From the forum question for issue 31

forestville · Post by **forestville** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:19 pm

Nintendo games are so special because they are simply Nintendo

revgiblet · Post by **revgiblet** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:04 pm

Nintendo are OK I suppose, but they're no Capcom.

Sega2006 · Post by **Sega2006** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:34 pm

Dudley wrote:Er?

The Saturn was Â£399.

The PSX was Â£299.

The PS1 cost a hell of a lot more down here than the Saturn did, and what was paid for the Saturn If I remember rightly was Â£136.99 and The PS1 was still quite a bit more. The Saturn had 2 games and the PS1 had none. This was in a Dixons in 1996. I am proberly the only person in the Chells area of Stevenage to have owned a Saturn so it was nice to be different to the rest to not have a Mega drive or PS1 like everybody else

Dudley · Post by **Dudley** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:53 pm

Sega2006 wrote: The PS1 cost a hell of a lot more down here than the Saturn did, and what was paid for the Saturn If I remember rightly was Â£136.99 and The PS1 was still quite a bit more. The Saturn had 2 games and the PS1 had none. This was in a Dixons in 1996. I am proberly the only person in the Chells area of Stevenage to have owned a Saturn so it was nice to be different to the rest to not have a Mega drive or PS1 like everybody else

Yes when it was tanking they cut the saturn price.

But it's irrefutable that the saturn launched Â£100 more than the PSX and remained so until some time after the PSX release.

Sega2006 · Post by **Sega2006** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:16 pm

The Saturn wasnt doing too bad in '96

Utini · Post by **Utini** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:12 pm

It's because they churn out the same games year, on year, on year... and some suckers fall for it every single time!

Dudley · Post by **Dudley** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:44 pm

Sega2006 wrote:The Saturn wasnt doing too bad in '96

It was apparently doing badly enough for them to slash the price by 75%.

Nevertheless, your point was that the PSX was more expensive than the Saturn, which up until the point it was clear the Saturn was going to tank, was simply not true.

Tabe · Post by **Tabe** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:39 pm

Nintendo games are special because they are designed, from the beginning, with the intent that the average player will be able to complete them while the advanced player will still find areas of challenge. Completing Super Mario World, for example, is not particularly difficult. Completing all 96 stages in Super Mario World, however, is far more challenging.

Additionally, Nintendo makes games that successfully target a broader audience, one that includes women, without insulting the "hardcore" game audience. Mario Kart, in all its incarnations, is a perfect example of this - wide appeal to the masses, much love among the hardcores.

Tabe

thl · Post by **thl** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:45 pm

revgiblet wrote:Nintendo are OK I suppose, but they're no Capcom.

Capcom had made a lot of high quality games. The Street Fighter II series are my favourite.

GetDexter · Post by **GetDexter** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:34 pm

Darran@Retro Gamer wrote:An easy one for you this month...
What makes Nintendo games so special?

Nintendo games are special ? Since when ?

Have you never played 'Get Dexter' ? Knocks spots off Metroid Prime any day of the week...

NorthWay · Post by **NorthWay** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:38 pm

I'm thinking of their old stuff, but it might as well apply today?

Graphics style: Comics as digital bits. Strong characterisations. Overdone expressions. Smartly done re-characterisations/iconography of realworld objects/persons.
Game testing: Someone has done a lot of work on balancing the parts.
Having a Master Plan: This involves the two previous points, but shows a company that approached game making with a clear plan and a methodology to it. This was at a time when you had a lot of bedroom hackers making game after game with their share of mis-features (many of which had the best of ideas, but of which you can say "they wouldn't have made _that_ mistake today"). This reflects in what a lot of developers have said about doing NES games: "Nintendo had so many rules you had to comply to!".

I believe most of their developers were internal too, which meant you could have much more consistent products over time compared to many of the other names in the business?

Shaun.Bebbington · Post by **Shaun.Bebbington** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:14 am

Playability

bazza6891 · Post by **bazza6891** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:40 am

Imagination, innovation, instantly playable and insanely addictive.

Rayek · Post by **Rayek** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:08 am

Nothing... they all suck.

(As you can tell, I'm still bitter about the 16-bit console war...)

MattC · Post by **MattC** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:31 am

I wouldn't know, being a parochial Amstrad freak.

Retro Gamer forum

From the forum question for issue 31

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: From the forum question for issue 31

Who is online