Revolution Controller Revealed

[Ze_ro]

Wow, this is certainly getting off-topic, but oh well, lets keep the ball rolling...

 

Video games have long grown out of being just toys. They are an entertainment medium. If you can't make the distinction then everything that entertains is a toy also. Would you consider your cellular a toy?

Everyone else seems to have argued my point for me here, so there's not a lot else to say... Frankly, I think that silly looking Civic with a giant wing on it that tore down the street sounding like a lawn mower is also a toy. It was bought purely for active enjoyment with very little practical purpose. On the other hand, stuff like DVD's are a lot more passive, so I wouldn't really consider them a toy.

 

And I don't own a cell phone. Frankly, I don't much like owning a normal, non-cellular phone. 99% of the people who ring me up aren't people I want to talk to.

 

I find this comment very ironic coming from someone who's avatar is a bright orange and blue picture saying "The Fun Is Back!"

Look who's talking, mr. atari sprite on big primary blue with a green neon glow! Very ironic indeed.

How is that ironic? I like simple games with a lot of primary colors and that kind of stuff... I never claimed that I didn't.

 

There's no shame in enjoying games like Mario Sunshine.

Why would you feel shame? I never said nor implied playing Mario Sunshine should be a shameful activity.

Mario 64 could be mistaken as a game made for kids. Would you mind saying "Sit!, fetch!, Bad dog!" to your DS in a public place? Would you consider the annoying yells and heavily primary colored themes found in Mario Kart: DD, Mario Sunshine and many other Nintendo 1st party titles as attributes attractive to adults? I don't know you but all these examples walk a fine line if you ask me.

Well, maybe I got the wrong idea here, but from most of what you've posted, you seem to blast Nintendo for making "kiddie" games (your words), and frankly, you seem like you'd be ashamed if people thought you liked this kind of stuff. You certainly wouldn't be the first. I remember when Pokemon was popular, I thought it was annoying as hell. It was only years later that I finally gave in (under no pressure other than my own curiosity) and played the game in an emulator, and I was surprised that it was actually quite fun. I never really got hooked on it, and in the long run, it wasn't my bag... but the point is that there is a decent amount of fun to be had there, and I bet there are many thousands of people who would have actually loved Pokemon except for the fact that they're worried people will think they're pussies or something. The same goes for quite a few of Nintendo's games, and I think it's a rather sad state of society that peer pressure prevents some people from enjoying these games... is it Nintendo's fault? I don't think so.

 

If you're not worried about your image, and I got all this wrong, then good. I'd be glad to hear it.

 

Nintendo could be successful doing adult games also.

Y'know, shortly after I posted my previous reply, I sort of thought to myself about how kiddie most of Nintendo's games really are, so I decided to look through my Gamecube collection and see:

• Super Mario Sunshine - Alright, this one's got a lot of bright, colorful graphics and quirky music and sound effects. I can understand why it would seem kiddie to most people. I'll concede to you on that one.
  
• Eternal Darkness - Surely this game would qualify as an adult game in your opinion.
  
• Metroid Prime 1 & 2 - Well, there's no blood, and you don't see bodies fly apart when you kill them, but you DO shoot at stuff, and the storyline is quite deep. I don't see any reason to call these kiddie games.
  
• Mario Kart Double Dash - Pretty much in the same boat as SMS, I'll concede this one.
  
• Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker - I guess the graphics kind of condemn this one to the kiddie category... and even if they didn't, most of the dialog and the fact that all the "good guys" are kids kind of sticks it in there too.
  
• Legend of Zelda Collectors Edition - Frankly, I never thought any of the games in this collection were terribly kiddy, although OoT and Majora's Mask occaisionally toe the line with the dialog.
  
• F-Zero GX - I can't see any way that this could be categorized as a kiddie game.
  
• Super Smash Bros Melee - This one is tricky, because some of the content is kiddie, and some of it isn't. The point of the game is to beat the stuffing out of each other, but Nintendo went and made up kind of a storyline so it's really just toys fighting it out or something...
  
• Paper Mario - Well, again, there's lots of bright colors, but RPG's are rarely intended for kids.
  
• Custom Robo - Nah, I don't really see this one as being kiddy at all.
  
• Wario World - Kind of strange here.. the characters are all bright and such, but the background graphics are almost photo-realistic.
  
