Poll: Nintendo's Quality In Consoles (i.e. Motion Controls and 3D)

[MasterV]

The Wii is marketed as and you call it a gaming console, but that doesn't make it fact. No more than someone saying certain types of sound aren't music and video games aren't art. It's all subjective opinion. No one is right or wrong.

I never said the Wii wasn't "Worthwhile;" I own a Wii and my mum uses the hell out of it, having a great time. My mum being happy is worthwhile to me.

OK, to clarify. I meant worthwhile to debate about.

As for the other, I already wrote. Your opinion is, thankfully, one of the few. I could do a whole diatribe on how flawed your arguments are on a fundamental level, but there's no point.

 

[MasterV]

How "Flawed my argument is on a fundamental level"? I don't think you are catching the concept of subjective opinion, and are instead using poorly disguised jabs at me to defend a position you've take personally.

Tsk. Look my friend, I don't have anything against you to take jabs at you. But if you think that different words and different meanings are different due to "subjectivity", then no. Your arguments are flawed.

You say certain types of sound aren't music. Of course they aren't, that's why they are called sounds. That's why a horse's sound is called a neigh and not music. Not because of subjectivity, but because the word has a different meaning. Saying that a type of music you don't like, or don't listen to, isn't music, well, THAT is flawed logic.

"Video games are art" IS a subjective matter. Art is subjective, as people have different sensitivites to it. This is assumed by the word "art" itself. Saying that a game isn't to your liking is subjective opinion. Saying that certain video games are not video games because you don't play them isn't subjective. It's flawed logic.

 

[MasterV]

So my phone is a video game console?

Does the word "phone" imply that it plays videogames? Your phone is a phone. It may or may not be capable of playing them, but that capability is something additional and not it's primary purpose => It is called a phone.

 

[MasterV]

Does the word Wii imply that it plays video games?

There are more entertainment and exercise programs on the Wii than there are video games. Would its primary purpose then be simply an entertainment machine? There are also more games on my iPhone then the Wii library.

Does the word PC imply that? Does the word Xbox? Those are NAMES, not words with meaning. The iPhone is a phone, games are not why you buy it. The Wii is a video games console, first and foremost. You buy it because you like it's GAMES. That won't change because of your opinion of it. By your logic, PS3 and 360 are not consoles either, but home entertainment machines. Because, let's face it, the movies available on Netflix are easily double their entire libraries combined.

 

[MasterV]

I would indeed call the PS3 and 360 entertainment machines over simply video game consoles.

You would. But their creators do not think so. And neither is the world at large. The main reason you buy any of these machines are the GAMES. Ergo their manufacturers and the whole world calls them game consoles. Their added capabilities are just that. And now we can stop derailing this topic.

 

[tehweave]

They're making more money than a triple-cunted hooker the day after the troops come home..

Wait what's that a quote from? Ahh this is gonna bug me now!

OT: i don't really mind, it's not like the 3D isn't optional and the console is pretty good anyway, in my opinion. Hell, if people enjoy it, they're clearly doing something right. I don't get this culture of self-entitlement where the company must pander to your wants and needs, and yours alone. A lot of people clearly like motion controls, 3D and other such gimmicks, so I say leave 'em to it.

It's a Yahtzee quote.

 

[Phoenix_XIII]

The quality of the stuff Nintendo has been putting out is as good as it has ever been. Whether you think what they're putting out is `gimmicky' is a completely separate issue.

In my personal opinion, and you may object to this, is that when a gaming company starts doing bad, gimmicky things when they used to be so awesome, they're quality goes down. Sony and Microsoft decided to copy the Wii and Sony did it's horrible 3D idea, they lost some of my respect. A good company can see when something is a bad idea. Companies are getting greedy though and they're selling they're gaming souls for money.

So... you think Nintendo's quality will begin to fall? Not that it has?

I think it has failed. They've alienated the hardcore gamers with the Wii and the 3DS just sounds like a bad idea. Maybe it worked, I dunno. Yahtzee didn't seem too impressed with it and if modern cinema has proven anything in the last decade or two, 3D is a horrible idea that sacrifices quality for a cheap gimmick.

If I'm contradicting myself in any way, I apologize. I'm terrible at getting thoughts actually down in a way that they make sense.

No offense but when it comes to gaming I consider myself as hardcore as anyone else and to put it bluntly Nintendo is the only company who's products I haven't had fail. They aren't built to regularly break. The Wii didn't alienate me, I bought one, just like 4 or 5 other "hardcore" gamers I know. So I really don't know what you mean when you use that term. You may not like them or understand their business plan although I agree with you that it has SO very little to do with the "hardcore" crowd. Wah. The "hardcore" is now a niche market anyway. Any good business is going to go where the money is. Still, it's hard to argue with Nintendo's success. (It's doubless that you will probably try however....)

As for 3-D in movies and games I see more than a gimmick there just like I do with motion control, I enjoy both and it's always fun to wonder what will they come up with next? Try to remember when Nolan Bushnell was showing people two digital lines that knocked a square about a monochrome screen back and forth, that was just a "gimmick" as well. So it was an American gimmick that made possible every game you play today.

