gaming Nintendo thread

[Noddles 116]

 

 

Because a Duke Nukem forever joke would work here.

 

 

HL3 Release Date > DNF Release Date

[Discordian 6,015]

Meh, heres my opinion of how a Pokemon game with all the regions should work.

 

First, you could choose which of the 5 regions to start in. Simple, and the game would continue like most Pokemon games. Once you've defeated the elite 4 of that region, you could buy a ticket at the region's port town to another region. Now, when you go to another region, due to international laws, you can't bring Pokemon you had to the new region. Yup, you start from scratch. Now, yo won't lose them, but you won't have access to those Pokemon until you defeat the region's elite 4.

 

So lets say I have a level 76 Blastoise. That thing could easily sweep through Johto. But instead, I leave it behind in Kanto, and get a Totodile instead. But once I beat the Johto elite 4, or return to Kanto, I can easily use my Blastoise.

 

Oh, and if it was to become MMO, it better be an optional feature, and I better be able to do it with friends only if I wanted to. I really don't want to be bugged by 6 year olds when I'm level grinding on a Nuzlocke.

 

JOEY wants to battle!

What, no. Decline battle request.

...

JOEY wants to battle!

What? I already said no.

...

JOEY wants to battle!

Fuck off kid!

...

JOEY wants to battle!

Thats it, I'm setting you to ignore.

...

BILLY wants to trade!

 

I'm probably the devil's advocate, but playing a Pokemon game works just as fine when you want to be alone, and I personally just don't see making it MMO a good idea. :/

 

If that were the case, what would be the incentive? If you are gonna make players use different pokemon each region there's gotta besomething that'll make doing so worthwhile. Perhaps getting to choose which region you start in and depending on where you start you get different TMs and HMs and get to do certain parts of the region sooner rather than later?

 

If you had to "restart" in every region, you might as well not have them in one game at all. It'd be better off as separate games anyway.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Discordian

[Spock 91]

 

Just keep in mind that looks can't be deceiving, this is Nintendo. Unless it looks bad.

 

FIX'D

Edited October 7, 2011 by THEj

[Miles Edgeworth 32]

2. The graphical power shown at E3 was only 25% of its power and those were about PS3 graphics.

 

 

 

D...do you have a source on that?

[Sageflare 277]

Read it and weep though I might of been a little wrong but the Wii U is more powerful than PS3

http://wii.ign.com/articles/117/1176149p1.html

[Miles Edgeworth 32]

 

That didn't answer my question in its entirety. You cited evidence that the Wii U is 50% more powerful than the PS3, but where did you hear that it used only 25% of that total power?

[Sageflare 277]

You should read my post I said I could also be wrong anyway think about it Nintendo never releases a console to use its max potential early in its life so 50% more powerful than the PS3 plus it not being as powerful at the beginning we will say 20-40% power being used and its close to being PS3 graphics from all the E3 videos.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Applejack

[Vinyl Scratch 262]

Meh, I really wouldn't call the system a gimmick yet. I mean, the screen look like it could actually, ya know, be helpful instead of just a useless gimmick. I mean, the ability to play a game in HD, and not even having to look at the TV is a pretty nice improvement.

 

I just wish they would have told us more about it though. They didn't hype it up as big as the did with the 3DS.

 

On the first point, I think it's hard to call this system that when the primary controller is otherwise the traditional buttons/analog setup. Not only will the more accessible control setup, HD capability and power put it at a more level development position in comparison to the other 2 companies, but the extra features in the controller can also be used as a toolbox by developers who actually want to use it to make something good. In the case of the Wii and 3DS, there was one central device that every developer worked with, but with the Wii U they have less restrictions or more opportunities (depending on how they look at it).

 

Even when the next Xbox and Playstation come out, I think Wii U will at least be able to hold its own in the marketplace since there won't be this Wii to 360/PS3 sized gap this time around.

