Just have a look at this:
At that price, I'd get four. Inexpensive Christmas presents.:cool:
You could buy 12 for the price of 1 Xbox 360 Platinum pack, Amazon.com priced it at $1200, and the price of a Revolution could be $100. That's funny.
Low price is a great thing. It's just a shame Sony and Microsoft haven't caught onto that yet.
That's because Sony wants to beef up its system with functions that nobody will use.
Just... Just shut up, Drew.
I'm liking where the price range is going. Since I'm eventually going to own all next-gen consoles, this just makes things easier to save up to buy a PS3.
Definitely will pick this one up at launch. Now to see the games.
You get your money's worth on all the next-gen consoles.
Except maybe the Xbox 360 which crashes
I think that's actually a major part of Nintendo's plan. Make Revolution an excellent secondary console.
This is the direction companies should have been going since the beginning, keeping systems not much more expensive than their older brothers. Each next-gen console is becoming exponentially more expensive than the previous, and it comforts me that one of the three power houses is concious of those with thin wallets as well as those with fat ones.
This is good to know, I was getting prepared to save up to Three-Hundred dollars for the Revolution. Its nice to know its this cheap. Its suprises me that its the same Price of the DS at release. Plus, I beleive the gamecube either cost more or the same price.
Thats why I personally dont believe it will launch at $99.
For the record, we got it at £129 on launch. Fair enough it was about 6 months later, but still. Prices can go that low, especially since when it came out GC was using cutting-edge technology. Revolution won't be.
This is all speculation... but still, that would be great. I'd buy it at launch, even though I probably will, anyway.
You all say you will buy it at launch, prices like this I say good luck to you. They will be off the shelves by either, nerdy nerdy people looking for the ultimate entertainment systems or cheap grandparents buying for their spolied children. Your gona have to wait in a long *** line to get this, Im sure.
Yeah, that's why you pre-order.
Just a side question - if Revolution will be $150, why would anyone buy the DS for $130?
Because the revolution isn't exactly portable now is it idiot box?
these things are so cheap, i'd buy em' to hang on the wall instead of those dam expensive picture frames
I just wonder if some people will think thats too cheap and assume it's a piece of junk. but whatever their loss.
I think that it will be $400 to try and be like XBOX 360 or PS3 but it sucks *** compared to those so it's going to bomb.
Im not retarded Im a realist. All of you can wish it will be THAT cheap, but even GAMECUBE was released at $250 so good luck with that.
Oh so now your trying to sneak your way out of it by saying your talking about canadian money... oh well your already banned.
Mr. Perfect, youre not so perfect afterall. :( Gamecubes graphics are better than PS2 as stated so many many times before.
if the Rev does go for 149 dollars then I might have to get it. Personally I do want the PS3 but if it comes to be 400 dollars, then I may just get the Rev.
The low price tag will earn Nintendo a lot of sales. This will definately help their fan support. We all know the 360 runs $299 for the crap setup, and $399 for the godly setup. The PS3 before Sony cut hardware was supposed to run about $499 maybe $599. But now that Sony cut a lot of hardware out it's looking like maybe $399-$499.
The Revolution could easily be sold at $149, but why sell that low? Nintendo could easily have an oppertunity to sell it for $200-$250, still be cheaper than the competitors and promise a decent line up of games. It would easily sell if Nintendo played their cards right. Now if all else fails Nintendo could lower their price to the $149.99 mark but I wouldn't jump yet if I were Nintendo. Make as much money as you can while you can. They already have a fanbase that'd probably kill to get their hands on the system. I mean sure Nintendo could have a cheap price for the fans. But then it'd hurt business. Not hurt just not help as much. Microsofts doing it for the fans. Their losing money for the system but in return it gets them sales and a larger fanbase.
I don't see too much change however in the sales to come in the race. I'd like to see a nice even race. However I see Sony probably still leading (But not by as large of a margin as before), Microsoft taking second and Ninty taking third. Now I could be wrong. Just what I believe will happen. If Nintendo decides to have a Yearly fee for the downloaded games and they have a huge online selection.. Mark my words.. Nintendo will at least double the sales of the Gamecube and perhaps come in 2nd or win the next gen console war. They must have a lot of multiplayer, some decent online games, and a cheap yearly fee (around $50 I'd say) to play the old games. And Nintendo shouldn't have too many problems making sales. Even if they came out with a $250 price tag. They must strike hard and they must strike fast. Come out with a new Zelda game (though lets not have them rush it), a new Mario game and a few other Nintendo exclusives (SSBO), pretty much right off the bat, and have the low yearly fee for the games, and have online play. And if people don't like the remote, create another remote thats compatible that'll fit the needs. And if all else fails create some sort of port that'll allow you to use 360/PS3 controllers (like sony/microsoft did with xbox/ps2), so you are able to use other controllers if preffered on your console. Aslong as it works you should be ok.
