raocow's talkhaus

swirlybomb wrote:There really should be no need for another "generation" of consoles, honestly... Isn't our gaming technology already plenty more than adequate? >_>

That's how I feel, and indeed, I remember reading that Sony (and probably Microsoft, as well) want the current generation of consoles to last for a decade.

What we'll probably see, judging by how long the previous generation lasted and how long this one is projected to last, is longer and longer console generations. It's a lot harder to tell the difference between the Wii/360/PS3 and U/Bone/PS4 graphically at a glance than between the GCN/XBox/PS2 and Wii/360/PS3, and realistic graphics can't get any more realistic than real. Graphical fidelity will eventually plateau, meaning further console revisions will go toward improving the actual gameplay experience and the number of 3D models that can be on-screen at once and the like.

Actually I'm a bit skeptical about realistic graphics.

What's the point of realism in video games? I don't want maniacs to confuse games with reality.

I've honestly considered this probably the worst generation (gen 5 and 6) in gaming because graphics are all most games seem to care about.

Sure, maybe if you only pay attention to AAA titles. With indie devs being more popular than ever, we still have lots of great games being produced all the time.

TheFinalSentinel wrote:http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/ ... s=7974:TYO

I'mma just drop this here.

Also keep in mind that most of my statements were in reference to pre-MK8, when the Wii U had like no games.

Hell, thinking back, wasn't everyone (read: mostly the same people as now) saying the exact same things about the Wii? I certainly at least remember everyone in school saying that.

My point in all this is, I have no doubts that Nintendo will be just fine.

The difference is that people saying that about the Wii were firmly talking out of their arse. The Wii was:

• The best selling Nintendo home console ever
• The third-best selling Nintendo console ever
• The third-best selling home console ever
• The fifth-best selling console ever

Calling the Wii anything other than successful is total delusion, and is I suspect rooted in negative viral marketing from the king of negative viral marketing, Microsoft, whose business isn't so much based on making the best products as it is on trying to convince everyone that there is no competition. For example, Office sells so well despite costing several hundred dollars not because it's significantly better than its free competitors - because it isn't, unless you want to do statistical regressions in Excel, but you can get a statistics program for that anyway - but because Microsoft has successfully convinced the average PC user that there is no alternative to Office at all. In video gaming, Microsoft's also successfully peddled the lie that the Xbox thrashed the GameCube, when in reality it only did about 5 mil better, and both got obliterated by the PS2.

The only consoles Nintendo have ever made that were more successful than the Wii were the DS and the Game Boy. The Wii and the DS brought Nintendo into the mainstream from the obscurity of the Game Cube & GBA days. There's a big tendency to view the Game Cube days through nostalgia goggles and pretend they were good. They weren't. Third-party support was virtually nil and the self-proclaimed "hardcore" - largely the same people who now claim the Game Cube was a golden age - called it the "kiddy cube" and were playing Xbox. The Game Cube did worse than the N64 and the Game Cube's successor, if it had been a Game Cube 2, would undoubtedly have done even worse still and cemented a slide into irrelevancy. In fact, you can see that now, because the Wii U is essentially a Game Cube 2, and it's doing worse than the Game Cube.

However, even during the dark days of the Game Cube, Nintendo were still making money. Sure, it wasn't that much, but it was a profit. Now, using that same financial site you just linked, you can see that Nintendo's revenues have been declining each year since at least 2010, and that Nintendo lost money in 2012 & 2014, and were basically stagnant in 2013. The only good thing about that statement is that at least they've paid off all their debt. Still, looking at that balance sheet, I would not buy Nintendo stock if they traded here, which they don't. I really wish they did though so I could have bought stock before the Wii came out.

All very fair points, except...

Doctor Shemp wrote:...into the mainstream from the obscurity of the Game Cube & GBA days

Obscurity? Into the mainstream? You're kidding, right?

I digress, the point of that data was showing that Nintendo is doing very well in terms of reserves, and can, worst case, likely coast on that for a fair while.

So, you mean to tell me that Nintendo used to be mainstream after the release of the Wii?

I remember all those arguments about how shitty the Wii was in school.

One of the most ridiculous points being how easily breakable it is (who is even dumb enough to make a console physically break?) and that... it's made out of plastic. As if your shitty XBox 360 and PS3 were made out of titanium, you 10 year old pricks.

My point being, I was one of the few who really like the Wii in my school. The others played stuff like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Halo, the real mainstream crap.

TheFinalSentinel wrote:All very fair points, except...

Doctor Shemp wrote:...into the mainstream from the obscurity of the Game Cube & GBA days

Obscurity? Into the mainstream? You're kidding, right?

I digress, the point of that data was showing that Nintendo is doing very well in terms of reserves, and can, worst case, likely coast on that for a fair while.