• Animal Crossing - Yep, this one is certainly cute. I can understand a kiddie tag on this one.
  
• Starfox Adventures - Y'know, if the characters weren't all animals, this game wouldn't be kiddie at all.
  

So what have we learned here? Well, the only games that I feel are particularly bright and cheerful were the Mario titles, Animal Crossing, and Wind Waker... the rest are just solid titles for the most part. So yeah, they have plenty of so-called "adult" games, many of which have done very well (ie Metroid Prime, F-Zero GX)... so why is it that people focus on stuff like Super Mario Sunshine? Is everyone just pissed that there's no blood spraying in their games or what?

 

--Zero

[Mindfield]

Point at something that shows games have matured outside of the fact that current technology allows for graphics that aren't cartoony.

 

I'll do you one better. I'll point to two:

 

-------> Complexity

 

Content <----------

 

Complexity: Games have become more in-depth, more engrossing, and more ... well, complicated. Many sport a learning curve. You can't just pick them up and run with them; you have to learn how to play them first. Much of this has simply been the function of more powerful machines being able to offer greater capabilities for games to offer deeper gameplay. But gamers have evolved with the games, learning to play ever more complex games, stepping up from Pac-Man to Pac-Land, from Wolfenstein 3D to Half Life 2, from simple turn-based strategy games to full realtime strategy games. This in and of itself is a maturity of both technology and of gameplay. More than that however is that the greater complexity has opened the doors to games that have deeper back stories and far more complex plots that require a greater amount of thinking and deductive reasoning. This is not really a new thing -- RPGs were pretty in-depth and complex back in the early 80s and not a whole lot has changed on that front, excepting that the worlds have gotten larger and the quests more numerous and varied. Just the same, the demographic differs; you're less likely to find an 8-year-old playing Dungeon Siege, but teens and adults would find them quite engaging.

 

Content: This is fairly obvious. As gamers have aged the content of video games has aged with them, growing from abstract to realistic, from G-rated to R. It isn't just the blood-n-guts, language or "mature themes" though -- these are relatively cheap ways to aim an otherwise simpler game at an older (adolescent and beyond) crowd, but they do illustrate the point well enough: Many games these days absolutely shouldn't be played by kids. I would even morally object to adolescent teens playing some of them. Beyond the cheap thrills of illicit subject matter though there is also the presence of games that only adults (and some adolescents) could possibly like -- games with dry subject matter, such as historical war sims, that kids would be bored of before the splash screen faded. Once again this is nothing new -- war sims have been around just as long as RPGs, but they have always had a much stronger foothold in the more mature gamer than with younger audiences. Games these days have outgrown the Risk-type genre to have become fully recreated historical reenactments that can only truly be appreciated by students of history which, generally speaking, are older folk.

 

There's lots more than just graphics; they're the least of what makes a game anything other than visual.

[Atariboy]

" In a way it is like you say: if your only console is a Nintendo console you are pretty much stuck to their products mostly."

 

How so? I own 14 Game Cube games, and only 7 were Nintendo titles. And I could easily add another 7 or 8 3rd party games that I liked on the GC but bought for the PS2 or Xbox since I prefer their controllers.

[Atarifever]

Point at something that shows games have matured outside of the fact that current technology allows for graphics that aren't cartoony.

 

I'll do you one better. I'll point to two:

 

-------> Complexity

 

Content <----------

 

Complexity: Games have become more in-depth, more engrossing, and more ... well, complicated. Many sport a learning curve. You can't just pick them up and run with them; you have to learn how to play them first. Much of this has simply been the function of more powerful machines being able to offer greater capabilities for games to offer deeper gameplay. But gamers have evolved with the games, learning to play ever more complex games, stepping up from Pac-Man to Pac-Land, from Wolfenstein 3D to Half Life 2, from simple turn-based strategy games to full realtime strategy games. This in and of itself is a maturity of both technology and of gameplay. More than that however is that the greater complexity has opened the doors to games that have deeper back stories and far more complex plots that require a greater amount of thinking and deductive reasoning. This is not really a new thing -- RPGs were pretty in-depth and complex back in the early 80s and not a whole lot has changed on that front, excepting that the worlds have gotten larger and the quests more numerous and varied. Just the same, the demographic differs; you're less likely to find an 8-year-old playing Dungeon Siege, but teens and adults would find them quite engaging.