Good day..
Nintendo want to reach to people who don't already play games. Just convincing them to play is hard enough, it'd be even harder to convince them to buy a $200-250 peice of hardware aswell.
What.. Your joking? People would rather buy something cheap thats inferior hardware wise than something expensive. No no cancel what I said. People would prefer something better, but if they can't afford they'd shoot for something less. And we're not talking about people who don't like games. The majority of the sales go to the Gamers.
I doubt Nintendo would make the Revolution more expensive than necessary just because Microsoft and Sony have theirs out for so much more.
[quote=SomebodyRandom]What.. Your joking? People would rather buy something cheap thats inferior hardware wise than something expensive. No no cancel what I said. People would prefer something better, but if they can't afford they'd shoot for something less. And we're not talking about people who don't like games. The majority of the sales go to the Gamers.
Any gamer with half a brain knows the difference between what's better in a system because of technology (which brings a higher price) and what's better because of the games. If they prefer a lower price and Revolution titles, that's just all the better for them. It's non-gamers, the audience Nintendo's trying to reach out to, that I would expect to fail to make such distinctions between gameplay and technology in their first system purchase.
The only non gamers I predict will buy this is people who are buying it for actual Gamers. Only makes sense. If I wasn't into gaming I sure as hell wouldn't purchase any games. I mean there are people who know little about them but they're more likely to buy Sony products due to the fact that people with little knowledge about all three systems mostly buy PS2's.
You're telling me you don't predict non-gamers would ever pick up on they Revolution because they're not into gaming? I guess I can't claim you're not being logical, but all the same, Nintendo's trying to encorperate those looking for their first console... the way I see it, technophones. They're giving something at a low price (not flushing out the wallet like other kinds of modern technology can) and they intend to use the motion detector for simple control, rather than rely on button combos that can confuse and terrify a new gamer. Previously, yes, the PS2 was the choice for new gamers; compared to the coming generation, however, the PS2, GameCube and X-Box were not so radically different. The Revolution is made to be that much different than other consoles, designed to be newbie-friendly with the simple controller while still allowing for multi-button interface thanks to the promised add-ons.
Will Nintendo's efforts matter? Can non-gamers be expected to identify such differences between Revolution, X-Box 360 and PS3 before just purchasing something based off a popular name they've been hearing? Time will tell, but I think Nintendo should invest in some advertising.
[quote=SomebodyRandom]The majority of the sales go to the Gamers.
Fucking hell you're a moron.
THEY'RE TARGETING NON-GAMERS, YEAH?
For once, I support Speed's belligerance.
On a website i was looking around the Revolution section and they said that they interviewed Nintendo. They asked will the NES, S NES, Nintendo 64 games be free. Their answer was yes. They might change it though.
Nintendo advertises more than the others by far. Maybe not as much commercially but in stores they do. They send us probably 12 times more stuff than Microsoft or Sony. If you ask me, they shouldn't advertise more necessarily as it is changing how they advertise. Perhaps advertise a little less in stores and advertise more on the air.
And targeting Non Gamers just doesn't make much sense. Maybe I have your definition down wrong. I'm thinking of people who don't play video games. And you think Nintendo's trying to target them? I don't know that that'll work. I'll give them credit if it does. I just don't see it happening.
Actually, watch any comedy program after 9pm, they're all sponsered by DS. Goes to show that they're really selling DS as an adult toy considering in the UK, shows after 9 pm get particularly...rude.
Nintendo is trying to target a lot of people, and I think it will work. I know for a fact that my parents/my friends' parents will like playing the rev. All of my cousins except one stopped playing games for the most part, but I know they'll at least try playing the Revolution. So I'm sure the Rev will sell. They just need to make good advertisement that shows the innovation.
Yeah, but that's to be expected. The UK is significantly smaller than the US.
Good, the system may have a low price tag. Trying to recruit a new group gamers with the Rev would be insane, but they might be able to convert over some of the older XBox and PS2 fans.
Then again, no matter what, I'm still never going to get the system.
PSP ads in the UK are extremely good. The DS sponsorship ones are getting tired, because they're all just repeating the same wang joke, over and over.
Although I laughed like mad at the Kirby: Power Paintbrush one.
Okay, Revolution - just because they're targeting non-gamers doesn't mean that non-gamers will buy it. I've said it before - Nintendo say that they want someone to pick up a remote on the coffee table and for it to feel natural. Okay, great. But for that to actually happen, a gamer in the household has to buy it. Unless they have a VERY good in-store promotion campaign (ie, Nintendo bods actually demonstrating the controller in the middle of Tescos), they're not going to win very many people at launch that way.
