More woe for nintendo

Discuss and discover all the great games of yesteryear!

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

User avatar
Mootown
Posts: 3853
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:33 am
Location: Blacktooth Castle, Basingstoke...
Contact:

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by Mootown » Sat May 24, 2014 5:07 am

outdated_gamer wrote:
RetroBob wrote:
outdated_gamer wrote:Yes but those games are multi-plats (sans for Zombi U), meaning they're not a reason to buy a Wii U.
So what? I have a PS3, 360 and a Wii U and I chose to get Arkham City, Sonic blah blah Transformed and Rayman Legends on Wii U.
Well, I never bought a console because of multi-format games. :wink:

Those are just a bonus for me, not the main reason to buy a console.
If you bought a console to play Kobe Bryant Basketball, a rubbish F1 game and Turok I LOL at you. I bought my N64 for Mario 64 personally.

User avatar
outdated_gamer
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:14 pm

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by outdated_gamer » Sat May 24, 2014 6:21 am

Mootown wrote:
If you bought a console to play Kobe Bryant Basketball, a rubbish F1 game and Turok I LOL at you. I bought my N64 for Mario 64 personally.
Nope, I didn't buy it for those games. But I don't see why exactly would it be "laughable" if someone did. Not everyone's into Mario and tons of iterations he's appearing in (regardless of them being good games). :wink:

User avatar
Guitar_Geek
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 5:12 am
Location: Australia

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by Guitar_Geek » Sat May 24, 2014 7:58 am

Nintendo should at least be given props for actually releasing a video game console, rather than an inferior gaming PC. Microsoft and Sony can try all they want, but the XBone and the PissPoor will never be as good as a dedicated gaming PC, where you can play online without subscription fees and type insults with your keyboard. Consoles always had the advantage of local multiplayer compared to PCs, but Nintendo seems to be the only company that knows this and takes advantage of it.
Image

User avatar
gman72
Posts: 8018
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:41 pm
Location: UK. Norfolk

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by gman72 » Sat May 24, 2014 8:19 am

Twaddle...
... and mind your Ps and Qs.
“To gain your own voice, you have to forget about having it heard.” —Allen Ginsberg, WD

User avatar
crusto
Posts: 5586
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:18 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by crusto » Sat May 24, 2014 10:49 am

Guitar_Geek wrote:Nintendo should at least be given props for actually releasing a video game console, rather than an inferior gaming PC. Microsoft and Sony can try all they want, but the XBone and the PissPoor will never be as good as a dedicated gaming PC, where you can play online without subscription fees and type insults with your keyboard. Consoles always had the advantage of local multiplayer compared to PCs, but Nintendo seems to be the only company that knows this and takes advantage of it.
Can't agree with that, PC's are great, don't get me wrong. But to discount the consoles the way you have is plain silly imo. The PS4 and Xbone are plug and play, offer high end graphics for their price point, and a great value for money online service (PS+).
Image

Eat your nans pants

User avatar
Matt_B
Posts: 5476
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:30 am
Location: 5 minutes from the beach, 30 seconds from the pub

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by Matt_B » Sat May 24, 2014 11:47 am

All consoles have basically been using PC GPUs, with a minimal amount of customization, since the Xbox and the Wii U is no exception. It makes sense; the days of being able to produce bespoke graphics hardware at a reasonable price are well behind us.

Of course, that doesn't make them PCs for a variety of reasons.

