LilyLilyRose

One thing to remember is these games are not just for those who played them the first time around. While there are many fans who like to have them in portable form, there is also a whole new generation experiening them. I have nieces and nephews who are getting them and loving them just like I did when I first played them.

But, while we haven't received a new Mario Bros. like the games of old, Nintendo has released some excellent new titles: Advance Wars 1/2, Fire Emblem, Mario & Luigi, Mario vs. Donkey Kong, Golden Sun 1/2.

It would seem to me, that Nintendo is releasing their old ports for those who need to be tided over, while they focus on some new franchises to see where those can go. Of course, they still manage to sqeak a good update/sequel out like the Metroids, and have Capcom doing a new Zelda.

Plus, as long as Konami keeps throwing a Castlevania my way, I'm good.

Edit: Dangit, I forgot to log my wife's account out again. :P
-outer-edge

Josh H

PSP will be a game machine, but I think the games will be mediocre at best. I just can't see playing 3D games on a screen that small.

Get Me Coffee

Josh, you're right on! I don't see 3d games working well on a small screen.

Josh H

Some could, like racing. But platformers, adventure games etc. I just think it would be very hard to see the small details like hidden doors and items that are half the point of the games.

Goldberg74

Let me just back you up by saying that my 6 year-old son and I have been wasting away the morning playing Super Mario Bros.

While nostalgic, I can only get to 5-2... isn't that sad?

Homer Simpson

Nintendo doesn't need the first party games with the third party support they get for the GBA. They are starting to get some titles out there with Mario vs. Donkey Kong (which is a fun game), Mario Party, and the Pokemon games.

Games like Advance Wars make the system well worth it's price. I think we're going to see a lot of N64 retreads with the new DS system. No complaints there, my kids still spend a lot of time on the N64.

Josh H

I don't think anyone said they needed to, but just that it sucks that most of their first party games are SNES rehash (especially for those of us with our SNES's still hooked up).

John Spartan

I loved my Genny and SNES, too, but give me a break with all of this "graphics don't matter that much" BS. It's not 1991. Tetris won't cut it anymore. The visuals and audio ARE huge parts of games these days. I don't care how much you're clinging to your copy of Magical Drop, the fact is modern games are expected to provide an "experience." Immersiveness, be it in an action game, a RPG, a sports game or whatever, does add greatly to the enjoyment of a game. We're nowhere near the level where improvements in technology will not make a noticeable difference in graphics, so I'm glad the hardware horsepower war will continue.

Secondly, improved technology DOES make new gameplay possible. Many games were only made because of improvements in technology. Half Life, Metal Gear Solid, Vice City, Mario 64, Tomb Raider, the list goes on.

Finally, the most obvious point: why can't you innovate gameplay and still have the best graphics on the block? I guess the answer is that you can, but Nintendo doesn't want to bother competing with the others on that front.

The Franchise

Can I get a hallelujah? Agree with you 100%

Get Me Coffee

AMEN!

Josh H

Says who. Metroid Prime is the best looking game I've seen this gen. Wind Waker looked amazing as well.

Graphics don't have to be realistic to be good IMO.

But I really don't care about graphics. I still play my SNES all the time. Yes great graphics and great gameplay are the ideal, but gameplay is much more important. I'll play and enjoy a game with mediocre or outdated graphics but good gamplay, but I'll never waste time on a game with mediocre or worse gameplay regardless of how good the graphics are.

Lastblade

Do you expect a company to say nice things about its competitors????!?

Get Me Coffee

We're expected too.

Ralph Wiggum

NES rehash:

Metroid Prime (3D does not a new game make)

SNES rehash:

F-Zero GX

N64 rehash:

Zelda: Wind Waker
Super Smash Bros. Melee

New, but not that great:

Cubivore
Custom Robo
Luigi's Mansion

New and good to great:

Animal Crossing
Eternal Darkness
Pikmin

outer-edge

While I agree that nice graphics can add to a gaming experience, they should not BE the experience alone. A good game incorporates all elements into the fold, but ultimately gameplay still has to be the main focus.

The problem I see with some people, is they equate good or realistic graphics with a game being good. That should not be the case ever. Too often people see screenshots that show off fancy effects and say, "Wow, that game will rock!" Of course, part of the blame is on developers, as some push the almighty pixel as their biggest selling point.

Graphics do need to be part of the experience, but that does not mean they need to be mind-blowing or realistic. Games like Sly Cooper and Wind Waker proved that a game with the "cartoony" look can indeed be incredibly fun. As I said, they just need to be brought into the fold, meshed with the rest of the game and matched to what the developer is trying to achieve.