Not only that, but you'd be surprised how much a really low price point puts people off. Say a casual gamer goes into his local branch of Game. He fancies a new console, he's heard of the next generation and that it's been out a while, and he wants to get in on it. Maybe he's been playing his friend's 360 a little bit when round his house, and is disappointed by the fact that his PS2 isn't quite as shiny. Who knows. But he compares the systems.
360: £249 ish (although probably $199 by the time the Revolution is out)
PS3: £249-299 (more recent release, but still down in price)
Rev: £99-£149
Say it's £149 and the 360's down to £199. For an extra fifty quid, he thinks, I can have a much bigger boost in performance. Bam, another customer to Microsoft.
Let's say the Revolution is £99, and the other two are £249. Now, that's a hefty difference. The gamer's decision is going to be heavily swayed by the fact that the other two are 150 notes dearer, and hence there must be £150 more power in the box.
These are, of course, outside chances, but this happened with the GameCube. People assumed it was worse because it was cheaper. Don't ever underestimate the stupidity of the average consumer.
Gieco's ad's want to make you buy their insurance. PSP's ad's remind you why you don't.
If you need to be reminded then those ads aren't for you. ;)
You mean the one where they through a PSP from person to person?
Advertising isn't aimed at you. It's aimed at people who don't play games or want to be cool. The PSP has the coolness factor. The randomness of the advertising, I think, is funny. Lately I've made a habit of monotonously saying "PSP: Shut the **** up" as a joke on the commercials. The commercials are supposed to make the buyer say "Hahahaha, I remember that commercial, and I've been thinking about buying a PSP anyways."
Yeah, I saw them...reminds me of MTV! AND MTV FUKIN ROX!
[quote=Darkbackward]So does that mean that you'll refrain from posting sales figures of the revolution?
...what?
Smash Bros will be better than a new Mario game on so many levels.
Probably because of the disappointment that was Mario Sunshine and the amazing success of Super Smash Brothers Melee. I'm sure when I see Mario 128 running on a Revolution I'll get hyped for it.
Mario sunshine's underrated, although I do hope a new mario game has more fighting. Not just jumping around, but some levels where you actually have to fight. I think Nintendo will make mario more traditional; they did that with Mario Kart and they're making a new Mario Bros sidescroller, so yeah.
:jesse: Because that smilie never gets used.
Anyway, I never was fond of SSBM and it only furthers the thinking that spin offs are better than original games. This is a disastrous strategy for Nintendo's creativity, and I think it would be a serious blow to the depth, enjoyment, and gaming enlightenment one used to achieve when playing on a Nintendo product.
But, you people want smash bros. online, and Nintendo won't stop from giving it to you.
It isn't a spinoff and it's an extremely original series. Fail.
I think he's talking about the fact that there's virtually no items or characters in the game that are new or original. However, they are going to make another SSB, so it really doesn't matter what we think about it.
That's kinda the point. Half the game is a homage to every other game.
Yes, and I think he's arguing that that degrades the quality of a game - like whoring Mario into every franchise possible, for example. I don't think it quite applies to SSB, as that's proved itself as a decent game in its own right, but it's a valid point when applied to other things.
Sort of like degrading the quality of Pokemon with Pokemon Dash.
That was the worst example you could've chosen...
:( Lol.
Okay, how about Final Fantasy degrading the quality of every RPG ever since?
That's a bad example, too, because not every Final Fantasy sucks. :)
Crystal Chronicals sucked... I hope they make better.. :-\
I would have respect for SSB and MK if there wasn't a Mario Party.
The fact still remains that there is too much instant gratification with mascots going on in Nintendo, it's disgusting to see a company I once held in regard devolve into appealling to the 12 year old gimmie now crowd.
SSB and MK are selling points, and I don't expect Nintendo to refrain, but if I see a pizza eating simulation I don't care HOW innovative that **** remote is, I'm never purchasing another nintendo product EVER.
Oh well, that's your loss.
I don't follow you. If they make a game you don't like, you'll give up on all the games you do? Are you on crack?
They can pull out as many Mario Parties out of their hats as they **** well please as long as they keep making games like Mario and Luigi, games that give the series a good name in the end.
It's all about finding your niche in the market.
It's not sensible for Nintendo to appeal to gamers that Microsoft and SONY already have a strong hold over, because these 20+ year olds aren't going to take Nintendo seriously, even if Nintendo releases games like Killer 7 and Resident Evil 4. However, that doesn't mean that Nintendo is relying on cheap spinoffs alone to survive. There is rumour that a new franchise is in development for the Revolution, and we can expect the same innovative titles that came out for the DS for Nintendo's next generation console.
