You. i like you too.altnameJag said:Nintendo should do the thing, like Nintendo did the thing.Phoenixmgs said:
So, the only way to "win" this argument is to find a Nintendo shooter made more than one generation ago, but least then 4 generations ago, because if they are too new or too old, they don't count?
And that's fine. I'm not trying to get you to buy a Switch.
Just, consistency, you know?
Wow, you Nintendo fanboys are really delusional. Nintendo doesn't own enough studios to put out enough games with enough variety. LMAO, developing 2 shooters over 4 generations is a total failure. Sony has more franchises that are shooters than Nintendo has developed games that are shooters over the same time frame, which include Syphon Filter, SOCOM, Killzone, Resistance, Uncharted, and probably a couple I forgot. And the 1st shooter you can play online developed by Nintendo only came out 2 years ago. You actually think that's acceptable? Of course, you do because Nintendo fanboys are delusional.altnameJag said:
I think it's acceptable that Nintendo is not Sony, yes. When Nintendo makes a good game, I buy a Nintendo game. When Sony makes a good game, I buy a Sony game. That's basically as far as I get as long as the releases for those individual games don't try to pull some stupid, corporate, anti-consumer crap.Phoenixmgs said:
When a system doesn't get 3rd-party support, first-party support is even more crucial. Nintendo just doesn't make enough games to support a system by itself nor is there the variety of games. I wouldn't even buy a Sony console if the only games to play were Sony games and Sony's game output is probably around 10x of Nintendo.altnameJag said:
Then don't.Phoenixmgs said:
A success at what? Nintendo sold plenty of Gamecubes and Wiis. Switch is going gabgbisters too, complete with games in these genres Nintendo doesn't make. I'm not going to blame a company for not competing in areas they don't have an interest in. Sony could develop a football game tomorrow, but they'd be competing with EA, and what's the hecking point of that?
Right? Comparatively speaking, Nintendo is doing better than Microsoft's or Playstation's console departments. I mean, Nintendo is the only console maker that can sell consoles at break even or profit level figures. Their games are just icing on the cake. Nintendo is guaranteed to make a profit on the Switch as is.altnameJag said:
altnameJag said:
Just wow... You care about how much Nintendo is making off of YOU?!?! Success means what you are getting from Nintendo or Sony or MS. You're looking at it backwards, but I guess that's the logic of Nintendo and Apple fanboys. Getting 3 shooters over 5 generations is not a success for gamers/consumers. Getting barely any new IPs is not a success. Getting barely any variety in genre or theme is not a success.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
What can I say? I appreciate intelligent marketing. That and I like their games. It's better than running whatever tribalistic nonsense you're spouting off. I mean, newsflash. ... I have a gaming rig, a PS4 Pro and a Switch as current gen consoles. And I currently play my Switch more than the other two because I have a job, university, a university work/study job, meaning I spend more time outside my house than in it... and even when I'm at my apartment I like games I can play on my patio and get wasted and/or high with that are fun and colourful.Phoenixmgs said:
I don't care how you spend your money. You went on talking about how Nintendo is good because they're profitable. That's only good for you if you have stake in the company really. Almost all of Nintendo's games have that "fun for the whole family" theme to them, which there's nothing wrong with that, but I like variety. Just Naughty Dog by themselves has more range thematically than Nintendo. It's just like movies, sure a good family friendly movie is as good as any other kind of movie, but I don't want to be stuck watching nothing but that either. Sure you can play COD4 on a toaster but not a Nintendo console, that's the problem, no support. I can't wait for that new Dishonored, I can't play that on the Switch. I can't play Shadow Tactics on the Switch. I can't play Danganronpa on the Switch. I can't even play the Zero Escape series on the Switch when it's a freaking DS series, yet I can play it on PS4. That's how little support Nintendo gets.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
going by your logic, Nintendo is still very "successful" because people like me like what we are "getting" from Nintendo. i want more Metroid, Mario, Xenoblade, Splatoon and Zelda games etc.Phoenixmgs said:
so basically, you're just saying that you're going to keep complaining about Nintendo not making the same type of games that Sony makes because you're a Sony fanboy and not a Nintendo fanboy like you call us. correct?
