Regardless I don't mind saying a lot of negative shit to Reggie about Nintendo. I'm not trying to attack Nintendo here (even if I do think the Switch is bad). However I doubt Nintendo doesn't want to see themselves on the same level of success as Sony and MS, they just have their own views of trying to get them there. Which is something I can applaud them for, as much as I am a fan of my new PS4 and Sony in general, they have been greatly disappointing me in a variety of fields and the XB1 is the biggest insult to a console I've ever seen.

However, everything I've seen come out of Nintendo lately is either unappealing or questionable. I might have been singing a different tune if they didn't botch the release of the NES Classic as that was something that really peaked my interest. I've never owned a Nintendo console outside of a Gameboy Advance and a 3DS; a NESC would've helped get into something I never got to experience outside of daycare when I was little. And I can't see how they could let the release of it just fall flat like it did; it's literally just a Raspberry Pi in a box that has mostly air inside it, not exactly a fortune to craft (niche communities have been doing it for years with the advent of custom PCs).

So when the Wii U flops as hard as it did and with speculation arising as to Nintendo possibly intentionally destroying their NESC release, then couple that with the fact that I was at the mercy of scalpers when I went to buy my own 3DS, I'm going to have a sour taste in my mouth when trying to get into Nintendo products.

Didn't you say in a thread eons ago that the touch-screen for the DS wasn't gimmicky? It was something along the lines of it being an innovative feature that allowed the player to interact with games in a new and interesting way.

Ummm, I don't recall. If I said something like that "eons ago," yet I'm saying something different now, chances are good that I've either changed my mind or I didn't express myself well enough back then--because the DS's touch screen is a bona fide gimmick.

But that's not a bad thing. That's probably what I was trying to say--there are good gimmicks and there are bad gimmicks. The best gimmicks are exactly as you recall me describing: innovative features that allow the player to interact with games in new and interesting ways.

A bad gimmick is something that doesn't do that, or is too obtuse to be fully explored by third parties. They're just there to tickle the dicks of investors.

But yeah, not all gimmicks are bad, was my point.

I mean, they were so proud of this silly 64-bit figure that they slapped it in the title of all their major releases. Now, no one cares about "bits" because they're an obsolete way to view a console's architecture. It was just a marketing meme.

You might even say it was a marketing gimmick. A highly competitive gimmick, but still a gimmick.

Quote from: Dietrich Six on February 25, 2017, 11:05:05 AM

I was actually cognizant when the 64 came out and you couldn't be more wrong.

The release of the PlayStation lit a fire under Nintendo's ass, games have always been about graphics.

Fuck man, even Sega had a hand in the one upmanship during the original console wars.

I don't think there would still be so many retro gamers and people who refuse to play anything past the SNES, if what you're saying is at all accurate.

I never said games weren't about graphics--Nintendo just values gameplay more, and always always always has. For them, graphics were a gimmick. Icing on the cake.

I'm fairly sure there aren't people who refuse to play games past the snes, and if there are there aren't a lot of them.

Japan's stance on video games and graphics are very different from ours, many publishers thought anything better than ps2 graphics were pointless. You can see that with konami's split with kojima and their focus on mobile games. Hell, plenty of Japanese developers are focusing on their mobile platforms.

Wasn't the case with the 64 tho. PlayStation pushed the limits of gaming consoles and they were taking market shares from Nintendo. Nintendo answered with the 64 because they had to. It wasn't a gimmick, it was survival.

Yes, graphics weren't the most important thing for Nintendo, but they couldn't ignore that they were necessary. Doesn't really suit your gimmick theory.

I'd walk right up to that cunt, look him square in the eyes, and tell him 'ORAS sucks'

That I've no interest in Nintendo anything.

At all.

is a more miserable existence conceivable

Is there a Switch emulator yet on PC?

^Mods

Quote from: FatherlyNick on February 25, 2017, 04:06:25 AM

Quote from: TBlocks on February 24, 2017, 08:49:53 PM

Quote from: branches on February 24, 2017, 08:26:01 PM

Nothing, I don't feel like getting down-smashed into the sun.

Spoiler

Nintendo fighting off progress and powerful hardware like ^

games > hardware

Yeah but it doesn't help developers much.
They made the same mistake with N64 - great system, but Nintendo had to be Nintendo and release the games on fucking cartridges! We got good games, but devs had to rip apart their own assholes trying to keep the game as close to their original vision while compressing it onto a two byte cartridge.
This is exactly why FF never came to N64 and they barely got RE2 on there.
Its not bad hardware, but they could have done much better.
Now, would it have been possible to have power + mobility...

Quote from: Flee on February 25, 2017, 06:20:03 PM

Damn, new Zelda game looks beautiful.

you bet your ass

The art style really fits the universe.