It's all about finding your niche in the market
It's not sensible for Nintendo to appeal to gamers that Microsoft and SONY already have a strong hold over, because these 20+ year olds aren't going to take Nintendo seriously, even if Nintendo releases games like Killer 7 and Resident Evil 4. However, that doesn't mean that Nintendo is relying on cheap spinoffs alone to survive. There is rumour that a new franchise is in development for the Revolution, and we can expect the same innovative titles that came out for the DS for Nintendo's next generation console.
I really disagree. The 20+ year-olds are those people who were around when Nintendo was a trend-setting, popular and solid company in the industry, and msot of them still take Nintendo's business very seriously. There are no retro fans in the world quite like Nintendo fans.
If you look at the age groups who buy Xbox's and PS2's as opposed to Gamecubes, you'll see my point.
Yes, there are loyal Nintendo fans who have been around since the NES days (such as myself), but they don't make up the majority of Gamecube owners. Most fans of the NES, SNES, and even N64 moved on to the more "mature" consoles.
True, I suppose. But that doesn't mean that argetig those gamers is a bad thing - if they've moved over once, they'll do it again.
Oh no question. The Revolution is going to attract a lot of those who defected to Microsoft and SONY for at least one reason: The downloadable NES, SNES, and N64 games.
What I feel is key is another Mario 64. That is to say, a new Mario game that is revolutionary, and is just as revolutionary as Mario 64 was on the N64. That's going to be key in gaining people's trust in this next generation console.
It's funny, Gamecube seems to be getting the same criticisms the SNES was. Everyone criticised Super Mario World for not being that much different than Super Mario Bros 3, just as Sunshine was criticised for not being much different to Mario 64, despite both games having new elements to gameplay and refined control. It took Nintendo some seriously innovative new hardware to rejuvinate the Mario series, and that hardware was the N64 and it's controller. It looks like we're going to get it again with the Revolution controller.
Are the sports games geniunely good games that offer something typical sports games don't? Um, yes.
yea, you guys have to seriously get past the whole "there cashing in on sport games for money deal." You have to realize that every company is in it for the money, and if that means making a Mario Party 7, or another Mario Tennis game, then so be it! If the games are good, then they're worth buying.
They're not getting any better. Only few series get better with so many sequels released. Mario Party games get worse with each release, and just look what happened with that new football game (Madden?). Just because the Rev has a new controller that could be used in great ways, that doesn't mean it will be used greatly in every game. I'm fidgety when it comes to playing games, so people like me that move controllers and twitch and squirm a lot would have a bit of a problem with certain games that require steady movement. This idea frustrates me to no end.
Addy: Sports games will always be sports games, no matter what the hell you play with. The "fresh and new experience" of the Rev controller won't make me want to buy a sports game. No way, no how. I'm a gamer. **** all this "controller/price tag" bull****.
I dunno. Tennis takes on a whole new level.
Although to be fair, you might as well just go and play tennis. And what about the person on the other side of the court?
Moving your hand so much during tennis games on the Rev could easily be substituted by sitting down in a small room next to a basket of tennis balls and hitting the wall with them. If the ball bounces out of reach, grab another. At least one ball is bound to return to you in such a small space. The wrist movement is the same. :mad:
149? 99? Hell yeah! X3 No doubt now, Revolution will sweep the floor with both PS3 and Xbox 360! At least when it comes to selling.. But I bet the games will be great as well!
It's interesting that one the one hand, people are praising Nintendo for their innovation, but on the other, ****ing them for not being creative.
[quote=Darkbackward]It is Nintendo opting for money over creativity, I don't blame them, I blame the market, but, other companies don't sell out so easily, I support them first, which is why I will hesitate to buy worthless (mario sports and party titles) nintendo products.
Last I checked people bitched about Mario Power Tennis not being the same as Mario Tennis. There goes your theory.
Fate: Nintendo don't make Mario Party, Konami now do.
Nope, its Hudson....the bomberman makers.
With the Revolution being cheap that is good, I will get it regardless.
Hopefully, stupid people won't think that cause its cheaper it can't be much good like the idiots here who see Gamecube at $99 (thats 50 bucks American when we are talking about games) and think it can't be much good.
[quote=Darkbackward]Are you kidding me? You are supporting Nintendo's rape of its mascots.
Fate: Nintendo doesn't sell ****, maybe if they wouldn't whore out their products, they would sell ****.
Why are you so Goddamn retarded?
Mario Tennis isn't remotely rape of it's mascots, the game is a fucking good game and one of the most enjoyable tennis games out there, I completely defy you to prove me otherwise.
You wouldn't be bitching if Nintendo invented whole new mascots for these sport series', so you obviously don't have a problem with the fact that Nintendo are into sports games. So the only reason you're upset is because Mario is in them. Well sorry, but I'd rather have Mario sports than a cast of 20 unfamiliar characters to play tennis with that only ever get used for Tennis, then another cast for football, baseball and golf. It's not only a smart business decision to put Mario in them, but it's also a smart design decision. Mario and his universe are extremely flexible and synonymous with simple, accessible gameplay. People are much more likely to understand what a Mario sports game would be like than any other Nintendo character, especially if that character was also brand new.
Likewise, Mario Party is the best party series in existance, and also the first minigame centric series ever made. They are also bloody good games, the only problem with them is that Hudson barely tries anything new with them. Nevertheless, they sell like crazy. It's one of the best selling series of all time, in fact, each edition routinely sells millions worldwide. Nintendo could rip the rights back from Hudson and put one of their teams on it, but that'd mean the game that team is currently working on (like the next Zelda or Mario adventure) would be put on hold. And for what, so we can have a better Mario Party game? Sorry, but Mario Party can go to hell for all I care. I have the best version of the series and I'd much rather have more effort put into important games.
No one's forcing you to buy them, and no one here is claiming Mario Party is the most innovative and fresh series on the planet, so what the fuck are you complaining about?
Remember, Addy, it's not Konami that I like, it's KCEJ (Kojima Productions).
Mario Tennis is the best tennis game I've ever played to the point where I actually bought it.
Also, I don't care that Nintendo whores out their characters. I just wish they didn't focus so much on being either too different or too stuck on the same formula.
That's the joke. No one's ever happy, they either go too far or not enough.
at this price id get two
I could care less about the price. Aslong as it's less than $500 and the games are either Free Download or they charge a yearly fee and it's cheap.
Honestly I'd be getting the Revolution for the old games over the new games. I mean if there are some new great games for it then great i'll purchase them but I had a hard time finding anything that was a Great game for the Gamecube that had great replay value. I mean sure Mario Strikers and Windwaker and Mario Kart were good games and what not but they got so boring so quickly. I'm more into it to play my favorite NES/SNES games back when Nintendo was Elite. I mean i'm sure Nintendo will make new games for the Rev that'll be worth purchasing but if the Downloadable games cost a pretty penny then I more than likely won't buy a Revolution unless there are a ton of great games. It'll have to have a better library than the Gamecube to really open my eyes.
I just hope the emulated games won't cost much. If they are i'll get an emulator for free. Or maybe i'd leech of one of my friends that get one. All I know is a bunch of my friends and I were excited for the Revolution until we learned a great deal more with the remote and charging for the downloads. We're skeptical but not changing our decisions yet. Who knows.. maybe Nintendo will charge $50 a year for the downloads and you will be able to play those downloads for a year and it'll be a huge success. I just don't want to see Nintendo getting carried away and charging per game. That'll hurt a good deal of sales.
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread, but did anyone make the "joke" that says, each game will cost $100 and controllers will go for $60? 'Cause if not, I just did.
Though in all seriousness, that sounds pretty neat! Can't wait till they release the system.
I disagree.. I think 2005 was the worst for the N-Gage :-P
I see where Darkbackward stands and I see where speedfreak stands. It's all opinionated. It's all opinionated.
Personally I feel Nintendo "Had" the best systems (NES/SNES), but the N64 was the start of their downfall. Developers put their games on the PSone for the most part and it made Nintendo look like crap. The N64 had a good deal of sales but I believe the N64 was the start of the fall in sales. People played both the N64 and the PSone and it's rather obvious most people preferred the PSone over the N64. I believe that because the Gamecube had a great lack of sales compared to the other companies. It didn't start off hot and if the N64 would have ended HOT the Gamecube would have started HOT. I believe we may see some of the same for the Revolution. Maybe it'll sell better maybe it'll sell around the same and maybe it'll sell worse. Too early to tell but it's all opinionated.
So we can all stop arguing and wait and see what will happen with the Revolution. Who knows maybe it'll outsell the 360 and PS3. Doubt that'll happen but anythings possible. I also doubted it'd be 70 degree's in the middle of winter and just like I doubted the Steelers beating the Colts. Time will only tell my friends.
And Sushi you can't say he fails. Maybe he doesn't like those games? I don't think people ever think of that. None of those games would make me want to buy a Gamecube. Before they were released I would have done so (Which I did) but now that I had one and played those games I realize they were less than what I expected. It's all opinionated my friend. I absolutely Love Breath of Fire III but i'm sure there are many people who hated that game.
Not only that, yeah, Mario Kart and Mario Strikers and Mario Whatever can be button-mashers at first, but once you paly the game quite a bit, you'll see that there is actually an extremely high level of skill involved that you gain with experience.