If a developer wants a game to feel like you are in an actual movie, then yes, graphics and sound need to match that or it doesn't work. If however the developer wants the game to be wacky or silly, then again it should match that. Never does this mean they need to top-notch, they simply need to fit the game's purpose and do their job. Some games therefore don't need extra attention on graphics, and the developers can focus their time elsewhere.

Puzzle games, 2D gaming and many others don't need the latest and greatest graphics to offer their experience, yet they can still be just as rewarding and good as any game out there. But, that doesn't mean a graphically powerful game can not also be a great game. However, if that graphic powerhouse doesn't have it where it counts--gameplay--it will be noticable and the game will suffer for it.

jeffdsmith

Each company, even Microsoft, has a limited resource to pull from. More time and energy that is put into graphic development results in less resources period.

So while a company can certainly try and do both, the two goals both draw on same limited resource pool, thus competing with each other. Obviously there are many other factors that compete for those resources as well.

Nintendo, IMO, is simply stating they are putting more of their energy into innovating rather then worrying about making sure their hardware is "equal" or "beats" everyone else. It should be noted however, that innovation can directly occur through hardware, which nintendo has not discounted. We shall have to wait and see this "Revolution" to determine if its just smoke and mirrors or truely a new way to game.

PixyJunket

If you really think Nintendo's first party software isn't on par or above the competition in the graphics department, you are certifiably insane, or just talking out of your ass.

If you're simply talking about Nintendo's statement that they will not be focusing on having the best graphics hardware, I think you are missing the point. Even having the weakest hardware, the PS2 has ICO which looks way beyond many Gamecube or Xbox games. Next generation the gaps are going to be narrower; any insane graphics chips or hardware put into the next generation of systems are simply going to be "numbers" to sell the system to the kids that don't understand that the graphics are only as good as the developer wants them to be. So while Sony and Microsoft fight for who has the biggest dick next generation, Nintendo will stand out with whatever innovations they're working on, because for the most part, the games are going to look just as good on any of the systems.

Sony and MS are partially aware of this as well.. though they will still play the numbers game, why do you think both companies are scrambling to see what "extras" they can add on to their system to make them appeal to the consumer?

PixyJunket

You're joking right.. you're not? Wow.. just, wow.

cheapskate

Like an "extra" screen?

Homer Simpson

Agreed, a good game is a good game, the graphics certainly help but that doesn't make the game THAT much better. When we hit the point that we're talking holodeck and the like graphics will certainly be at a premium, but for now does it really matter how realistic the football players look in Madden 2006? I'd much rather they invest in AI that tracks patterns from game to game and things like that.

Josh H

Exactly.

And not only will the gap be narrower, the improvement won't be that great from this generation. Nowhere near the improvement we saw from the N64/PSX to PS2/GC/X-box. There's just not as much room for improvement as there was from last gen, which was the first gen of 3D consoles. We'll just get better textures, more detailed polygonal models, better lighting and particle effects, etc, but nothing groundbreaking and nothing to excite anyone other than the die hard graphics whore's who get a hard on over a reflection.

Apollo

I totally agree!!! While gameplay is critical, I really like quality graphic in my gaming.

I find it very ironic that Nintendo is hyping innovative gameplay, when they poopoo'ed on-line gaming. It they feel on-line play is not a money maker. Why didn't they try to apply some their innovative thinking to make it so.

Josh H

The main problem is that broadband is still in a minority of online households, and is still out of many people price range (more so a couple years ago when the PS2 and X-box went online, and Nintendo decided not to, than now). Their innovative thinking could do nothing about that.

Of course, part of the problem is it costs money to run the servers, and a lot of gamers don't want to pay to play games online. $50 for Live for a year is a great deal, but MS can't be making money on that.

Again, innovative thinking can't fix that issue.

And unfortunately Nintendo doesn't have the pockets to take a loss on online gaming like MS or Sony.

Apollo

I kinda agree with your statement on console graphic. It the last statement that I strongly with you on. IMHO this is where Nintendo fell apart in this generation for me, the GC came with nothing extra. Forget about GC/GBA connetivity that a bunch of crock. I really hope Sony doesn't follow this trend with the PSP. So next gen I hope Nintendo dones pull a rabbit out of hat and bring out something pretty innovative. Hell!!! I hope Sony and Microsoft bring out their best.

Josh H

I just want a machine that plays games. The GC was great as it just played games and cost $100 at launch.

I'm dreading the day where we're stuck paying $300+ for consoles because they have crap like DVD-R's, Tivo, etc. bundled in for Joe Six Packs who don't already have standalone components (which are ALWAYS better than any multifunction machine) that do these things.

At least it looks like Sony and MS will put out gaming only (well probably play cds and movies) alternatives to their set top boxes next gen, if the rumors hold true.