User avatar
The Laird
Posts: 8496
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:01 am
Location: Luton
Contact:

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by The Laird » Sat May 24, 2014 12:44 pm

outdated_gamer wrote:
Mootown wrote:
If you bought a console to play Kobe Bryant Basketball, a rubbish F1 game and Turok I LOL at you. I bought my N64 for Mario 64 personally.
Nope, I didn't buy it for those games. But I don't see why exactly would it be "laughable" if someone did. Not everyone's into Mario and tons of iterations he's appearing in (regardless of them being good games). :wink:
I don't own a single Mario game for any of my Nintendo consoles.

antsbull
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 6:41 am

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by antsbull » Sat May 24, 2014 12:46 pm

Mootown wrote:If you bought a console to play Kobe Bryant Basketball, a rubbish F1 game and Turok I LOL at you. I bought my N64 for Mario 64 personally.
You obviously weren't paying much attention when the N64 came out - Turok was massively popular, shifted around 1.5 million copies, and was a system seller in the PAL regions where it was a release title. The Turok attract mode running in a loop was used in a lot of shops instead of Mario 64 where I was living.

Look what N64/NGC magazine had to say about it:

"On a machine from a company that had long specialised in primary colours and family fun, the last thing anyone anticipated was the kind of cutting-edge first-person shooter that was previously the sole preserve of expensive gaming PCs." Not only did Turok change this, but it established a "system-selling franchise" that persisted even after the N64 was replaced."

User avatar
outdated_gamer
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:14 pm

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by outdated_gamer » Sat May 24, 2014 4:14 pm

Guitar_Geek wrote:Nintendo should at least be given props for actually releasing a video game console, rather than an inferior gaming PC. Microsoft and Sony can try all they want, but the XBone and the PissPoor will never be as good as a dedicated gaming PC, where you can play online without subscription fees and type insults with your keyboard. Consoles always had the advantage of local multiplayer compared to PCs, but Nintendo seems to be the only company that knows this and takes advantage of it.
This. Why pay for online play if you already pay for internet access? Doesn't make sense to me. I wouldn't say if you payed a fixed subscribtion and then got access to all games (ideally without even needing the hardware itself - here's how "cloud computing" could revolutionize gaming), but to pay to access a game's (which you already bought for good money) key features? Doesn't sound appealing to me at all.

Also, add the Steam discounts, free to play games, tons of indie games, games in genres consoles lack entirely (e.g. simulation, strategy, MMO, ect.), the most control options, full backwards compatability (read: Gog.com, emulators), mods, crowd-funded projects and the community aspect (e.g. message boards, PC devs actually listening to their fan bases) and it's easy to see why the PC offers far better value for money than your average console does.

edit: well, looks like I already broke my promise of not comparing PC and consoles in threads not related to it... :wink:

User avatar
Negative Creep
Posts: 3842
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:59 am
Location: Rochester, Kent

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by Negative Creep » Sat May 24, 2014 4:23 pm

outdated_gamer wrote:
Guitar_Geek wrote:Nintendo should at least be given props for actually releasing a video game console, rather than an inferior gaming PC. Microsoft and Sony can try all they want, but the XBone and the PissPoor will never be as good as a dedicated gaming PC, where you can play online without subscription fees and type insults with your keyboard. Consoles always had the advantage of local multiplayer compared to PCs, but Nintendo seems to be the only company that knows this and takes advantage of it.
This. Why pay for online play if you already pay for internet access? Doesn't make sense to me. I wouldn't say if you payed a fixed subscribtion and then got access to all games (ideally without even needing the hardware itself - here's how "cloud computing" could revolutionize gaming), but to pay to access a game's (which you already bought for good money) key features? Doesn't sound appealing to me at all.

Also, add the Steam discounts, free to play games, tons of indie games, games in genres consoles lack entirely (e.g. simulation, strategy, MMO, ect.), the most control options, full backwards compatability (read: Gog.com, emulators), mods, crowd-funded projects and the community aspect (e.g. message boards, PC devs actually listening to their fan bases) and it's easy to see why the PC offers far better value for money than your average console does.