 

939163[/snapback]

Okay, I'm going to bed now and don't have time to do this justice, but I don't think I completely agree here. Games have gotten longer, but not necessarily more complex. I find it much easier to operate a game of Halo than Star Raiders. Shengin the Ruler (or some such game I don't remember the name of on my NES) is still the hardest strategy game I've played (I still can't come up ith a effective strategy). As for more complex plots that require more thinking, well, I just skip cut scenes, as do many people, and I get through the games fine. It isn't necessary for the plots to lead to more thinking, the bare bones are still the same. A learning curve doesn't necessarily make something more mature, Yu-Gi-oh and pokemon card games have learning curves.

[sega saturn x]

Dones you say that the third party support should be worse on the revolution, but after watching the tgs special it seems to me that a lot of developers are actually excited about making games with the new device.

[kisrael]

Dones you say that the third party support should be worse on the revolution, but after watching the tgs special it seems to me that a lot of developers are actually excited about making games with the new device.

Unfotunately, developer enthusiasm doesn't always lead to develoment *company* enthusiasm...

[ROBOTRON]

I don't care for it. They designed it for 1st person shooters...not everyone plays those.

[Jess Ragan]

It lends itself well to those games, but isn't solely limited to them. You could do a lot more with the controller than that, as the press videos clearly illustrate.

 

I don't know. I was horrified when I first saw that controller, but now that the initial shock has worn off (and Satoru Iwata has promised a controller shell for more standard gameplay), I'm feeling a lot less hostile toward it. It could bring a lot to the Revolution experience if Nintendo plays its cards right. At the same time, it could further alienate third parties, which Nintendo should be fighting a lot harder to keep.

 

JR

[sega saturn x]

Dones you say that the third party support should be worse on the revolution, but after watching the tgs special it seems to me that a lot of developers are actually excited about making games with the new device.

Unfotunately, developer enthusiasm doesn't always lead to develoment *company* enthusiasm...

939722[/snapback]

You may be right but would they have garnered and more attention doing what all the other guys are doing? I highly doubt it. I think just making a cube 2 would have been the kiss of death, they had to do somethign drastic to get people interested again, which in a way they did. Even if the buzz isn't all positive it would most likely been worse if they ahd just done what ms and sony are doing. They would still have no third party and they would now be accused of selling out.

[figgler]

I think just making a cube 2 would have been the kiss of death, they had to do somethign drastic to get people interested again, which in a way they did.  Even if the buzz isn't all positive it would most likely been worse if they ahd just done what ms and sony are doing.  They would still have no third party and they would now be accused of selling out.

 

This could be the best point made in this thread. Nintendo (or any company) absolutely needs to go in a different direction and change the rules to make a splash. It's a lot like the DS, which was readily dismissed by most, but has carved out bold new territory and is now doing much better for itself than almost anyone had predicted.

[n8littlefield]

I think just making a cube 2 would have been the kiss of death, they had to do somethign drastic to get people interested again, which in a way they did.  Even if the buzz isn't all positive it would most likely been worse if they ahd just done what ms and sony are doing.  They would still have no third party and they would now be accused of selling out.

 

This could be the best point made in this thread. Nintendo (or any company) absolutely needs to go in a different direction and change the rules to make a splash. It's a lot like the DS, which was readily dismissed by most, but has carved out bold new territory and is now doing much better for itself than almost anyone had predicted.

940020[/snapback]

 

 

I agree. Nintendo had to do something. I would say they must have done something right, the week it was shown the Google Hot Searches were:

 

1 Kenny Chesney

2 Kate Moss

3 Britney Spears Baby

4 Nintendo Revolution

5 Hurricane Rita

 

I would say that means Nintendo has certainly sparked interest!

[Jess Ragan]

Kenny Chesney? You mean the "this stuff is thicker than country music" singer? Oh, puhLEEEASE. Google searchers, take out a loan and buy yourselves some taste.

 

JR

[n8littlefield]

Kenny Chesney was there just because it was the week that him and Renee Zelweger announced they were annulling their marriage - she was a few notches down the list too. Not sure why Kate Moss was so high that week...

 

Edit: I really wish I hadn't known that BTW.

Edited September 29, 2005 by n8littlefield

[Foxy Cleopatra]

Point at something that shows games have matured outside of the fact that current technology allows for graphics that aren't cartoony.

