Nintnedo: Without them games would stay the same?

Dreamcast had online play. 3DO had internal memory (technically battery backed RAM, but the concept was similar).

I know. I made a similar point in an earlier post.

Technically all last generation consoles had some level of online functionality. Even the GameCube (though I only recall one game on the platform that ever took advantage of it). I suppose Microsoft did influence the Sony to giving the PS3 a more centralized service. Though so far Microsoft's strategy of making consumers pay just to play online hasn't caught on with other manufacturers, and frankly I'm grateful for that.

Dreamcast had online play. 3DO had internal memory (technically battery backed RAM, but the concept was similar).

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="SaltyMeatballs"] Where do you guys get this idea? Maybe same franchises, but they have evolved, and I am sick of this argument now. People were calling Kid ICarus 3DS a rehash when there hasn't been a Kid Icarus game in 20 years, and it was nothing like the 3DS one.Mario1331

let's see....all mario has done for the past 30 years is rescue the princess from bowser. sure they may have changed the locations once in a while, but the game relatively stayed the same. same goes for link in the zelda franchise. nintendo isn't as revolutionary as people like to think. they pretty much create gimmicks and hope to bank on them. that has back fired a few times (powerglove, virtual boy and gameboy advance micro come to mind). but in terms of their games, yeah, they're pretty much rehashes. then again, the same could be said for most sequels.

it likes every game now has to have a story for people on this forum to be happy.

micro was not a flop it actually sold all its units it was a collectible item not a hot sku like the ds is.

nintendo is revolutionary they focus on gameplay which is why many devs cant top them in that department, they showed many times you dont need a story for a game to be fun SMG2 is a prime example of that.

Nintendo constantly changes their franchises just look at kirby epic yawn no kirby game has been like that before.

Dreamcast had online play. 3DO had internal memory (technically battery backed RAM, but the concept was similar).

[QUOTE="Tyrant156"][QUOTE="nintendo-4life"] Motion sensing, analogue Sticks, and Touch screen were there way before Nintendo even bothered to utilize the technology. It's not about who invented what. It's about who takes the hardware and present it in a very unique and influential fashion. I don't know about the internal memory but I can tell you right now Dreamcast's online is nothing compared to MS.nintendo-4life

No one is denying that but were not talking aout what companies took an idea anad made it better. We are talking about contributions that gaming companies have made to the console ndustry and the DC was the first to introduces us to online gaming.

Classic gaming expo. july 31st-vegas.we'll be at the tropicana hotel.

industry would be fine.the mark series would have revived it without famicom.

dpads were a copy of the circular disk(intellivision) but nintendo wasn't the first to copy it.

motion sensing joysticks weren't as good as power glove but someone else would have made it what it is today.

atari wasn't first with analog,however i consider astrocade to be the first that was precise.

adventure vision was garbage,but so was virtual boy.

game cards/sat gaming was hyped mostly from taito,not nintendo st giga or sega channel.

i also hate the game.com but some of the early gakkens weren't that bad.

3d gaming without glassies isn't new either,arcades have been using it for years.cost is the reason it isn't as well known.

with the exception of game series,nothing would be different.someone else would copy and make it popular.

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="Tyrant156"] Still, Dreamcast was the first to give us online games on a home console and at the time it was a great contribution, give credit where it's due.Tyrant156

No one is denying that but were not talking aout what companies took an idea anad made it better. We are talking about contributions that gaming companies have made to the console ndustry and the DC was the first to introduces us to online gaming.

[QUOTE="Tyrant156"]

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"] Exactly, give credit where it's due. Dreamcast introduced online. But MS made online what it is today on home consoles.nintendo-4life

No one is denying that but were not talking aout what companies took an idea anad made it better. We are talking about contributions that gaming companies have made to the console ndustry and the DC was the first to introduces us to online gaming.

[QUOTE="madsnakehhh"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

really??mario games are original?? nintendo has only been making mario games since the 1980's but somehow it's original?? really?? the same goes for zelda and metroid.

cowgriller

Yep, as much as you don't want to believe it, they are original, just play SMG2, WindWaker and Prime to see it ok, they are nothing like Super Matio Bros 3, The Legend of Zelda or Super Metroid, and God knows i'm not even talking about graphics.

no thank you. i dont play chilrens games.

Cool. How does it feel to have what little credibility you initially had reach absolute zero?

