Somehow I doubt Nintendo will have the answer to people being assholes during online gaming that has eluded everyone else over the years.

And dare I say it, with the crowd Nintendo appeals to it's not likely to get any more mature.

I think way too many people around here just don't listen. When they're talking innovation and how others don't push it, they are NOT talking about the GTA's and Halo's out there. Stop and think for a second. GTA is highly innovative. Every game that copies it is not. Also, just because something is innovative does not mean everyone will like it. I personally do not like the GTA series. That does not mean I'll knock it, or anyone that does like it.

Sure, they release a new mario, zelda, metroid game for every new system... just like every other company releases sequels of their major franchises. It's what keeps them alive. The difference is they don't kill their franchises by dumping out a sequel every 12 months. Not since the SNES have we seen more than one MAJOR MARIO game come out through out the lifespan of its respective system. So saying they "churn out" a mario game for every system is a bit much. One Mario game every 5 years too much for you? Metroid didn't even make an appearance on the N64, and so far Zelda has only had two games per system. As a matter of fact, the only franchise they've "churned out" on a yearly basis is mario party.

As far as Revolution is concerned, they've already lost twice (N64 and GC) going at it head-to-head. Why should they keep trying? If you sit back and think about what they're truly doing, you'll see they are no longer attempting to compete with Sony or MS head-on. It seems like they are going for the niche market. The parents that won't buy little johnny the killing sim. The Nintendo fanboys. The gamer that loves to play games on any system and has to have all of them. The family who wants something for their kids.

What differentiates one system from the others? The games, that's what. It's ALL ABOUT THE GAMES. That's what's so great about Nintendo.

BTW... before I get flamed back to wherever you all want me to go, let me just say that I don't think Nintendo is perfect, and I own all 3 systems this gen. I don't consider myself biased or prejudice... I hate you all.

I kid.

I agree 100%

I buy games that most here ignore or downright hate and I love them. However, when the latest HALO, Unreal, DOOM, Grand Theft Auto, or the 2d fighter game hits they're lined up around the block. This even applies to the latest tit squeeze of the MARIO, Final Fantasy, and Resident Evil Franchises. Again, people around her go nuts. All of those games are the same ole shit.

To be fair though, every step of the way, when a Nintendo franchise appeared on a new system, it was always tailored to make the best possible use of the technology available. Even the Zelda on Game Boy was innovative in it's own ways, and had aspects to it that were unique.

I agree for the most part about what he said, and I don't think that Nintendo can really "lose" the console race. It's just that they'll never be #1 again, and that's not the company's fault: it's indicative of how much the gaming audience has changed. I'm going to expect the same thing from the Revolution that I got from the N64 and Gamecube: utterly unforgettable games but only a few of them every year. I love my Nintendo systems, but to be honest, I play them the least.

I am not sure what type of connection you are tring to make with the comparison of the "SNES CD crap" compaired to what they are doing with the revolution.

I do recall that Sony worked with Nintendo to devlope the SNES CD which was suppose to be an add on to the SNES. Developement of the new add on was a slow process. Nintendo later found out that was because Sony was developing the "Play Station" which could play the SNES CD format along with a new format that Sony was developing. There were only a few Hundred of those systems ever made that were called the "Play Station" (16 bit system and yes the name had the space).

After finding out that Sony had been secretly developing a new system, Nintendo announced that it was working with Pillips to use their CD format for the SNES CD.

To make a long story short Sony and Nintendo had a falling out. Sony Latter Developed the 32 bit system which we now know as the Playstation (PSX). Nintendo developed started developement on their next system Nintendo 64.

Nintendo is smart not to be revealing their plans to a competitor who has Continuously stolen their Ideas, technology, and inovations. Hence the controler (anolog joystick, rumble feature, four button layout, shoulder buttons) heck look at what the controller for the "Play Station" looked like
Click.

We can also say that the same stuff happened with Sega and Microsoft when they collaborated on the Dreamcast. Nintendo does not want to end up in the same situation they and sega found themselves in. They also don't want to end up the same as Sega today.

If Nintendo released their info to early there is still enough time for Sony and Microsoft to steel their ideas and implement them in their new consoles. I for one am happy that they are keeping it a secret. We will find out soon enough what Nintendo has been planning.

Three of those four ideas originated on arcade machines. Bringing an idea from arcade to console isn't innovative.

Considering the partnership that existed at one time, I hardly think you could call that 'stealing'.

I've been calling videogame stores non-stop to see if they can reserve me a copy of touch dick

Check your gaming history (and make sure its not from a Nintendo fan site).

That's from one of the best console history pages out there:

http://darkwatcher.psxfanatics.com/console/psx.htm

Don't let the URL fool you, its not a PS page.

So, my question is, where they new to consoles? Did it expand current gameplay in previous unattainable ways? More importantly, I think it was the way Nintendo chose to impliment many of those technologies that was innovative and truly new.

I'm as big of a Nintendo fan as anyone, but you're reaching big time.

