Quote:

Pariah said:
Quote:

Rob Kamphausen said:
that is opinion. and a grossly inaccurate one.



Wow. I totally disagree.



you said "Nintendo hasn't been about gameplay since the 64," which i can't imagine anyone would agree with, even nintendo haters. thats a well-recognized nintendo strength (often times cited as the only strength)

Quote:

Pariah said:
Quote:

Rob Kamphausen said:
a fault of the n64 was in nintendo's thinking that they could rely solely on first party games, so that might be what you're thinking of.


I'm not sure what "first party" is supposed to mean, but I do know that Cube rested the fate of its generation on resurrecting and re-digitizing a bunch of old characters that still hold a lot of sentimental value with many gamers. It came up with very few original ideas.



geebus, pariah.

"first party" is a gaming term, that refers to games developed by the console maker. thus, games like mario and zelda are nintendo's "first party" games. "second party" refers to games that are created by a separate, yet owned, company. rare was a second party to nintendo and is now a second party to microsoft. "third party" refers to games developed by outside companies typically, but not solely, for multiple consoles. EA is a third party example.

also, pick a console ... are you talking about cube or n64?

now, what do you deem an "original idea"? are you talking about new IPs, like pikmin? are you talking about bold direction sets, like prime's 3d metroid world or starfox's land-based "adventures"? are you talking about the never-before-or-since seen gameplay and storycrafting from eternal darkness?

you can disagree with the enjoyment factor, or site sales statistics in your claim, sure, but... ideas or gameplay wise... c'mon...

my point, before, was that nintendo 64 relied too heavily on nintendo saying "we dont need anyone else" and just going their own route. the result was a thin library. and, regardless of how many classics or hits they generated, one-to-two games a year was not the desire western gaming audiences.

Quote:

Pariah said:
I didn't comment on how they "found their way" to Cube. I pointed out that their sales strategy relied heavily on using famous characters to sell games.



thats flawed for a number of reasons. first of all, thats a strategy employed by all console makers and all gaming companies. "halo" had just a bit of hype, if you'll recall. madden and gta are pretty strong contenders. companies use their franchises, that goes without saying. im sure you're aware ps3 is promoting their next metal gear chapter, no?

but can you name the other konami games nintendo made exclusive or partially exclusive? for example, viewtiful joe was unheard of. killer 7 was a brand new tale.

if their strategy was to just use famous characters, then they missed the point from the get go (i.e; that wasn't their strategy)



Quote:

Pariah said:
PS2 has been the console to introduce the most original gameplay in the entire history of its marketing.

Please feel free to point out where I'm wrong. Sony had many different producers make new games which later formed new genres, which were later improved by the original games the PS2 asked for.



thats, really, a definition of every game machine in the past 20 years.

ps2 would not even outrank the first ps in terms of original gameplay. not even close.

this entire generation is essentially built on making the previous generation look better -- parallel to how the 16 bit era was simply an "upgrade" from the 8 bit generation.

i'd much more credit the ps1, n64, and even dreamcast with revolutionary gameplay -- the evolution of 3d gaming, alone, tops anything this genearation cranked out.

giant picture