[QUOTE="Mario1331"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

let's see....all mario has done for the past 30 years is rescue the princess from bowser. sure they may have changed the locations once in a while, but the game relatively stayed the same. same goes for link in the zelda franchise. nintendo isn't as revolutionary as people like to think. they pretty much create gimmicks and hope to bank on them. that has back fired a few times (powerglove, virtual boy and gameboy advance micro come to mind). but in terms of their games, yeah, they're pretty much rehashes. then again, the same could be said for most sequels.

cowgriller

it likes every game now has to have a story for people on this forum to be happy.

micro was not a flop it actually sold all its units it was a collectible item not a hot sku like the ds is.

nintendo is revolutionary they focus on gameplay which is why many devs cant top them in that department, they showed many times you dont need a story for a game to be fun SMG2 is a prime example of that.

Nintendo constantly changes their franchises just look at kirby epic yawn no kirby game has been like that before.

yes, most if not all games need to have stories for the single player campaign. mp campaign doesn't need one, just a good online component.

micro was a flop. it was shown off at e3, went on sale and few bought it so nintendo killed it off. few bought it because it came out during the launch of the ds.

many devs do focus on gameplay, but they tend to design games based on strategy and storytelling, unlike nintendo which gameplay is based on childish fun and kindergarten humor.

so no kirby game had kirby sucking and blowing his enemies to death? all they changed was the graphics, not the gameplay and according to you sheep, gameplay > graphics, so....irony.

why do everyone revert to name calling and yes gameplay is greater then graphics thats a fact. i cant play graphics sorry.

micro was a collectible item i would pull the link but its getting late where i live at.

the fact is kirby is radically changed to have a yawn rope and a very unique color scheme no matter how you flip it. you dont got to be iterested but its different then previous kirby installments

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="OwnallConsoles"]

What has Nintendo Invented?

Dpad: On every controller that matters

Precise Analog Stick: Atari made the first analog sticks. Nintendo built the first precision ones for 3D games

3D gaming: Mario 64 layed the bar out for every 3D game after it

Modern Platformer: Every 2D platformer ows their roots to Super Mario Bros

Rumble Pak: yep, Nintendo had rumble packs first.

Camera Stick: Again Another Nintendo invention. Now every controller has 2 analogs

Motion Controls: Sony again shamelessly copied the idea. Microsoft is copying it and the eye toy

HandHelds: before Gameboy the best you could hope for was a tiger electronic game. Awful

3D gaming wtih no Glasses: I see Sony copying this on their psp2

I could name many more but the point has been shown. Would the industry get stale without nintendo?

cowgriller

you're forgeting that MS and Sony, MS especially, have HUGE r&d departments (and budgets) unlike nintendo.

jesus you both are misinformed nintendo did the power glove and virtual boy way before MS and Sony was thought off more research you should do my friend

[QUOTE="madsnakehhh"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

really??mario games are original?? nintendo has only been making mario games since the 1980's but somehow it's original?? really?? the same goes for zelda and metroid.

Foliage-King

Yep, as much as you don't want to believe it, they are original, just play SMG2, WindWaker and Prime to see it ok, they are nothing like Super Matio Bros 3, The Legend of Zelda or Super Metroid, and God knows i'm not even talking about graphics.

your right uncharted is just like Tomb raider your logic really made no sense hoenstly

[QUOTE="TheGreatOutdoor"]

Lol, Nintendo is nothing. Consumers decied what direction gaming goes, not the companies.

Buckledant

you forgot that they single-handedly saved the console gaming industry in 1984.

i agree. ninty have made a HUGE contribution to gaming, and they still are, and still will

gamedude234

the opposite being? not making gaming a secret society where only hardocres can enjoy the hobby? if thats what you mean then i agree

[QUOTE="Mario1331"]

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

let's see....all mario has done for the past 30 years is rescue the princess from bowser. sure they may have changed the locations once in a while, but the game relatively stayed the same. same goes for link in the zelda franchise. nintendo isn't as revolutionary as people like to think. they pretty much create gimmicks and hope to bank on them. that has back fired a few times (powerglove, virtual boy and gameboy advance micro come to mind). but in terms of their games, yeah, they're pretty much rehashes. then again, the same could be said for most sequels.

mackey25

it likes every game now has to have a story for people on this forum to be happy.

micro was not a flop it actually sold all its units it was a collectible item not a hot sku like the ds is.

nintendo is revolutionary they focus on gameplay which is why many devs cant top them in that department, they showed many times you dont need a story for a game to be fun SMG2 is a prime example of that.

Nintendo constantly changes their franchises just look at kirby epic yawn no kirby game has been like that before.

pikmin just for starters and if the idea works for a new ip they would put it on a new ip they said this plenty of times already theres no point for a new ip if the game can be done with an existing established one thats comon business.

Nobody cares for new ip's i know i dont and idk when this new ip thing started to become so important anyway

No, I don't think it would be the same.

jesus you both are misinformed nintendo did the power glove and virtual boy way before MS and Sony was thought off more research you should do my friend

Mario1331

Nintendo was not responsible for the Power Glove. It was manufacturered by Mattel/PAX. The closest thing to motion controls Nintendo themselves had at the time was the Power Pad.

[QUOTE="Mario1331"]

jesus you both are misinformed nintendo did the power glove and virtual boy way before MS and Sony was thought off more research you should do my friend

ThePlothole

Nintendo was not responsible for the Power Glove. It was manufacturered by Mattel/PAX. The closest thing to motion controls Nintendo themselves had at the time was the Power Pad.

oh well power pad same thing

Like Sega went? Why would you wish such a horrible fate on a company and beloved franchises?

Nintendo was the pioneer but now it got old, in my opinion it should be better if they go the way sega went ( now) . Imagine zelda games with voice acting and with ps3 graphics :PSolid_Tango

it would seriously suck which is why those games cant be rated higher then the nintendo games now without all that added content

nintendo defines gaming ,

thats a fact i dont see wii playing dvds or some new flashy movie format , ,

it is dedicated to games first movies 2nd -which is why net flix just got on wii

they have played their cards right

and it will pay off later on

cause im already interisted in wii hd and its not even confirmed yet, ! well sorta

and 3ds is coming im getitng that ,

scratch xbox off my list cause that thing is defective and if sony releases another 600-700 console youcan bet i wont buy it either

nintendo did everything with nes snes way before n64

motion-duckhunt /super scope and rob

3d polygonal games-stuntrace fx starfox and dirt tracks fx topgear 3000 sorta had 3d

handhelds -they did their first handheld it was called mr game and watch , ,then gameboy etc

theyin fact did have online only in japan via a nes/snes add-on

and disc drive on the snes and n64 -in japan ,,-so there , to all who think sony came first with it

rumble -n64

fourcontroller sockets without the use of a expensive and space taking add-on , nintendo 64 /gc/wii-wirelessly

first bc console was the snes bc w gameboy games ,

first bc handheld and only bc handhelds are nintendos gba gbc gb ds 3ds

first glasses less 3d-virtual boy first real 3d-glasses less-3ds

first successful fpses happened on the n64 -for consoles -goldeneye 007 etc

first ever go kart game that was fun-mariokart

touch screen-ds/3ds/dsi

cameras-dsi -so ya kenict copied dsi , , and its wario snapped game

and appearently so with kenictimals haha

Lost of textmariokart64fan

nintendo was close to going out of business..we really owe it to sony for as far as gaming has come today

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"]Lost of textFoliage-King

He said backwards compatible handheld And I believe the Game Boy Color was the first to be BC with its predecessor (or the GB Advance, depending on how you count it). However the WonderSwan Color and CrystalSwan were also backwards compatible.

nintendo was close to going out of business..we really owe it to sony for as far as gaming has come today

ultraking

Okay... Just where exactly did you hear that Nintendo was close to going out of business? And when exactly was this supposed to have occurred?

[QUOTE="ultraking"]

nintendo was close to going out of business..we really owe it to sony for as far as gaming has come today

ThePlothole

Okay... Just where exactly did you hear that Nintendo was close to going out of business?

i didnt hear it.. i lived it.. nintendo& sega were back and forth, then out of nowhere comes sony and just cleans both of their fanbase. Sega lost and is no longer a player, but nintendo some how survived

ultraking

You're saying that because Sega put up strong competition, Nintendo was going to go out of business? Huh? That makes absolutely no sense.

Look, even when Nintendo was dead last with the GameCube they still managed to make a profit. In fact they made a lot more than Microsoft's console division last gen. Sales do not tell the whole story (unless they're absolutely abysmal, which neither the N64 nor GCN actually were... they just weren't as good as Sony's). Sega's problem is that they were being seriously mismanaged.

PS I lived through that era too.

[QUOTE="ultraking"]

i didnt hear it.. i lived it.. nintendo& sega were back and forth, then out of nowhere comes sony and just cleans both of their fanbase. Sega lost and is no longer a player, but nintendo some how survived

ThePlothole

You're saying that because Sega put up strong competition, Nintendo was going to go out of business? Huh? That makes absolutely no sense.