I doubt you could, as you seem to suggest, pick up Mario Kart DS, go onto WiFi worldwide, and be immediately as skilled as anyone you played.
As to the download service - it's pretty much certain (at least in my eyes) that they'll launch it in a manner similar to iTunes - you can subscribe for a year and unlimited downloads, or you can buy them one-by-one as well, if you fancy that. There's no way that they'll limit themselves to one method of payment, as, well, different strokes for different folks.
I love how you completely ignored my post that utterly proved you wrong.
Random: The N64 sold a HELL of a lot of units, something in the range of 40 million. The PS1 had about 70 million by the end of that generation, so the race was extremely close, so the N64 wasn't slaughtered by any means. In fact, quite the opposite. The top 5 selling games of that generation were all (yes, all) N64 games. No PS1 game, Not even Final Fantasy VII sold as much as games like Mario 64 or Goldeneye 007. Also, the N64 had a higher attatch rate than the PS1, as the vast majority of PS1 owners were previously relatively untapped casual gamers, which Sony made a killing on. The N64 was definately not one of their weaker moments, in fact it's probably about on par with the SNES considering the kind of competition Nintendo faced in the early 90s. Sega was a company run by monkeys. I do agree that Sony had a much easier transition to the next generation than Nintendo did, and their backwards compatibility and previous success helped them a hell of a lot. Nintendo would've done better this gen were the Gamecube backwards compatible and the N64 had titles being released up until the release of the Gamecube. Instead there was no backwards compatibility and at least 6 months of drought, so there wasn't that much incentive to stick with Nintendo if you didn't like their main games that much. Interestingly, Gamecube and Xbox sales combine to be about as big as the N64 userbase, go figure.
Darkbackward: No depth!? What on Earth are you talking about!? You do realise the counterpart to the home console Mario Tennis and Golf series is a fully fledged sports RPG on the handhelds complete with different stats, hours of tutorials, a ton of different rules and the ability to upload your character to the big screen, right? Passing judgement on Mario sports titles based on the home console versions is like passing judgement on the entire Pokémon franchise based on Pokémon Stadium, or some EA sports game without customising anything. The Gameboy Mario Sports games are absolute time sinks, and you'd be much better off buying those if you want some single player depth. Aside from that, the games are essentially the same as other sports titles anyway (minus the Super Powers), they're just faster and have vastly better handling.
I also really like how you completely ignored my points on Mario being absolutely ideal for arcade-like sports games and it being utterly pointless to invent a whole new character set just for them.
I agree, Darkbackward. I wouldn't say Nintendo has created any really memorable games for the GameCube, now that I think about it...Besides Animal Crossing, but then, that's a port of a N64 game. And the other games are just upgrades from the Nintendo 64; Smash Brothers Melee, Zelda: Wind Waker etc. But those games are definietly fun. I'm not saying they suck, hence I have aruond 25 GameCube games and I love them all.
And games like Battalion Wars and Geist...come 'on. They're lame! I didn't even play them for more than two hours, upon renting them.
Still, I will definietly get a Nintendo Revolution.
[QUOTE=Speedfreak]
Darkbackward: No depth!? What on Earth are you talking about!? You do realise the counterpart to the home console Mario Tennis and Golf series is a fully fledged sports RPG on the handhelds complete with different stats, hours of tutorials, a ton of different rules and the ability to upload your character to the big screen, right? Passing judgement on Mario sports titles based on the home console versions is like passing judgement on the entire Pok
You sound like Jack Thompson.
I'm thinking maybe about $175. This just makes me want to get one more.
It pretty much made complete sense. You seem to be quite prone to recognizing what points of an argument you have a rebuttal for and pushing your own opnions over what can be recognized as fact. For instance, enough with this "five-hour handjob" crap... maybe you could only enjoy it for that long, but I can still pull out my N64 copy of Mario Tennis and play with my brother or sister for as much as two hours at a time. Despite being surrounded by people who claim to like these games, a pretty big clue that they appeal to the popular market, you insist that Nintendo is making a bad marketing decision to use Mario characters they way they do.
The Jack Thompson thing was about your constantly drawing similarities with playing videogames and masturbation.
To be honest, I can't recall a time whe recieving a 5-hour handjob was ever a bad thing anyway.
Also, GamerRankings isn't really a fair way to judge it's score. It only offers the average score of all reviews, rather than the average review (there's a difference, mean and mode averages). Many journalists were split down the middle, they either thought it was great (over 80%) or crap (below 60), putting the average score somewhere in the middle.
