Homer Simpson

Boy, we could start a whole new thread on that topic but I'm with you 100%. I buy my gaming consoles to play games, not DVDs, not MP3...games! I don't care if they do other things and (I know I'm in the minority on this) I don't care if the new Nintendo system plays GC games, I already have a GC.

Josh H

I like backwards compatibility just because my entertainment center is overfull as is and has no room for any more systems. Thus backwards compatibility allows me to ditch a console and still play it games.

Goldberg74

I've got to agree with Homer... but then again, all I own are Nintendo consoles. The only backwards compatibility I have experienced is with the GameBoy line.

The only other effort Nintendo has used were the old adapters to play GB games on the SNES, and I think that was it.

Was there ever a NES->SNES adapter?

The only other games I know of are the PSOne->PS2 games.

PixyJunket

Unoffically, there were some. There's also a cool device that allows you to play SNES/SFC, NES and Famicom carts on your N64.

Sega Genesis and Game Gear both had adapters to play Master System games.

Josh H

I currently have hooked up:

Gamecube with GB Player
PS2
X-box
SNES.

No more room in my entertainment center, hell, my VCR and DirecTV receiver are already sitting on top of it rather than on the shelves!. Just too much crap with all that, plus a DVD player, CD player, Receiver, system selector etc.

Get Me Coffee

I know whos house to rob

Homer Simpson

I have XBox, PS2, GameCube in the main room. Then I have SNES, DreamCast, PS1, and N64 hooked up in the playroom. I just got a second Cube (controller port 4 is bad on my original) so I have to pick 1 to ditch in the playroom now. That means when the new console comes out I'll still have the Cube in the other room.

I won't be disappointed if it play GC games but I don't care either.

Zuul

Gamecube was $200 at launch, not $100.

I'm both for and against having added features on game consoles. I don't mind when a console has added features, as long as the added features don't drive up the price of the console. Having CD and DVD playback doesn't bother me because the consoles that had those features used CD and DVD based media for the games anyway, so it didn't cost extra to have CD and DVD playback available.

However, I would imagine that turning a game console into a set top box would drive up the cost, and for that reason I agree with you.

IIG

I love Nintendo, and will buy any home console they put out... Next time however, I have to go with a second system (probably Sony-- though I hate that company and their products with a passion). While it's great to have new Nintendo first party titles to look forward to, it is becoming unbearable watching every new cool title bypass the only system I own...

tanman

Improved technology does make new gameplay possible but all the examples that you picked are already several generations into the series. At this point more horsepower will just mean better graphics instead of new gameplay. Look at all the FPS. You can't go on graphics anymore. They are all essentially the same game it is the nuances and innovations in gameplay that really stand out and separate a title from the pack.

I'm not saying that pure power isn't important, and I don't think Nintendo is either, I just think that it shouldn't be the focus for the next generation of consoles. They aren't shunning more power or faster processors they are simply stating that their philosophy is innovative gameplay.

Unfortunately I think that all the Joe Six Packs are ruining the industry since all they look at are new flashy things. That's why I hate it when XBox owners would always think their system is superior because it is so much faster then the other two (more so earlier in the systems life when there were few good games). If you like a system then say why by stating games that you like or something unique that the system adds (XBox live, eyetoy, Final Fantasy, Connectivity, First Party games) don't just say, "It's faster, more powerful."

Trigger

Well, this hated joe sixpack flashy xbox fanboy ruiner of the industry thinks that the bulk of this thread has little to do with the article. It sounds like nintendo is gonna release another Virtual Boy to me. Doesn't anyone else see the potential problems here? I mean, their success has always ridden on their brand of gaming... doing it their way... not following the pack. They've only gotten into trouble when they strayed too far from their own proven formulas. MS and Sony are both gonna do about the same thing at about the same time next gen. It'll be interesting to see how Nintendo's revolutionary offering does. I am doubtful that it'll make it past product testing... or even focus group concept pitch. We'll see - maybe I read the article wrong.

Josh H

Oops. Brain Fart. I meant to say it cost $100 less than the others, not that it cost $100.

Josh H

I can't tell if it's going to be like a virtual boy, or if it will just be a normal console with a touch screen controller (possibly in addtion to a standard controller. That wouldn't be a drastic departure and shouldn't spell doom.

jeffdsmith

Here's an interesting article on why more realistic graphics arn't always better.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102086

The Franchise

Realistic graphics and "better" graphics are two different things and you need more horsepower under the proverbial console hood for both. You could argue that Superman 64 was cel shaded but the game looked horrible. With more power and processing muscle you now have games like Zelda:WW which look much better (and don't make you barf a little into your own mouth while you're playing them like Superman did! ) Even is the added muscle isn't used for graphics it can be used for other things like AI rountines and sound procesing etc. So more "power" can most definitely help.

Even the GT4 programmers stated that the game graphics can only get so much better but their physics simulation, which now runs at 1 update per second, could be sped up to 300 updates per second which would make a big difference in handling of the virtual cars. Just an example, but you get the point...

Homer Simpson

Nice article, makes some good points. I think the way Zelda WW was done is a great example, they got some excellent emotions across in those cel shaded graphics. The eyes on the characters and the facial expressions were outstanding.

The one thing I do disagree with in the article is that given time and persistance the close ups will get better and better and close that 1% gap. It's going to take time and iterations to get it right.

Josh H

I personally dislike realistic graphics as I play games for an escapist form of entertainment. Thus I can't get into games with realistic graphics or real worlds storylines/settings.

Young Vito

Dude...WTF!?

go trade in all of the consoles u own for a parcheesi board set.

Josh H

What's your problem? I didn't say there was anything wrong with realistic games, they're just not my cup of tea.

I'd rather play a game like Mario or Zelda that lets me "escape" from the real world, than something like GTA.

Same's true for movies, though I love stuff like the Godfather, but not nearly as much as movies like LOTR or Star Wars that are escapist.

Young Vito

dude, i think youre the one with the problem in that if a game features anything from the "real world" wether it be a gun, car or a realistic story youre automatically turned off?

even a movie? sheesh man...you must not like this world much in that anything reminding you of it is automatically not considered for purchase

very weird...

but hey its your system, your tv and your world..sooo do u.

Gizmo

I think he means graphics wise. Obviously, most games have cars or some form of real world activity. Its not like I see many people with FLUDD units and Ocarina's running around.

Josh H

Well said pixy.

I like a break from reality. I'm a criminologist and spend all day 5 days a week either working with crime data or working with cops and prosecutors. I don't need more guns and violence in my video games.

And like Pixy, I think these violent games are childish. But if I remember correctly you're like 15, so they're probably right up your ally.

With movies, I do like crime movies and violent movies and own quiet a few. It's not as involved as Video games and doesn't bother me. But I still prefer stuff like LOTR. Again, I like a break from reality in my entertainment.

tanman

NO




Although better then most, sometimes you just have to laugh at the maturity level in this forum.

Goldberg74

I have a FLUDD unit that I use to wash the neighbors' cars and then at night I sit on the corner playing my ocarina outside the local Thai restaurant for tips.

Young Vito

yea...u just showed how mature u are, i didnt mention anything about killing people ...

im fed up with forum nannies who cringe, cry and bitch anytime the words "guns", "shoot" or "kill" are mentioned, then want to blame all of society's ills on video games....gimme a break...