer. I believe we can make this sci-fi future a reality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Stanos posted:Yeah now that I think about it Nintendo handhelds have always done well but I wonder if that's just like the NES situation where it has such a massive market share. I mean what serious competitors did they have before the PSP? Game Gear/Lynx both ate AA batteries like a fat kid and the NGPC/Wonderswan didn't dent the market in the US. Japan I can't comment as much on. Game Gear did get a number of licensed games and did manage to kick around kind of like the PSP today, it was one of those "They're still making games for that?" systems. Other than that, it was pretty much Tiger handhelds and other random cartridge-based portables that'd be in the actual toy section, like Game.com or LeapFrog. edit: Just skim this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handheld_game_console There really hasn't been anything nearly as huge as Game Boy. gay skull fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:Everyone asking where the gently caress are the games, like we don't have release dates, are the reason the AAA model exist. "Gamers" want everything now, and since devs have been making tabloids instead of long lasting games, we get a new version of the same poo poo every year. Obviously, a release date is not equivalent to a playable game. There's nothing needy about wanting games right now for the game console you have right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:Nintendo is the only company being asked to dump all of it's first party games at launch. Everyone else money hats. Nintendo stopped doing this, because they were getting disrespected because of the poo poo their money was bringing in. Well for one nobody's asking Nintendo to drop all their games at once, just give us a few in the launch window instead of just going "Oh geez HD is hard" and loving up all of their release dates. And for two they kind of brought this on themselves for cementing their reputation as the weak machine you keep around just for Nintendo games while you play everything else on one of the real consoles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Toady posted:Obviously, a release date is not equivalent to a playable game. There's nothing needy about wanting games right now for the game console you have right now. Of course not. I was saying the attitude of this generation of games has been of impatience. Day 1 patches for the majority of games to honor a date they set. Nintendo does the math, sees if it's worth delaying the game for whatever features they're putting in and then act on it. I bought a Gamecube on day one, and ironically only bought Madden as my first game. I was sad I didn't have more to play, but this didn't give me an anti-Nintendo attitude. I played my Dreamcast, instead. OatmealRaisin posted:And for two they kind of brought this on themselves for cementing their reputation as the weak machine you keep around just for Nintendo games while you play everything else on one of the real consoles. This is what Nintendo has been since the rise of the Playstayion. I bought a Gamecube, only because I knew Smash was going to be on it. Stood in line at midnight for one of the few black systems, and spent all my extra money on a controller. My brother had to pitch in for Madden. bushisms.txt fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Gamecube launched with Luigi's Mansion and (I believe) Pikmin, and saw SSBM come out a month later. It's basically the opposite of the WiiU's launch. Edit: poo poo, I gotta play Pikmin again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 18:53
|
|