No, I didn't say they are good because they're profitable. I said they're profitable and thus successful. I mean how the fuck do you rate something so nebulously contrived as 'successful'? Most people would measure it as; "Nintendo is a company. Being a successful company means turning a profit. Ergo Nintendo is a successful company." Also, Naughty Dog? The company that gave us Uncharted? Yeah, no. Also, you could totally run COD4 on the Switch. The computer I got to run COD4 on when it first came out was probably not as good as the Switch.Phoenixmgs said:
You made this whole thread because the Switch sold like 5 million since launch thinking it's going to be some Nintendo console to actually change something in the gaming landscape, it's not. Every new console sells well out the gate because the 1st adopters will buy it no matter what. If you don't like Uncharted or TLOU, Sony makes a ton of OTHER games. I don't like Uncharted either besides for the 2nd one. If I don't like Nintendo's big 3, what else is there? I bet you didn't even play the Xeno series before it became a Nintendo property, then it magically became awesome because of the 'N' on the box. The reason I don't buy Nintendo's systems is because there's no variety and the rather low quantity. If I like a quarter of Nintendo's games and a quarter of Sony's games, guess where I'm getting more games that I like? That's not even talking about 3rd-party support that Nintendo won't get. It's about not being a fanboy of anyone. Nintendo is the iOS of gaming and everyone else is the Android.Yoshi178 said:
I worded the question of success in terms of being a gamer. If a company's last 5 generations of consoles only developed 3 shooters in 5 generations, that's not a success for me as a gamer. Not that shooters are the best thing ever or my favorite genre, but I'd want more than 3 of any genre over that time span. Game library is really the only important aspect for any platform and how successful it was. The point is not if the Switch can run COD4, it's the fact that COD4 won't be on the Switch or whatever the next big thing turns out to be. How many new IPs has Nintendo published/made over their last 10 games? I'm pretty sure Naughty Dog by themselves would beat Nintendo in that, let alone all of Sony.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Well, even the gods bickered between themselves.Deadguy2322 said:
Calling Pikin an RTS is technically true, but it's a mechanically shallow one. Heck, even Halo Wars, a RTS designed with a controller in mind, has more tactical depth.Yoshi178 said:
http://fireemblem.wikia.com/wiki/Fire_Emblem_(Nintendo_Switch)Phoenixmgs said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_ScotsmanPhoenixmgs said:
It is, technically, just a shallow one (well, least the first one is, it's the only one I played.Phoenixmgs said:
Ah yes, because the gaming landscape is really suffering from a lack of shooters right now...Phoenixmgs said:
Sony will likely make them, not Naughty Dog.Phoenixmgs said:
I actually would maintain that Metroid Prime is an exploration game first, and a shooter second (or simply a 3D Metroidvania). I mean, you do shoot stuff, but that's not the reason you're there, so to speak.altnameJag said:
Seriously, what's with the fixation with shooters? Uncharted isn't even a shooter in the same vein as those games, and if you're fixated with shooters, your best bet is to use a PC.Phoenixmgs said:
I don't think that's a fair comparison.Phoenixmgs said:
To be honest, I don't think that's too bad of a record.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Then it's fair to say Nintendo makes fr more varied shit. That it tries out new gaming concepts and actually experiments and whether people like it or not delivered far more varied means of the way we play games. Of any of the console makers they are the only ones to innovate and expand concepts of video gaming.Hawki said:
Well you can word it any way you want, but when you compare Nintendo to a company that has literally only made 2 3rd person cover based shooters, and 10 variations of OGC for it, I gotta question how unbiased your assessment is. I mean did you even look up Naughty Dog's gaming library? Also, you've yet to tell me why gamers would want COD4 on the Switch. I already have CoD4 ... I have already played shooters trying to ape its success ... I don't want the Switch to pretend like that's the 'gold standard' of what it can do with first person shooters. By default, Prime 4 is going to be more interesting to me than another CoD4.Phoenixmgs said:
Pikmin is more of an RTS puzzle game rather than being like a traditional RTS game i find.Hawki said:
Okay, fine, but why are they even being compared? Nintendo is a mammoth developer and publisher. Naughty Dog is just a developer, and one that, as of Crash Bandicoot, has followed a model of working on 1-2 IPs at a time before moving on.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
I'd be fine calling it a puzzle game, but people keep calling it an RTS. So if it's called an RTS, I'll have to judge it as an RTS.Yoshi178 said:
To an extent, but at this point in time, kart-racing is its own sub-genre (that Mario Kart started), and I'd still call F-Zero a traditional racing game, in as much that it's entirely based around going fast and not crashing (no items). A game that inspired competitors like Wipeout, but still a racing game. As for Smash Brothers, I'd call it a "platform fighter."Yoshi178 said:
Don't look at me. I didn't make the comparison to begin with, I was merely querying the validity of the argument.Hawki said:
Nintendo is the king of artificial scarcity. PS4 sold 1 million in 24 hours. Selling 5 million in 6 months or so isn't impressive. We already went over why sales aren't even important for Nintendo really (e.g. Wii).Yoshi178 said:
-My fault.Hawki said:
Naughty Dog made 2 new IPs for PS3. How many new AAA IPs did all of Nintendo put out on Wii U? People might want to play COD4 on the go. The point isn't merely just that the Switch isn't getting COD4; it's not getting the next BF, COD, Destiny, GTA, RDR, Anthem, Dishonored, next CDPR game, next Bethesda game, next Wolfenstein, and basically every 3rd-party AAA game. It's not even getting DS ports like the Zero Escape series.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