 

I'll do you one better. I'll point to two:

 

-------> Complexity

 

Content <----------

 

Complexity: Games have become more in-depth, more engrossing, and more ... well, complicated. Many sport a learning curve. You can't just pick them up and run with them; you have to learn how to play them first. Much of this has simply been the function of more powerful machines being able to offer greater capabilities for games to offer deeper gameplay. But gamers have evolved with the games, learning to play ever more complex games, stepping up from Pac-Man to Pac-Land, from Wolfenstein 3D to Half Life 2, from simple turn-based strategy games to full realtime strategy games. This in and of itself is a maturity of both technology and of gameplay. More than that however is that the greater complexity has opened the doors to games that have deeper back stories and far more complex plots that require a greater amount of thinking and deductive reasoning. This is not really a new thing -- RPGs were pretty in-depth and complex back in the early 80s and not a whole lot has changed on that front, excepting that the worlds have gotten larger and the quests more numerous and varied. Just the same, the demographic differs; you're less likely to find an 8-year-old playing Dungeon Siege, but teens and adults would find them quite engaging.

 

939163[/snapback]

Okay, I'm going to bed now and don't have time to do this justice, but I don't think I completely agree here. Games have gotten longer, but not necessarily more complex. I find it much easier to operate a game of Halo than Star Raiders. Shengin the Ruler (or some such game I don't remember the name of on my NES) is still the hardest strategy game I've played (I still can't come up ith a effective strategy). As for more complex plots that require more thinking, well, I just skip cut scenes, as do many people, and I get through the games fine. It isn't necessary for the plots to lead to more thinking, the bare bones are still the same. A learning curve doesn't necessarily make something more mature, Yu-Gi-oh and pokemon card games have learning curves.

939171[/snapback]

 

There have always been varying degrees of difficulties in games. Software manufacturers have always made different levels of games for different age groups. When my son was four I bought him different games than I do now. When he was four I didn't buy him games that required him to read to continue the game. Now I can. I don't buy myself games that are intended to teach children to read, such as Arthur's Amazing Race or Deep Sea Adventure. I buy games that are more challenging. Like Finding Nemo.

[kisrael]

I think just making a cube 2 would have been the kiss of death, they had to do somethign drastic to get people interested again, which in a way they did.  Even if the buzz isn't all positive it would most likely been worse if they ahd just done what ms and sony are doing.  They would still have no third party and they would now be accused of selling out.

This could be the best point made in this thread. Nintendo (or any company) absolutely needs to go in a different direction and change the rules to make a splash. It's a lot like the DS, which was readily dismissed by most, but has carved out bold new territory and is now doing much better for itself than almost anyone had predicted.

I agree. Better to swing for the fences then just ground out a double play.

 

Thinking about the DS...at first I was wondering if the DS "carves out bold new territory" so much...at least not as much as the Revolution!

 

In some way the stakes are bigger, because the Rev is really reaching out to casual gamers. On the other hand, relative to the DS, Nintendo might have less to lose, since its the handheld division that seems to be their cash cow now. (Which I have mixed feelings about, given how much I love their multiplayer console games)

[Atarifever]

I think just making a cube 2 would have been the kiss of death, they had to do somethign drastic to get people interested again, which in a way they did.  Even if the buzz isn't all positive it would most likely been worse if they ahd just done what ms and sony are doing.  They would still have no third party and they would now be accused of selling out.

This could be the best point made in this thread. Nintendo (or any company) absolutely needs to go in a different direction and change the rules to make a splash. It's a lot like the DS, which was readily dismissed by most, but has carved out bold new territory and is now doing much better for itself than almost anyone had predicted.

I agree. Better to swing for the fences then just ground out a double play.

 

 

940395[/snapback]

I agree. Nintendo tried the Nintendo Playboxstation route already, and it didn't exactly earn them high praise from the general gaming public, even with a cheaper price than either of the other systems. I'm sorry, but if the Cube didn't earn back a chunk of the market, even though there were twice as many games released for it as the N64, more third party support than the N64, better graphics than the PS2, and a much lower price than the other systems, what could they really hope for next generation. Wow, claw down some more 3rd party support to a system with lower graphical abilities than the other systems to end up with still less support than the other companies to offer on an inferior but similar product, yeah, why wouldn't that work. Oh yeah, because its retarded. More third party support still equal less third party support than the other companies, so Nintendo would still be standing mostly on their own properties. If you want to play the best version of Madden, why not buy the system with the best graphics and online play? If you want to play a football game where you actually flick your wrist to throw a ball, well, now you won't have a choice, you have to get the Nintendo system. Being the other systems would not ever ever ever ever in a million years save Nintendo.