If you bought a high end PC in 2006 you would have had to upgrade it several times to play the latest triple A titles, whereas a 360 or PS3 would need nothing of the sort. So perhaps not as good value over the whole life cycle. Plus you would never have to worry about compatibility, hardware conflicts, viruses and so forth.
Image

User avatar
outdated_gamer
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:14 pm

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by outdated_gamer » Sat May 24, 2014 4:28 pm

Negative Creep wrote:
outdated_gamer wrote:
Guitar_Geek wrote:Nintendo should at least be given props for actually releasing a video game console, rather than an inferior gaming PC. Microsoft and Sony can try all they want, but the XBone and the PissPoor will never be as good as a dedicated gaming PC, where you can play online without subscription fees and type insults with your keyboard. Consoles always had the advantage of local multiplayer compared to PCs, but Nintendo seems to be the only company that knows this and takes advantage of it.
This. Why pay for online play if you already pay for internet access? Doesn't make sense to me. I wouldn't say if you payed a fixed subscribtion and then got access to all games (ideally without even needing the hardware itself - here's how "cloud computing" could revolutionize gaming), but to pay to access a game's (which you already bought for good money) key features? Doesn't sound appealing to me at all.

Also, add the Steam discounts, free to play games, tons of indie games, games in genres consoles lack entirely (e.g. simulation, strategy, MMO, ect.), the most control options, full backwards compatability (read: Gog.com, emulators), mods, crowd-funded projects and the community aspect (e.g. message boards, PC devs actually listening to their fan bases) and it's easy to see why the PC offers far better value for money than your average console does.

If you bought a high end PC in 2006 you would have had to upgrade it several times to play the latest triple A titles, whereas a 360 or PS3 would need nothing of the sort. So perhaps not as good value over the whole life cycle. Plus you would never have to worry about compatibility, hardware conflicts, viruses and so forth.
My PC is several years old now and I'm still getting enjoyment out of it. :wink:

I don't have to buy the latest hardware in order to enjoy the games I like.

User avatar
crusto
Posts: 5586
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:18 pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by crusto » Sat May 24, 2014 4:30 pm

Exactly, each have their own merits and drawbacks. PS+ works out at less than £4 per month and the amount of free stuff, discounted games etc is amazing. It's brilliant value.
Image

Eat your nans pants

User avatar
Negative Creep
Posts: 3842
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:59 am
Location: Rochester, Kent

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by Negative Creep » Sat May 24, 2014 4:34 pm

But you would have to if you wanted to play the latest title, whereas a 360 bought on day one will work with every single title with no extras needed (Kinect aside).


It's like comparing a performance bike with a performance car - the bike will always be quicker but the car is easier to use, thus they are both great in their own way.
Image

User avatar
outdated_gamer
Posts: 2599
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:14 pm

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by outdated_gamer » Sat May 24, 2014 4:39 pm

Negative Creep wrote:But you would have to if you wanted to play the latest title, whereas a 360 bought on day one will work with every single title with no extras needed (Kinect aside).
It will work but it will run the latest titles on settings worse than a low-end PC. :wink:

A high-end PC from 2006 is still better than the 360, it's simply that some devs dropped DX10 support on the PC. But workarounds exist even for that:

http://crysis3dx10hack.blogspot.com/

User avatar
nokgod
Posts: 9626
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:57 pm
Location: The Blackcountry

Re: More woe for nintendo

Post by nokgod » Sat May 24, 2014 4:45 pm

outdated_gamer wrote:
Negative Creep wrote:But you would have to if you wanted to play the latest title, whereas a 360 bought on day one will work with every single title with no extras needed (Kinect aside).
It will work but it will run the latest titles on settings worse than a low-end PC. :wink:

A high-end PC from 2006 is still better than the 360, it's simply that some devs dropped DX10 support on the PC. But workarounds exist even for that:

http://crysis3dx10hack.blogspot.com/
yeah man, we get it. You like PC's for gaming. Other people don't. You won't change their mind and they won't change yours. Can we get back on topic now?
Image
sscott wrote:I thought Tomb Raider was the best game of last gen (and I fuck1n hate the Tomb Raider series!)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests