Cause we need Nintendo being a 3rd clone. Having each system all having the exact same stuff would give people no reason to buy more then 1 of the systems. There's a difference between "doing something different" and "not doing anything at all." By that logic, if they could get GTAV, they shouldn't let GTAV be on their system, because the other two systems already have GTAV. Virtually no one is going to say "Oh, this console I'm considering doesn't have achievements, or anything like it. That's interesting, and makes me want to buy it more." Why didn't they also just not upgrade to HD visuals? Just because I don't personally care a lot about graphics doesn't mean the average consumer doesn't. What Nintendo has different is the GamePad, and that's what they're focusing on. So they already, inherently, have separated themselves from the competitors because the main device for interaction is very different (and don't give me that Glass or Vita nonsense). They don't need to keep separating themselves by offering less than their competitors. You don't have to pursue achievements, but it's ridiculous to say gamers should be given less options, especially when the cost to implement achievements, per game, is ridiculously miniscule. ur talking to a wall[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"] [QUOTE="homegirl2180"][QUOTE="Master_Of_Fools"]
[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]
No, and there's a chance there never will be.
Nintendo fans don't much like competition, they're rather a "you played a game here's a star!" type of audience.
The thing is that the achievement/trophy system is the evolution of a high score. High scores aren't bad to most people except those who can't get them.
The idea that games themselves have them is useless. This is 2013, there's no excuse why everything I do in gaming can't be tied to me. Every other platform allows me this except for Nintendo.
But that goes back to the type of people that play the hardware and games, that's why Nintendo does a time played instead. It's not how you played it's that you played at all.
Master_Of_Fools
i-rock-socks' forum posts
Cause we need Nintendo being a 3rd clone. Having each system all having the exact same stuff would give people no reason to buy more then 1 of the systems. troll logic. gotta love it. people buy consoles based on how they handle achievements now? someones gonna buy a "wii u" just because it doesnt have achievements? you should think before you put ur ideas to text.[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]
No, and there's a chance there never will be.
Nintendo fans don't much like competition, they're rather a "you played a game here's a star!" type of audience.
The thing is that the achievement/trophy system is the evolution of a high score. High scores aren't bad to most people except those who can't get them.
The idea that games themselves have them is useless. This is 2013, there's no excuse why everything I do in gaming can't be tied to me. Every other platform allows me this except for Nintendo.
But that goes back to the type of people that play the hardware and games, that's why Nintendo does a time played instead. It's not how you played it's that you played at all.
Master_Of_Fools
[QUOTE="i-rock-socks"]Game emulation on new hardware takes a while, it's not a simple port job that takes a weeks worth of work. tell that to the hackers. i can already play any gba/gbc/snes/nes/sega/scumm game on my 3ds(i havent checked the wii u homebrew scene, but ill be honest i doubt there is one, and 1 week was just an exaggeration) with few exceptions. yet no gba/snes/sega or scumm (but i can guess why on that one) games are out on the 3ds eshop. not even one game. i could understand an issue with licenses being a issue with some games not showing up, but NO games... get off ur ass nintendo. and the reason the wii u doesnt have a homebrew scene (i assume) is cause people have to bypass the systems security and not because they cant get the emulation right. i mention all that just to show that it doesnt take as long as nintendo takes to get this stuff done (idk if the hackers did it in a week, but they did it faster than nintendo). and that there is a way to already do it, yet they just refuse to, and i know they wouldnt use the same emulation software as a hacker, but if a hacker could do it so can nintendo.i love my wii u, i just want more to do on it.
and id love the damn virtual console eshop to get off its ass.
i dont love how we still have to wait to get access to 20 year old games, something that could be done in a week, there just too lazy to get off there ass.
Haziqonfire
also, they obviously have an snes/nes emulator for the wii u (since you can buy f-zero and punch out) and yet there are only two game out between those two consoles...
im tired of waiting and im tired of excuses.
i love the idea of my gaming accomplishments being tracked for all to see and just so i can keep track myself.
i find myself not caring about getting 100% in some games i like or even beating some of them. whats the point if not even i'll remember, atleast with a trophy system i have a virtual checklist.
one would think that nintendo would know that achievement tracking is a standard now (even if YOU dont like it, lots of people do and theres no reason NOT to have it)
so why no trophy tracking, and what are your thoughts on the matter?
i love my wii u, i just want more to do on it.
and id love the damn virtual console eshop to get off its ass.
i dont love how we still have to wait to get access to 20 year old games, something that could be done in a week, there just too lazy to get off there ass.
[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]
[QUOTE="inter_911"]
the 3DS started as bad and had the same mistake of launching with few medicore titles but nintendo picked itself up after releasing some good game, i think the same will happend soon.
inter_911
Nintendo cut the price drastically, that's what caused it
It had nothing to do with the games.
so u r saying the price cut with no games (specially the first party games) would have still worked to get the sells going? nah .. even if the WiiU diidnt get a price cut it would still sell if there were any system seller titles (Zelda, Mario Kart or any other proper mario title..etc)
yes, but no price cut, and no system seller games make jack a dull boy.[QUOTE="i-rock-socks"]
i think u mean shiek (yeah their the same, but with different moves and pro and cons, it is important to note which half ur referring to), cause zelda was a one hiter quiter, and in melee i used almost entirely shiek and never had any problems with being constantly countered with her forward "A" or any of her attacks. but i always charge her attacks, even if only for a split second. zelda hits so hard you knock em too far for them to instantly counter you and shiek hits so fast and (not as) powerfully that i can keep kicking em in the air (alot harder to do in brawl cause of the floaty controls) thats how i played them at least.
maybe i just got so good (none of my friends could beat me :cool: ) that im the exception to the rule, but i never had the issue your describing.
nini200
Nah, I was actually referring to Zelda (the princess). I rarely use Sheik in either game. Zelda's forward and up smash attacks are multi-hit attacks that would launch on the last hit. The problem I consistently had with Melee's Zelda was that my opponent would bounce away before the entire attack, especially the last hit, connected. Therefore, I could inflict damage fine, but finishing off opponents was too much of a chore. With Brawl's Zelda, I feel like the entirety of her Smash attacks connect much more often, and minus the increased execution it takes to directly connect her mid-air lightning kick, I actually think she's more effective. Much to my surprise, I actually found out she's a low-tier character in Brawl, but I've never really found myself in a situation where it felt like I was in a bad matchup with her.
Oh yeah... I was pretty darn dominant in my friendly circles, as well. :PMadmangamer364
This exactly. Basically your hits felt like the hits had no hit stun nor much connection in Melee. You'd hit them and they'd bounce off your attack and counter before your frames even finished.
I mean look at this fight.
Melee
Falco hits Marth so many times (With multiple different attacks) in the beginning but Marth has basically no hit stun. It's as if Marth has invulnerabilty and Marth isn't even one of the heavy characters.
Brawl
As you see, the hits look like they count more in Brawl. A regular A in Brawl will stun the opponent for a quick moment, in Melee, it looked as if they brushed it off.
Melee was fun, I'm not saying it wasn't, but I think they corrected some issues with the hit stun in Brawl. The tripping mechanic was complete idiocy though.
I loved the stage selection much better in Melee and honestly, I was fine with the fast pacing of Melee but I believe that the game needs to have a slower than Melee but Faster than Brawl pacing for the next one and have the hit stun that Brawl has.
well i never use regular "A" attacks i always charged my attacks so that may be why i never had that issue in any of the games (i dont doubt that it happens but from what i hear its acceptable cause there weaker attacks of weaker characters) all i know for sure is i never had that issue. maybe i just dont remember melee as well as i think. but i know i never had that issue, but i do remember using mostly shiek in melee (i still used zelda alot, but mainly sheik, and when i transformed into her, my friends knew "s**t just got real" :P), and mostly zelda in brawl, but thats because i cant connect with sheik's kicks as easily cause of the floaty controls (and cause bombarding people with zelda's fireball is too easy and effective :cool: ). at least were all on the same page on the s**ty tripping mechanictil today. ive played alot of em, but they never really hooked me enough to play em all the way thru. the oldest games (not including old computer games) i play on a semi-regular basis and beat are on the snes. but nes games were a lil too old for my taste.
but i saw a review for "sweet home" and i got a lil intrigued, then i played it and was quickly hooked, played it mostly none stop and just beat it.
whats the oldest game/console you can enjoy, whats the oldest game you most recently beat for the first time, and like the topics says, whats ur oldest fav game?
[QUOTE="i-rock-socks"]
[QUOTE="nini200"]
Madmangamer364
i guess we played different games cause i remember quite clearly being able to juggle people in the air very effectly, i never felt my attacks did nothing. the attacks you mentioned are supposed to be weak, try stacking up some damage and/or using power attacks instead of spamming jabs
I think nini200 is right here. Certain attacks weren't useful at all because your opponent could counterattack just as quicky as they were hit in Melee. In a lot of cases, you were punished for successfully executing moves because you'd get hit by a more powerful mid-air attack before you could even recover from your own attack. Zelda's a good example, as well, since two of her Smash attacks are multi-hit moves, which were way too difficult to take advantage of in Melee's system. I've always felt that Brawl's Zelda was how she was supposed to have played like in the first place, and the stun system plays a part in that.
i think u mean shiek (yeah their the same, but with different moves and pro and cons, it is important to note which half ur referring to), cause zelda was a one hiter quiter, and in melee i used almost entirely shiek and never had any problems with being constantly countered with her forward "A" or any of her attacks. but i always charge her attacks, even if only for a split second. zelda hits so hard you knock em too far for them to instantly counter you and shiek hits so fast and (not as) powerfully that i can keep kicking em in the air (alot harder to do in brawl cause of the floaty controls) thats how i played them at least.maybe i just got so good (none of my friends could beat me :cool: ) that im the exception to the rule, but i never had the issue your describing.
Log in to comment