[Dones]

Video games have long grown out of being just toys. They are an entertainment medium. If you can't make the distinction then everything that entertains is a toy also. Would you consider your cellular a toy?

Everyone else seems to have argued my point for me here, so there's not a lot else to say...

So? I also read some posts swinging it the other way.

 

Frankly, I think that silly looking Civic with a giant wing on it that tore down the street sounding like a lawn mower is also a toy. It was bought purely for active enjoyment with very little practical purpose. On the other hand, stuff like DVD's are a lot more passive, so I wouldn't really consider them a toy.

Videogames are a passive medium too. Just like movies, you usually enjoy them in a passive environment (and usually in the same room). How is that different from a DVD? If you think videogames are toys, then DVD's are just as well.

 

And I don't own a cell phone. Frankly, I don't much like owning a normal, non-cellular phone. 99% of the people who ring me up aren't people I want to talk to.

Yeah, right... How convenient. Of course you don't. The point still stands: If you think all videogames are toys then by that thinking, any cellphone that has games is a toy too.

 

I find this comment very ironic coming from someone who's avatar is a bright orange and blue picture saying "The Fun Is Back!"

Look who's talking, mr. atari sprite on big primary blue with a green neon glow! Very ironic indeed.

How is that ironic? I like simple games with a lot of primary colors and that kind of stuff... I never claimed that I didn't.

Talk about misdirection: It's ironic that you criticized my avatar for being childish when yours is just the same. You made fun of my avatar, I made fun of yours.

 

Well, maybe I got the wrong idea here, but from most of what you've posted, you seem to blast Nintendo for making "kiddie" games (your words), and frankly, you seem like you'd be ashamed if people thought you liked this kind of stuff. You certainly wouldn't be the first.

Do you always get this touchy when the words "Nintendo" and "kiddie" are combined in the same sentence? They haven't earned that fame unintentionally, but if you want to hide the sky with your hand, be my guest.

 

What is it with you and shame? This whole "shame" issue was your idea. You where the one who brought the shame argument to the thread yet you seem think I was the one said it. You said feeling shame, not me. Is it that at some level you feel awkward to play these games in public? Why would you project your insecurities towards me is anybody's guess.

 

I remember when Pokemon was popular, I thought it was annoying as hell. It was only years later that I finally gave in (under no pressure other than my own curiosity) and played the game in an emulator, and I was surprised that it was actually quite fun. I never really got hooked on it, and in the long run, it wasn't my bag... but the point is that there is a decent amount of fun to be had there, and I bet there are many thousands of people who would have actually loved Pokemon...

 

But you didn't "love" Pokemon. You actually had to force yourself to like it. You fall in those "thousands of people" who didn't try the game because they probablty thought (correctly) it was for kids.

 

If you're not worried about your image, and I got all this wrong, then good. I'd be glad to hear it.

 

I guess you are not worried about those things. Lucky you. Nintendo isn't about image, it's about games and innovation. Otherwise why would they have come up with the gameboy micro, the multicolored SP's, DS'es and Nintendo 64's with inventive names like "atomic purple" and "Candy Pink"... Oh wait a minute...

Edited September 30, 2005 by Dones

[kisrael]

Video games have long grown out of being just toys. Videogames are a passive medium too. Just like movies, you usually enjoy them in a passive environment (and usually in the same room). How is that different from a DVD? If you think videogames are toys, then DVD's are just as well.

And I don't own a cell phone. Frankly, I don't much like owning a normal, non-cellular phone. 99% of the people who ring me up aren't people I want to talk to.

Yeah, right... How convenient. Of course you don't. The point still stands: If you think all videogames are toys then by that thinking, any cellphone that has games is a toy too.

 

FWIW, I think a more useful distinction than "toys" and "non-toys" is "recreations for kids" and "recreations for adults". Culturally, video games are largely considered the former, DVDs the latter.