You say that since they brought it to consoles, it would be innovative? By that definition, Sony is being innovative for bringing a 20 year old technology (analog control) to handhelds? Please. Who cares where they bring it. It isn't being innovative; it is evolving to the next step. Your own definition says "something new". It isn't new.

It isn't a knock on Nintendo (or Sony), but it is silly to say they innovated anything. Do they deserve credit for bringing someone else's innovation to their hardware? Sure. Are they innovating anything when doing this? Nah.

I guess it depends on how you look at the market. Console gaming is largely seperate from other types of gamers. The majority of gamers have played pretty much only on consoles their entire lives, never really dallying in arcade or PC games.

So why Nintendo wasn't innovative per se by bringing analong control, rumble, etc. to consoles, it was revolutionary as it was something totally new to consoles that a lot of people had never seen. And it thus totally changed console games (at least analog control). So I can see where Jeff's coming from.

Personally I don't care. I like Nintendo for one simple reason. They put out significantly more games I enjoy than any other publisher or developer.

I'll clarify.

Sega released the Sega CD and every time there was some big name announcment for that system Nintendo came back with some lofty specs, lower price point, or some vague discussion about its games or what the system could do.

With hindsight we know that things never took off for the SNES CD, but at the time it started to smell like "vaporware" after about 3 or 4 "timely" annoucements, more talk about its greatness, and its obvious lack of screenshots.

I also chuckle at the talk about how other companies are "using computers to show thier games"...well uh, isnt that what Nintendo did with the N64? I recall some early screenshots looking a whole lot better than what the N64's games ended up looking like.

Bingo. I have never thought of Nintendo hardware as being particularly innovative, but their games keep me coming back for more.

jeffdsmith, you left out the second definition of innovation:

in·no·va·tion
n.

1. The act of introducing something new.
2. Something newly introduced.


I think Nintendo's implementation of analog control, rumbling controllers, and touch screen input in their products is covered easily by the second definition.

I can agree along those lines. Still, like in my original post, Nintendo's true innovation is how they utilize those technologies. So yes, while the Atari had an analog joystick way before, or the arcade had analog bowling "rollers", Nintendo implemented (and made standard) analog control in a whole new way. When Nintendo demoed Mario 64 and showed the audience how he could control Mario's speed by the intensity he pushed on the controller in one direction, people were amazed. It seems so obvious now, but thats how most inventions and innovations are, simple to grasp after the fact, but amazingly difficult to capture.

Once again, I have to say that was very well said, you really understand the market and big picture more than anyone else on here.

As for the interview, I thought it was pretty expected of what you would think Miyamoto to say and its exactly what they've been doing. Lately there have been a barrage of games by nintendo that are very simple to pick up and play. Like Wario Ware Twisted, Yoshi Touch and Go, Polarium, Pac-pix, the DS, they don't require a huge time sink to learn how to play, anyone can play them, i even get my non gamer friends to play Pacman Vs. with me. However these games are quite a bit different from the traditional fair of games (for one thing the touch input, but also the type of games), and they get a lot of flak from people who want more violence and sex, but personally I applaud them for making quality games that are fun for everyone, you just don't see that in many companies this day, and I really think they're one of the last few who truly believe this. (and also keeping the 2D spirit alive ).

Was the Atari joystick really analog? It's been a while since I've used one, so I may be remembering it wrong. I remember it as just a really differently shaped D-pad. Each direction of the joystick could either be on or off, not the range of positions that the modern analog joysticks can be moved to.

They had a paddle wheel joystick that was, not a regular atari joystick.

ah, yes

Afterburner by Sega, also.

I think we had our first truely analog joystick for our computer in 1988 or so. I'm not sure when they first appeared on the market.

I thought that was pretty funny. Miyamoto is a salesman. He sells games. He's not going to sit there and say 360 and PS3 look good when he has to support Revolution. He's not going to sit there and say that traditional games are good when he has to support Nintendo's wonky games.

Personally, I like some of Nintendo's games but sometimes it seems like Nintendo is trying harder at being unique than it is at being good.

Miyamoto is one of the most free game designers in the world. If he wanted to make a rated M FPS or GTA clone he could. Nintendo does not control the kind of games Miyamoto makes. If anything he influences Nintendo much more than they influence him.

There are certain guys in the gaming industry that do whatever the hell they want with whatever budget they want and Miyamoto is at the top of that list.

I have to jump in here, I think this is an absurd statement. Back in the 80s the arcade industry was HUGE, way bigger than consoles. Console gaming was still in its infancy while games like Dragon's Lair & Time Pilot were huge. I would guess most of us here played arcade games in the 80s & early 90s. I would also guess most of us went through a PC gaming stage once or twice (like when you didn't need a $300 video card to play a game).

I'm in this boat, got my started in the arcades, and gravitated to consoles once it became clear they offered "more" for a lot less quarters. I still game on my PC, but I'm always behind a generation. I refuse to pay $300+ for a video card that 1)Does nothing beyond my current card for all my other apps, and 2)will cost only ~$75 in a year and half.