 

On the word gimmick, it's actually not inherently a bad word. According to Merriam-Webster, it's "a trick or device used to attract business or attention." That can be, according to the more recent public definition, "an unnecessary, empty feature included for the sake of including one." But it can also take a more positive tone as referenced by another definition of the word: "An ingenious or novel mechanical device." The next time you feel like using the word gimmick as an insult, keep this in mind.

 

To wrap up what's become an essay of sorts , the reason the Wii U isn't that publicized is because Nintendo's arm was twisted into showing it at all at E3. Word got out, the press was at their door, negative reports about the Wii were growing, and they couldn't hold out anymore. It's also why we really didn't see anything from them for the Wii U aside from the Bird video and the Zelda video. Other games were confirmed, but we didn't see any footage. I feel this is quite apparent in their presentation. As for 3rd-Party games, the only reason those were announced was because we already knew they were coming to other systems. Come next year's expo, the frothing at the mouth can really begin.

 

Oh yeah, the reason I even came here in the first place: The camera and gameplay problems for Super Mario 3D Land have been solved, according to Rich George.

 

http://ds.ign.com/ar.../1198611p1.html

Edited October 7, 2011 by Vinyl Scratch

[Miles Edgeworth 32]

You should read my post I said I could also be wrong anyway think about it Nintendo never releases a console to use its max potential early in its life so 50% more powerful than the PS3 plus it not being as powerful at the beginning we will say 20-40% power being used and its close to being PS3 graphics from all the E3 videos.

 

 

I'm gonna have to say that's just wishful thinking. There's nothing to suggest that's 20% of it's power capacity.

[Sageflare 277]

 

 

I'm gonna have to say that's just wishful thinking. There's nothing to suggest that's 20% of it's power capacity.

 

Thats fine I guess I was spoutin nonsense I just thought I read somewhere that it was only running at that capacity but I can't find it so you got me. Sorry for confusing everyone. Edited October 7, 2011 by Applejack

[Miles Edgeworth 32]

 

 

It's quite alright. It's easy to be caught up in rumors when everything we know about the Wii U comes from the internet.

[Gummy 725]

Read it and weep though I might of been a little wrong but the Wii U is more powerful than PS3

http://wii.ign.com/a.../1176149p1.html

 

If it wasnt more powerful than a last generation console, I would give up on Nintendo completely.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Gummy

[Envy 6,160]

 

If it wasnt more powerful than a last generation console, I would give up on Nintendo completely.

 

While I don't know that I would have given up them, it is quite weird that everybody is so happy just that it's more powerful than the PS3.

 

I mean like all of the developers have to make a point to claim that it's so cool that it's more powerful than the PS3. But shouldn't it be naturally assumed that a next generation console would be at least somewhat more powerful than the most powerful console of the last generation?

 

I mean the Wii itself was more powerful than any console of the GCN/PS2/Xbox generation, but look where that got it.

 

Either way the Wii U is a massive leap from the Wii.

[Miles Edgeworth 32]

 

I think the main reason people are so stoked about it being more powerful about the PS3 is that Nintendo fans have been the mockery of the Microsoft/Sony fans BECAUSE their console is the weakest.

[Envy 6,160]

 

I think the main reason people are so stoked about it being more powerful about the PS3 is that Nintendo fans have been the mockery of the Microsoft/Sony fans BECAUSE their console is the weakest.

 

As a Nintendo fan I understand that, but as a developer I probably wouldn't quite as much. If it's only powerful enough to compare to the PS3 and not blow it out of the water, than as a developer you should be speculating "Is this going to be another Wii?".

 

If it was powerful enough to blow the PS3 out of the water they would not be speaking of it like they are right now.

[Miles Edgeworth 32]

 

 

I agree. I also remember a bit ago that a few developers were kind of hoping that graphical capabilities wouldn't rise too much anymore because the amount of work to go into games would be rising too high.

 

I think it was EA.