Do you always get this touchy when the words "Nintendo" and "kiddie" are combined in the same sentence? They haven't earned that fame unintentionally, but if you want to hide the sky with your hand, be my guest.

I think "kiddie" is needlessly insulting.

* Is the gameplay "for kids"? Mostly "not really"...the difficulty level is more teen-appropriate

* Is the look "for kids"? Again, it's not kid-unfriendly, but really matching up the ideas of Japanese cute.

 

Save "kiddie" for the truly dumbed-down crap, that's designed to be easy for younger kids and looks like...the word "kiddy" is too easily applied to crap like "Olson Twins" and "Blues Clues", it's too wide of a brush.

 

I guess you are not worried about those things. Lucky you. Nintendo isn't about image, it's about games and innovation. Otherwise why would they have come up with the gameboy micro, the multicolored SP's, DS'es and Nintendo 64's with inventive names like "atomic purple" and "Candy Pink"... Oh wait a minute...

Most kids don't give a crap what their machine looks like. It's more of a girl teeniebopper style thing, or a male teen geek appeal thing, for the more "macho" colors like the platinum.

[Atarifever]

And I don't own a cell phone. Frankly, I don't much like owning a normal, non-cellular phone. 99% of the people who ring me up aren't people I want to talk to.

Yeah, right... How convenient. Of course you don't. The point still stands: If you think all videogames are toys then by that thinking, any cellphone that has games is a toy too.

 

940458[/snapback]

What is your issue with people making any cell phone related statements. I say I don't game on my old hunk of junk two colour broken screen Samsung and you act like that's impossible. This guy says he doesn't own a cell phone, and you once again imply its a lie. What world do you live in? I know far more people with cell phones with no games on them than ones with games on them, and I know a heap of people with no cell phones, what is so hard to believe about either of those statements? Neither of us denied phones were toys, we stated factual real life things about our personal call phone experience, and you're acting like we said ham was made of moon rocks. If you're going to attack something, attack it sensibly.

Edited September 30, 2005 by Atarifever

[sega saturn x]

Dones i think the chances are good you wouldn't have bought a revolution anyway. So all this anti nintendo stuff just feels like flaming and fanboyism, who cares if video games are toys are not? Really what the fuck does it matter?

 

I mean you aren't even talking about the system anymore, just how much nintendo sucks. You would have hated them just as much if they ahd gone with a regular style controller because you think you are to old for thier games. All you're trying to do now is flame and argue.

Edited September 30, 2005 by sega saturn x

[Ze_ro]

Wow, Dones, you somehow managed to miss every single point I was trying to make. I honestly don't see any reason to continue this arguement, since there's basically nothing I can do to explain my points that I haven't already done, and since it's obvious that you're not going to change your opinion anyways.

 

--Zero

[keilbaca]

Dones i think the chances are good you wouldn't have bought a revolution anyway.  So all this anti nintendo stuff just feels like flaming and fanboyism, who cares if video games are toys are not?  Really what the fuck does it matter?

 

    I mean you aren't even talking about the system anymore, just how much nintendo sucks.  You would have hated them just as much if they ahd gone with a regular style controller because you think you are to old for thier games.  All you're trying to do now is flame and argue.

940557[/snapback]

 

That is what it seems like. I bet if they made a controller like that for the xbox 360, he would think differently.

[Dones]

FWIW, I think a more useful distinction than "toys" and "non-toys" is "recreations for kids" and "recreations for adults". Culturally, video games are largely considered the former, DVDs the latter.

You can call it anyway you like. If you think all videogames are toys, then it could be said that everything that entertains is a toy, regardless of your cultural views.

 

I think "kiddie" is needlessly insulting.

* Is the gameplay "for kids"? Mostly "not really"...the difficulty level is more teen-appropriate

* Is the look "for kids"? Again, it's not kid-unfriendly, but really matching up the ideas of Japanese cute.

 

Save "kiddie" for the truly dumbed-down crap, that's designed to be easy for younger kids and looks like...the word "kiddy" is too easily applied to crap like "Olson Twins" and "Blues Clues", it's too wide of a brush.

It's like I said before, you are taking this way too personally.

 

Most kids don't give a crap what their machine looks like. It's more of a girl teeniebopper style thing, or a male teen geek appeal thing, for the more "macho" colors like the platinum.