No, I'm not kidding. People lined up in queues that stretched for the whole store to buy the Wii. It was sold out for nearly a year. It was a mainstream news story for the first few months on how popular it was. Commercial radio stations held ridiculous contests to win one. Some were selling on eBay during the shortage for twice the store price. They were playing Wii Sports in nursing homes. You could talk to a normal person off the street about Wii Sports and wouldn't be told it was nerdy shit for nerds, but an actual fun game.

Call me crazy, but I don't remember anyone lining up for a day to buy a GameCube, or any GameCube game getting people who'd never played a game before to pick up one for the first time.

The only other time in history that a game console has attracted attention to that level was the NES and the Atari 2600.

Doctor Shemp wrote:Things.

Well there's mainstream in the context of the industry itself, and then there's in general.

TheFinalSentinel wrote:

Doctor Shemp wrote:Things.

Well there's mainstream in the context of the industry itself, and then there's in general.

If those two things are different then that's a sign that the industry itself is in trouble. Games cost a lot of money to make these days: the really big ones are starting to cost as much as movies. If the industry itself isn't mainstream, that's unsustainable for everyone involved.

Allow me to change perspective.
Back in the day, it was the war between Sega and Nintendo. Then Sega fell and Sony and Microsoft rose, forming "The Big Three" with Nintendo.
If Nintendo wasn't "mainstream" until the Wii, I don't really know what your definition of the word is. Hell, what would be mainstream then?
All I know is I was loving my SNES, GBC, GBA, and my cousins' N64, and my friend's GameCube all before the Wii and DS came out.
Maybe I just don't get "mainstream".

I didn't say Nintendo wasn't mainstream until the Wii. I said they were mainstream with the NES, a little less mainstream with the SNES but still in there, out of it with the N64, definitely out with the GameCube, back in with a vengeance with the Wii, and way out of it with the Wii U.
I would say the following consoles were mainstream, speaking chronologically:
Atari 2600
NES
Game Boy
Mega Drive/Genesis
SNES
Game Boy Color
Play Station
Play Station 2
Nintendo DS
Wii

Although sometimes you end up with anomalies where a game is mainstream but the console it's on isn't, like the COD series, Minecraft (the 360 port, that is) or Halo.

Basically, if you can mention it to the average person and have them know what it is and at least a little about it, it's mainstream.

I don't think it's credible when I'm at an engineering school. We're all Über-Nerds™. Most everyone will probably know at least that minimal criteria for the Nintendo lineup.
Don't really think anyone counts as the "average person" over here.

TheFinalSentinel wrote: Also, Nintendo's consoles aren't going anywhere. There have been calculations that they could last for like 10 years on the money they have. [citation needed]

Just want to point out here that this is incorrect.

Nintendo could make a $120 million annual loss and they would go bankrupt in 2051. They aren't going anywhere.

I noticed that the best selling Nintendo consoles were the ones who changed the world of video games, except the Nintendo 64 (one of the first consoles with 3 dimensional graphics).

NES (One of the first family friendly computers (hence the japanese name FamiCom) and made it unnecessary to visit Arcades; Same with the Atari)
SNES (Graphical update and capable of more things thanks to better hardware)
Game Boy (the first handheld to be able to switch games (unlike the Game and Watch/LCD)
Game Boy Advance (graphical update and capable of better things, no batteries!)
Wii (first motion sensor controller used as a main controller (unlike Eye toy and such)

Some of the not-so-good selling consoles like the Gamecube and WiiU are, to be honest, just graphical and hardware upgrades, almost as if they were a computer with slightly to significantly increased hardware.

Hoeloe wrote:

TheFinalSentinel wrote: Also, Nintendo's consoles aren't going anywhere. There have been calculations that they could last for like 10 years on the money they have. [citation needed]

Just want to point out here that this is incorrect.

Nintendo could make a $120 million annual loss and they would go bankrupt in 2051. They aren't going anywhere.

They're a public company. They're responsible to their shareholders. The aim of being in business is not to avoid going bankrupt: it's to make a profit. If I was the shareholder of a company that had lost money several years in a row (which they're not at yet), I would be a) demanding that they take all measures to stem the loss, which currently would mean completely abandoning the Wii U and focussing on the 3DS and b) calling for the heads of management. They'll hit shareholder resistance long, long before they hit bankruptcy. Nintendo's executives may or may not be prepared to drive the ship into an iceberg if it means still making the things they want to make, but shareholders will not be prepared to go along for the ride. Even Japanese investors, who are renowned for unusually long-term thinking for shareholders, wouldn't stand for it for too long.

Fluffi-dono wrote:I noticed that the best selling Nintendo consoles were the ones who changed the world of video games, except the Nintendo 64 (one of the first consoles with 3 dimensional graphics).

NES (One of the first family friendly computers (hence the japanese name FamiCom) and made it unnecessary to visit Arcades; Same with the Atari)
SNES (Graphical update and capable of more things thanks to better hardware)
Game Boy (the first handheld to be able to switch games (unlike the Game and Watch/LCD)
Game Boy Advance (graphical update and capable of better things, no batteries!)
Wii (first motion sensor controller used as a main controller (unlike Eye toy and such)

Some of the not-so-good selling consoles like the Gamecube and WiiU are, to be honest, just graphical and hardware upgrades, almost as if they were a computer with slightly to significantly increased hardware.