Look, even when Nintendo was dead last with the GameCube they still managed to make a profit. In fact in that sense fared far better than Microsoft's console division last gen. Sales do not tell the whole story (unless they're absolutely abysmal, which neither the N64 nor GCN actually were... they just weren't as good as Sony's). Sega's problem is that they were being seriously mismanaged.

PS I lived through that era too.

no, i never said because sega failed, then nintendo was gonna fail next..what im saying is, people stopped buying nintendo&sega products because the sony train rolled into town, and sega&nintendo lost tons of fanbase.. sega never recovered, nintendo, somehow did.why nintendo was trying to stay afloat ,sony was turing out games after games and the public was eating it up.

ultraking

If people stopped buying Nintendo products, then how do you explain the 32.9 million N64s and 21.7 million GameCubes sold? Those numbers may not meet the NES's 61.9 million or even the SNES's 41.9 million sales, but they aren't bad either. And again it's not just about sales. Nintendo remained very profitable despite losing the number one position in market share. Sega on the other hand could not remain profitable. Not because of sales... the Dreamcast actually sold decently enough during its short life... but poor decisions by the people in charge.

[QUOTE="ultraking"]

no, i never said because sega failed, then nintendo was gonna fail next..what im saying is, people stopped buying nintendo&sega products because the sony train rolled into town, and sega&nintendo lost tons of fanbase.. sega never recovered, nintendo, somehow did.why nintendo was trying to stay afloat ,sony was turing out games after games and the public was eating it up.

ThePlothole

If people stopped buying Nintendo products, then how do you explain the 32.9 million N64s and 21.7 million GameCubes sold? Those numbers may not meet the NES's 61.9 million or even the SNES's 41.9 million sales, but they aren't bad either. And again it's not just about sales. Nintendo remained very profitable despite losing the number one position in market share. Sega on the other hand could not remain profitable. Not because of sales... the Dreamcast actually sold decently enough during its short life... but poor decisions by the people in charge.

im not gonna talk sales, because thats not what the thread is about.. im arguing that sony bought more to the table than nintendo as far as games evolving. sony filled the hole that nintendo and sega created. sega failed, nintendo makes ok games

ultraking

That has nothing to do with what you initially stated. You claimed that Nintendo nearly went out of business. But you've given nothing to back up that claim.

nintendo defines gaming

mariokart64fan

G&W weren't the first handhelds.not even close.

Gakken had BC before GB or WS.

i know you don't think FDS was before atari disc drives.

nintendo online(st giga) and sega channel were copied from taito's showing.

commodore,extex,casio,datasoft,bally,atari and many others allhad vibration motors,this was years before rumble pak

virtual boy is a copy of adventure vision

everyone knows tigergame had touchscreen before nintendo.

other than first party titles,nintendo invented nothing.

you seriously need to visit classic gaming expo. july 31st-vegas.

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="ultraking"]

i didnt hear it.. i lived it.. nintendo& sega were back and forth, then out of nowhere comes sony and just cleans both of their fanbase. Sega lost and is no longer a player, but nintendo some how survived

ultraking

You're saying that because Sega put up strong competition, Nintendo was going to go out of business? Huh? That makes absolutely no sense.

Look, even when Nintendo was dead last with the GameCube they still managed to make a profit. In fact in that sense fared far better than Microsoft's console division last gen. Sales do not tell the whole story (unless they're absolutely abysmal, which neither the N64 nor GCN actually were... they just weren't as good as Sony's). Sega's problem is that they were being seriously mismanaged.

PS I lived through that era too.

all companeis did something to keep gameing moving. While i would say thatgaming withouthnintendo and miyamoto would be worse then gaming wihtout MS and Sony.

I find it halarious that teenaged fanboys spew all this crap that Nintendo has not contributed to the gaming industry. The fact of the matter is Nintendo single handedly saved the gaming industry after the crash in '83 (I believe it was then...?).

So no matter what anyone says or thinks we need to thank Nintendo. Gaming back then was seen as a fad that had run it's course and Nintendo came along and electroshocked it back to life.

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="Mario1331"]

it likes every game now has to have a story for people on this forum to be happy.

micro was not a flop it actually sold all its units it was a collectible item not a hot sku like the ds is.

nintendo is revolutionary they focus on gameplay which is why many devs cant top them in that department, they showed many times you dont need a story for a game to be fun SMG2 is a prime example of that.