[Sageflare 277]

So guys major spoiler alert on this video don't click it if you don't want to see the intro to skyward sword.

 

 

http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZGCOoHqhfM

[Finesthour 7,287]

 

I think the main reason people are so stoked about it being more powerful about the PS3 is that Nintendo fans have been the mockery of the Microsoft/Sony fans BECAUSE their console is the weakest.

 

I have to completly agree with that. I haven't owned a nintendo system in years, so i am on xbox alot, and I hear people talk crap about nintendo players ALL the time.

[Discordian 6,015]

Nintendo fans talk just as badly about PS3 and 360 owners too though. For them it's "There's more to gaming than just 'teh grafix' but PS3 and 360 gamers don't see that" which is just as stupid as a lot of claims about Nintendo system being the weakest in power and that automatically makes it bad.

 

Yes, if a lot of games on the Wii and DS were on PSP and PS3 they would undoubtedly be marginally better but the core game won't really change. Any time the same game has been on the two different platforms they were usually made by different people. Sonic Unleashed, for example. Dimps made the Wii version, Sonic Team made the PS3/360 version.

[Finesthour 7,287]

Nintendo fans talk just as badly about PS3 and 360 owners too though. For them it's "There's more to gaming than just 'teh grafix' but PS3 and 360 gamers don't see that" which is just as stupid as a lot of claims about Nintendo system being the weakest in power and that automatically makes it bad.

 

Yes, if a lot of games on the Wii and DS were on PSP and PS3 they would undoubtedly be marginally better but the core game won't really change. Any time the same game has been on the two different platforms they were usually made by different people. Sonic Unleashed, for example. Dimps made the Wii version, Sonic Team made the PS3/360 version.

 

Lol, I honestly don't even care about graphics what so ever. The game can be drawn with crayons and I would love it if it was good. Which is why n64 is my favorite system of all time. Edited October 16, 2011 by Finesthour

[Discordian 6,015]

lol I know, I was just using a stereotypical answer. I came here from Gamefaqs and that place can sometimes be fanboy hell. I've seen more fanboy arguments than most in the three years I've been there.

 

To me, graphics are definitely a plus but to say they are either insignificant or everything that makes a game is wrong. They are as integral as story and gameplay, however the lack of one or the other doesn't make a game bad.

 

Plus, I play tons of flash games that probably have the worst "graphics" in gaming history and then jump into like...Final Fantasy XIII so I'm in the boat that the graphics, or lack thereof, are not decisive of whether I like a game or hate it but they are definitely a huge plus.

 

...That was a bit of a nonsensical ramble but I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

[Finesthour 7,287]

lol I know, I was just using a stereotypical answer. I came here from Gamefaqs and that place can sometimes be fanboy hell. I've seen more fanboy arguments than most in the three years I've been there.

 

To me, graphics are definitely a plus but to say they are either insignificant or everything that makes a game is wrong. They are as integral as story and gameplay, however the lack of one or the other doesn't make a game bad.

 

Plus, I play tons of flash games that probably have the worst "graphics" in gaming history and then jump into like...Final Fantasy XIII so I'm in the boat that the graphics, or lack thereof, are not decisive of whether I like a game or hate it but they are definitely a huge plus.

 

...That was a bit of a nonsensical ramble but I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

 

I got...the jist of it

[1Fluttershy 411]

Lol, I honestly don't even care about graphics what so ever. The game can be drawn with crayons and I would love it if it was good. Which is why n64 is my favorite system of all time.

 

[Gummy 725]

Graphics arent everything, controls are in my opinion. And the waggle controls of todays Nintendo system just kills it for me.

[Crispy 5,563]

Graphics arent everything, controls are in my opinion.

 

<non-nintendo post>

That's why Super Meat Boy is one of the best platformers to come out in the last 15 years.

</non-nintendo post>

 

To make this post on topic: Starfox 64 is a killer example of graphics taking a back seat to gameplay.