Want to see a real rape of a mascot? Check out Megaman, his games have been the freakin' same for the past 15 years and there's more of them than all of Mario's main games and spinoffs combined.
Occassionally, Capcom comes up with something new and brilliant for the Mega Man series (such as Battle Network)... but then, of course, they rape it to death. You always remember the first ones, though.
The nice thing about Nintendo games is that they can design their consoles around certain games, allowing innovation to come much more easily. Mega Man just doesn't have this advantage, hence all of the sequels.
Mario 1, 2 and 3 are all completely different. Megaman 1 though 9 are pretty much identical. They all use the same controller and both were invented AFTER the NES.
how are mario sports games "five hour handjobs"? The reason some of them "don't have depth" is because it's suppost to be simple and fun. And it's supposed to have infinite replay value. I'm not a fan of sports game, but Mario Strikers is extremely fun. I've played "complex" sports games like madden and such, and it really isn't fun.
[quote=Wicked Sushi]I wouldn't say Nintendo has created any really memorable games for the GameCube
Whoa there, Pikmin is a fantastic game and Chibi Robo is supposed to be VERY good, Batallion Wars got mixed reviews, but a fair amount thought the game was fantastic, NGC for example (who HATED Mario Smash Football). They've also created absolutely tons of new franchises on handhelds, Wario Ware, Golden Sun, Nintendogs and to some extent Advance Wars and Fire Emblem, considering it's the first time they've been released outside of Japan. That's at least 5 totally new franchises and 3 semi-new franchises, which is absolutely massive considering a) the amount of franchises they already have to support, and b) It's actually more than Sony, who had hardly any franchises to update.
People who say Mario sports game's aren't fun haven't played them. Even Mario Golf is a really fun game, if you can get into it.
I say they aren't fun. It's opinion not what they've played. I really enjoyed Mario Strikers for about 2 weeks then I realized it wasn't so fun afterall. The multiplayer kept it going for a while but it lost it's excitement rather quick. Mario Golf I felt was horrible, Baseball was fun at first and etc.
If you get bored of it easily you either flat out don't like sports games or you're ignoring the intricacies of it on purpose. Mario Golf and Tennis are just as deep as any other Golf or Tennis game, they just give n00bs a fighting chance.
Golf and Tennis suck.. And Mario Strikers gets boring way too fast. I prefer World Cup '98 for PS1 over Strikers anyday. And not to mention Mario Baseball gets boring after an hour or so. And trust me.. I love my sports games. I play sports games online quite often.
I think nintendos plan will work. most people who cant afford to buy all 3 next gen consoles are choosing between ps3 or xbox 360. but seein as how the rev will be so cheap they will probobly buy that 2. so you have people choosing between the ps3+rev or the xbox360+rev. either way nintendo make a profit.I personally think nintendo are making a smart move by not taking either console head on because they tried that with the gamecube and were fighting a really uphill battle so why not let microsoft and sony fight it out while every1 buys nintendos little rev as there second choice AND if all goes well and nintendo make big buks on there cheap priced little rev then combined with the strong sales of theDSthey could take on sony and microsoft head on in the next round of consoles. who knows?
The GC is as expensive as a kid's toy these days. That didn't make people rush out and buy it.
It actually had the opposite effect.
[quote=SomebodyRandom]Golf and Tennis suck.. And Mario Strikers gets boring way too fast. I prefer World Cup '98 for PS1 over Strikers anyday. And not to mention Mario Baseball gets boring after an hour or so. And trust me.. I love my sports games. I play sports games online quite often.
I guess you're in the minority then.
Since when did reviewers represent all gamers?
Since when were review scores proof against opinion?
I really hate this, by the way. I think this. You think that. But look, someone else thinks the same way I do, therefore I MUST BE RIGHT!
Speedfreak said, "You're in the minority".
I can accept personal opinions, but when someone tells me that an opinion is in the minority I go hunting for facts. And all the facts slap Speedreak directly in his smug face.
Most people who like sports games and try Mario Golf or Tennis enjoy it. You're in the minority of people that don't. I still don't believe you gave it a chance as you repeatedly state that they're shallow sports games when it's simply not true. Then again, you also said you thought Smash Bros Melee sucked and you beat it in 4 hours.
The Gamecube golf and Tennis games sold just as well as the N64 golf and tennis games. That's how I figure you're in the minority. Most reviews of the Gameboy versions agreed that they were very deep sports games, also.
Again, there's no way in hell I'll believe you beat SSBM in 4 hours.
I think it's also fair to say that you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who didn't at least have fun while playing a Mario sports game. Yes, they may not be the highest rated games among reviewers, but you'll usually get a "good" or a "great" from a regular gamer. Why? Mainly because gamers don't have to be as critical. Their "ratings" are usually based on how much fun they had. And that's where Mario games excel, and that's probably why you'd end up in the minority.