Nintendo constantly changes their franchises just look at kirby epic yawn no kirby game has been like that before.

Mario1331

yes, most if not all games need to have stories for the single player campaign. mp campaign doesn't need one, just a good online component.

micro was a flop. it was shown off at e3, went on sale and few bought it so nintendo killed it off. few bought it because it came out during the launch of the ds.

many devs do focus on gameplay, but they tend to design games based on strategy and storytelling, unlike nintendo which gameplay is based on childish fun and kindergarten humor.

so no kirby game had kirby sucking and blowing his enemies to death? all they changed was the graphics, not the gameplay and according to you sheep, gameplay > graphics, so....irony.

why do everyone revert to name calling and yes gameplay is greater then graphics thats a fact. i cant play graphics sorry.

micro was a collectible item i would pull the link but its getting late where i live at.

the fact is kirby is radically changed to have a yawn rope and a very unique color scheme no matter how you flip it. you dont got to be iterested but its different then previous kirby installments

way to contradict yourself, there. the new kirby is pretty much a rehash of the older titles but with a different look. meaning, that all nintendo did with the title was play graphics. and you're also playing graphics with that last sentence. good show.

I can imagine gaming without Nintendo because I grew up with SEGA :D But I can't deny the huge contribution they gave to the games industry in order to shape it the way it is today.

Swift_Boss_A

thats like saying if the US had never invented the nuclear bomb... no nuclear bombs would have ever been invented. Your logic is just plain wrong... everything would have been the same without nintendo.

but lets not forgot how much motion controls ruined gaming... nintendo needs a big pat on the back for that.

and nintendo did not invent 3d gaming... i like that if someone copies something nitendo did and does it better they are "ripping off nintendo" but if nintendo copies someone else they are "setting the bar"

markinthedark

[QUOTE="cowgriller"]

[QUOTE="2mrw"] great list ............ but somehow, they invented but never led in any of those fields ..... Sony and MS are very clever copiers, and they also have their share of inventions...... for the record Sony introduced motion control around the same time of the WII with DS3. 3D gaming without glasses is also introduced by MS i think but Nintendo is the first to put it on portables. tiger electronic game is considered handheld so Nintendo just copied and built upon a preexisting idea. Atari made the first analog stick, i dun need to say more. introduing good 3d or 2d game doesn't mean Nintendo invented 3d or 2d gaming. So yeah from ur googles Nintendo invented the World but in reality they just copied and improved known ideas just like Sony and MS, the difference is Sony and MS are doing it better :D .Mario1331

you're forgeting that MS and Sony, MS especially, have HUGE r&d departments (and budgets) unlike nintendo.

jesus you both are misinformed nintendo did the power glove and virtual boy way before MS and Sony was thought off more research you should do my friend

way to prove my point. nintendo's research is more for gimmicks than anything useful. the powerglove and virtual boy were both total failures that costs nintendo millions. whereas microsofts research has created the xbox and xbox 360, the MS Surface, a battery that can be inserted in any orientation and still works, etc. Sony's research has led to Blu-eay, 3D TV's, OLED's, etc. see the difference?

way to prove my point. nintendo's research is more for gimmicks than anything useful. the powerglove and virtual boy were both total failures that costs nintendo millions. whereas microsofts research has created the xbox and xbox 360, the MS Surface, a battery that can be inserted in any orientation and still works, etc. Sony's research has led to Blu-eay, 3D TV's, OLED's, etc. see the difference?

cowgriller

The Power Glove didn't cost Nintendo anything. They didn't develop or manufacture it.

Ever heard of Microsoft Bob or the MSN Smart Watch? And how is the virtual boy a gimmick but Sony 3DTV is not?

sony is not interested in gimmicks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7d7Z4f14so

no really

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTxdKi77G20&feature=related

[QUOTE="mackey25"]

[QUOTE="Mario1331"]

it likes every game now has to have a story for people on this forum to be happy.

micro was not a flop it actually sold all its units it was a collectible item not a hot sku like the ds is.

nintendo is revolutionary they focus on gameplay which is why many devs cant top them in that department, they showed many times you dont need a story for a game to be fun SMG2 is a prime example of that.

Nintendo constantly changes their franchises just look at kirby epic yawn no kirby game has been like that before.

Mario1331

pikmin just for starters and if the idea works for a new ip they would put it on a new ip they said this plenty of times already theres no point for a new ip if the game can be done with an existing established one thats comon business.

Nobody cares for new ip's i know i dont and idk when this new ip thing started to become so important anyway