Maybe, but it seems to be important. Otherwise companies would not go through so much trouble of providing the option. People do make purchasing decisions based on image.

 

 

Dones i think the chances are good you wouldn't have bought a revolution anyway.  So all this anti nintendo stuff just feels like flaming and fanboyism, who cares if video games are toys are not?  Really what the fuck does it matter?

I don't know, but it really has pushed your buttons in some way. And why are you so touchy that you have to use expletives? Seems to me you are the one doing the labeling, the flaming and just being plain out of topic.

 

I mean you aren't even talking about the system anymore, just how much nintendo sucks.

No I am talking about Nintendo. You are the one talking about sucking. The topic change is a normal occurence that happens with threads that go this long. This thread is no different.

 

You would have hated them just as much if they ahd gone with a regular style controller because you think you are to old for thier games.  All you're trying to do now is flame and argue.

No, that's you making assumptions. Actually my views are have been exaggerated and taken out of context like you just did now. I am not the one cussing after all.

 

Wow, Dones, you somehow managed to miss every single point I was trying to make. I honestly don't see any reason to continue this arguement, since there's basically nothing I can do to explain my points that I haven't already done, and since it's obvious that you're not going to change your opinion anyways.

I honestly don't see why you have to be so dense about all of this. Why don't you change your opinion? What makes yours more valid than everyone elses? You said you wanted "to keep the ball rolling" (your words). I guess there is no reason to continue this argument, since there's basically nothing I can do to explain my points that I haven't already done, and since it's obvious that you're not going to change your opinion anyways.

 

I'll reiterate once again: I think the revolution will be great for those who want to play mostly Nintendo games. They have been suffering some problems for some time now (eg, game droughts, not so great 3rd party support, mostly kiddie games, the 2nd chair attention consoles get in favor to portables). This time around there is a strong possibility some of these problems will be even more so. If you don't mind these perks then good luck to you! There is nothing in this opinion that is meant to flame anyone, but it has certainly touched a nerve with some who have taken upon them to do just that.

[kisrael]

Save "kiddie" for the truly dumbed-down crap, that's designed to be easy for younger kids and looks like...the word "kiddy" is too easily applied to crap like "Olson Twins" and "Blues Clues", it's too wide of a brush.

It's like I said before, you are taking this way too personally.

You said that to someone else. And frankly it's a suckass argument; "oh you...quit being so darn sensitve!"

Most kids don't give a crap what their machine looks like. It's more of a girl teeniebopper style thing, or a male teen geek appeal thing, for the more "macho" colors like the platinum.

Maybe, but it seems to be important. Otherwise companies would not go through so much trouble of providing the option. People do make purchasing decisions based on image.

I recognize it's important from a marketing perspective...I was just mentioning that it's less important for KIDS, more important for some of middle demographic of teens and 20-somethings.

 

I'll reiterate once again: I think the revolution will be great for those who want to play mostly Nintendo games. They have been suffering some problems for some time now (eg, game droughts, not so great 3rd party support, mostly kiddie games, the 2nd chair attention consoles get in favor to portables). This time around there is a strong possibility some of these problems will be even more so. If you don't mind these perks then good luck to you! There is nothing in this opinion that is meant to flame anyone, but it has certainly touched a nerve with some who have taken upon them to do just that.

You're "gee, I've touched a nerve" crap is wearing thin...it's a damn message board about video games. We have nothing better to do than form strong opinions about stuff, and then talk about it. Jeezie petes! Quit takin' the damn high ground of "oh, I really don't care that much, but I'll toss you a bone and keep posting"

 

Anyway, the point of the revolution is that , for the first time in a long while, it might NOT be business as usual. Of course it carries the usual Nintendo risks you mentioned. But unlike Sony and Microsoft, it feels like Nintendo is out to attempt something more, and bust out into unchartered territory, and maybe tap new audiences and invent new genres, or at least make each one more than just a "one off". Maybe it'll be the DS, maybe it will be the Virtual Boy. Lets give it a chance and applaud the risktaking that's going on.

[sega saturn x]

Dones the only reason i swore is the fact that the arguements here are totally pointless. Argueing is great if a point can be made that is some how relevant. Say we finally do solve if video games are toys or not. What use does that point really have here?

 

I really don't want to argue with you i seriously have better things to do. But you have been being very rude and yes you have been flaming some of the members here.