But the SNES was largely, in your words, just a graphical and hardware update, as was the GBA.

The secret of a best-selling console is extremely simple in theory but very difficult in practice: have games that are popular with the mainstream and, in particular, have great killer apps: multiple games that people are prepared to buy the console just to play. The simple fact of the matter is the NES, Game Boy, DS and the Wii did this way better than their competitors. The SNES did it a bit better than the Genesis but it took them a while to get there, and the Genesis was able to break Nintendo's near-monopoly. The N64 did it worse than the PS1 (although better than the Saturn) and the GameCube did it worse than the Xbox and the PS2. The GBA & the 3DS are largely coasters on a lack of serious competition (seriously, who has a Vita?).

Doctor Shemp wrote: They're a public company. They're responsible to their shareholders. The aim of being in business is not to avoid going bankrupt: it's to make a profit. If I was the shareholder of a company that had lost money several years in a row (which they're not at yet), I would be a) demanding that they take all measures to stem the loss, which currently would mean completely abandoning the Wii U and focussing on the 3DS and b) calling for the heads of management.

I'm aware of this, but Nintendo has already massively reduced its losses (though not yet eliminated), so I wouldn't be worrying too much. Nintendo consoles have always hinged on games. The N64, despite being technically inferior hardware (with the exception of the analogue stick) to the PS1, was still a success because it had great games. The same is true of the Wii. The Wii U currently has 3 or 4 great games for it, which is not enough to convince many people to buy the console. This next year, though, Nintendos Wii U lineup is by far one of the best available. I predict the sales will pick up and they will recover the losses without abandoning the console.

What? The N64 was technically superior to the PS1 in every way except having less storage space for games. Sure, the high latency RAM could cause some issues, and the texture buffer was tiny. The PS1 though couldn't even do real 3D perspective. 3D games on the PS1 are done through trickery and slowed to an incredible crawl when anything busy happened, so all 3D games on the PS1 had to:

• Keep all areas small as the perspective problems became obvious at large distances, unless you were prepared to program around it, which was by all accounts a real pain in the arse
• Keep the number of things on the screen low
• Use low polygon count objects or implement really heavy LOD (like Spyro).

Point 1 is a real killer. I know everyone laughs at "N64 fog" to drop draw distance because of the high-latency RAM, but the draw distance on most PS1 games was tiny in comparison to N64 games unless they only did quasi-3D and faked things, which most games ended up doing. The only exception that comes to mind is the Spyro trilogy and that's because they had crazy efficient LOD going on.

There are many N64 games that the PS1 simply couldn't ever pull off, while the only PS1 games that could never ever be ported properly to the N64 are those that need the large storage space of a CD.

I'm not sure exactly where I'm going with this other than saying that technology doesn't really mean that much, except largely in the controller. A lot of people were scared off by the N64's controller, and for good reason: it doesn't even look like it was designed for humans. Three handles? Seriously? In the end, it's all in the games, and the PS1 had more appealing games.

Yeah, the N64 had some classics, but it's still my least favorite console they've ever made just because of how long the droughts were. Even the Wii U has enough stuff in their shop thing to make me feel like it's more worth it even if I'm missing out on some genres. It's a shame as it's basically the Gamecube 2 where their games are awesome but few people are playing them.

On the handheld front, though, I personally think this is the best lineup Nintendo has personally delivered for it. Shame third-parties aren't as reliable as they used to be. Oh well!

I wonder how much I should sell my old one for. $100?

Doctor Shemp wrote:The PS1 though couldn't even do real 3D perspective. 3D games on the PS1 are done through trickery

idk what you're referring to but this isnt true

Rénà wrote:

Doctor Shemp wrote:The PS1 though couldn't even do real 3D perspective. 3D games on the PS1 are done through trickery

idk what you're referring to but this isnt true

I'm referring to the fact that the PS1 couldn't do Z-buffering at all, and used affine texture mapping, which in turn means it couldn't do perspective correct 3D at all except in straight lines, Doom-style. So any 3D it didn't wouldn't account for perspective, meaning any textures that weren't looked to a straight line would look odd and jitter all over the place when you moved (not helped by the fact that the vector calculator and rasterizer could only pass integers to each other, which means polygons would snap from one place to another as you moved rather than moving smoothly between the two). Just fire up virtually any 3D PS1 games, start moving the camera rapidly or suddenly and watch those textures and polygons jitter away!

Of the fifth generation, only the N64, 3DO and Jaguar could do perspective-correct 3D.

conflating perspective and perspective correct texture mapping is nonsense but you're right that the ps1 didn't support it, or hardware depth buffering

i just want nintendo to stop regionlocking

very yes for any game stuff

i was v happy (and surprised honestly) that the vita was region free (for games anyway)