Also, gamerankings give you the average of the scores, not the average score, and there's a pretty big difference between those two. Pretty much every respectable publication gives those games decent ratings.
They need to make another Mario Strikers for the Rev that has online play. That would rock and make the game even better.
And honestly I think I beat it in less than 4 hours. I could be mistaken. It was long ago that I played SSBM but it didn't seem all that long.
It would have to be more. Unlocking all the characters, completing the target games, all those missions... even if it didn't take you more than a week or two, four hours is an impossibility.
Compared to most sports games, they're very deep. I've said before that these little variations they do are all you can add to a sports game sometimes.
These games are spin-offs meant to be a quick plug for Mario, a good laugh for the customers and a fair buck for the developers; saying Nintendo sucks because they sometimes score poorly compared to all the decent games of their competitors is stupid. I could turn right around and say Jak X, another spin-off character plug known for reviews ranging from "not bad" to "omg awful quickee plug," proves Playstation developers are total idiots compared to Nintendo's Metroid or Legend of Zelda.
Judge games individually and don't make a huge **** about certain ones because you want to give some developer a bad name. You're ruining your chance to have any fun with these titles because you just want to rag on Nintendo... you're the one acting like a fanboy by prancing about with your nose in the air because you're so much better than those of us who enjoy Mario sports.
[quote=Darkbackward]No, they aren't deep. Or they would score decently compared to their competitors. They sell to the lowest common factor, which is people who need to waste time.
The games AREN'T deep, not by anyone. Saying that Super mario Strikers is a deep game is liking saying P.N.03 is not repetitive.
The REASON why people buy them is because of the mascots in the game and because it makes a nice demo. Kind of like the Dynasty Warriors games.
But, keep lieing to yourself. You only make yourself look like a fanboy (and it's funny!).
I didn't say Super Mario Strikers you ignorant f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]ck, I've been talking about Mario Tennis and Golf this entire time. Mario Football and Baseball were made by Sega and Namco respectively, so I don't consider them worth talking about.
Your pathetic attempts at stringing together a coherant sentence, let alone an entire post is what's funny around here. You're not making any sense whatsoever, you're trying to debate something that's down to pure opinion, your evidence disagrees with your arguement, my evidence disagrees with your arguement and you're desperate to pin the label "fanboy" on anyone who disagrees with you. Get out you pathetic hater.
Hah, well, Namco are the kings of addictive games with hardly any depth.
Not only that, but that brings up an interesting point. Is Katamari Damacy any worse of a game because it's similar all the way through? What about Pac-Man? Time Crisis? What about Pac-Man World, eh?
Not only that - what about games like Wario Ware? That wasn't originally designed to be a Mario game, but then they slapped the brand on. Why would that suddenly make it less of a good game? What about Super Mario Land 2, for Christ's sake - originally not a Mario game, and the brand helped it become much more well-established.
My point is that Nintendo (and other companies) have been doing this since the dawn of their careers, but only now people are starting to complain. I wonder why.
Well, that's rubbish. Considering that they've been doing it since they started, how can their standards have dropped?
Agreed. Forget "standards," just worry about whether or not you have fun playing it. You can appreciate Risk and Monopoly for their stratagy, complications and depth and still enjoy a rousing game of Sorry.
Good example: Chibi-Robo.
Really, it doesn't live up to my standards in a lot of instances. The graphics are poor, as is the story, and quite a bit of the sound. It's pretty sub-par. However, it's probably one of the most fun games I've played in the past year or so. It makes you not care at all about the graphics or most of it's other flaws.
It's about fun, really.
Haha, you are such a fucking joke. Okay, sure, I'm the fanboy here, keep deluding yourself, zombie.
Nintendo has been creating spin-off games with their mascot, Mario for a long time. I mean, Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros., and wrecking crew were all just spin-offs of Donkey Kong. You can't really say that the mario sports titles aren't up to Nintendo's "standards".
Mario Golf: Advance Tour is the only official "Mario sports game" I personally own, and I can tell you that it is worth at least 50 hours of play time (by then, you can get a hole in one on a 5 par course). Heck, IGN gave it a 9.5/10.
Now that's a quality sports game.
Oh, holy Jesus. Why did I relinquish my super mod position?! Everyone in this thread would be completely banned. STOP BEING IDIOTS.
What did I do?
No, what makes something worthwhile to read and participate in is reaching a viable conclusion. The whole POINT of a discussion is to reach an agreement - an occasion where both parties blindly ignore the other person is simply banal.
Still interesting to read!
Actually, annoying to read. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up.
For me, obviously. Since I was part of it.
I don't care about everyone else.