Also could you tell me what was meant by the last option in your poll, yeah your poll is skewed to lean towards "Nintendo sucks now either way, me hardcore, me most important customer, wah!!" but the last option makes no sense whatever.

I'm not trying to have it lean towards Nintendo sucks.

I have this running thing whenever I make a poll where I have a random thing for anyone who can't make up their minds or if they want to be smart aleky. Call it comic relief.

 

[Ice Car]

*snip for large post*

Things have changed over the years, they aren't quite the same, and that they aren't as good as they were back then, but I retain my opinion that things are still good for Nintendo, they crank out great games all the time, and as long as they keep doing the same, taking years to develop a quality game rather than less than a single year, I will remain loyal to them. I do play other consoles and see where Nintendo fails and others succeed, but where Nintendo succeeds and others fail, I stand by them.

I like a good conversation with solid arguments. However, keep in mind this. I buy Zelda and hve expectations. I expect to have sword and be awesome with it. That fortress thing in Wind Waker was not Zelda. It had no place in it, apart from a winking nod from Miyamoto to Kojima. Notice how you say "if you've played it before". If you haven't? Will someone who rarely plays games, buy this expecting Zelda and being forced to do all those menial tasks to get to the damn sword and then have it snatched away? Not like Zelda at all. Still, I can see why you liked it but trust me, many hated it for this part alone.

The thing about islands was that they were like a small rock floating in nothingness. You got on, solved a puzzle and never looked back. No exploration, no action. The sidequests are nice to hav, but they were just that, sidequests. For completionists. What about the main game? That was painfully short and there was one point where it was glaringly obvious a dungeon was removed. I like how you say your favourites are LttP and OoT. Tell me, technology has moved forward. Why haven't Zelda games? Was the jump from OoT to WW as great as that from LttP to OoT? Why is it that only the puzzles get expanded upon and not the overworld or the enemies?

for your next question, why is the currnt Zelda direction a bad thing? Too much reliance on puzzles gives birth to boredom. Sure, puzzles may be nice to figure out...the first time. After that they get boring because you know the solution. Interesting enemies on the other hand who would be dangerous to boot, could be defeated by many more ways and thus be far more interesting. But we've gotten to a point where Spirit Tracks had a dungeon with NO ENEMIES. At all. That was unacceptable and that's where I abandoned it. That example you bring can work very well for my argument. That item was only ever a puzzle-solving and boss-beating thingamajigger. Not a weapon, no use apart from that one, you even say it yourself! "Creative" use for puzzles. Oh joy. Now, think back to LttP (and OoT, but to a lesser extent). You got magic SPELLS. You used them to unleash hell AND open the way forward sometimes. Where did spells go? Where did the different weapons go? Why the FECK do I have to solve a PUZZLE to get to the Master Sword in TP when those two stone guardian statues could be an awesome enemy encounter?

You call it backtracking, I call it exploring. Everyone wants to explore an interesting world. But when that word is uninteresting, why bother? Finding some Heart Containers is barely a reason, as the games have become WAY too easy. The only reason to bother, and I agree, is if you're a completionist. But look at it this way. Other games, like Okami or even Minish Cap (which was developed by Capcom) have bonuses to reward you for perservering, the first has oodles of bonus content, the other has a Sound Test. Why can't Zelda? OoT 3D is a major missed opportunity in this regard, because it could've contained SO much from past videos, early sketches but no. A mediocre port of a game played to death. Thanks.

As for your Mario & Luigi stuff. I agree, but I hav n objection. Those games are great,but you know why? Because they're not passed as actual Mario games, but as Mario PRGs. Play the first one on the SNES, available on VC. It sets the template and people know what to expect from a Mario RPG (Paper or with Luigi). That is, humour and massive expansions upon the Mario world. MUCH more than ANY main Mario game, and this is why it's so interesting to play them. People want to see what other amazing things are there in Mario's magical wonderland. Mario RPGs are good gams bacause the are good SEQUELS, expanding upon the foundations set by their predecessors. Zelda games add something at the cost of something else.

I agree with you on the AW/FE thing, except Shadow Dragon. It was preposterous to ask full price for a game this old (and lacking in comparison even to the GBA games. I was NOT a happy customer). They should've put the sequel in as well, like Ys did.

As fo your last comment (which I've kept) I agree. I still believe they mae some of the best gmes around and thisis why I'll never stop playing their games....well, unless they drop their quality even more (thatis, if they drop to industry standards). Then I'll stop playing modern games altogether

I see your point, but this time I can't think of any counter arguments. People have different interests and likes in game, it's hard to argue that a game is good if the person doesn't like the aspects I use as an argument.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Yes, the games use a 'gimmic'. But I've never known Nintendo to half-ass what they do. Motion controls can be really fun when done right with moderation.

I love using the controller like a steering wheel in Mario Kart.

But when it comes down to it, the consoles are well built, rarely break down and Nintendo puts time and effort into their IP's.

And in the end, who gives a damn about the gimmicy side if the games are good? They can still release games for the Wii that use the Game Cube Controller.

They can release 3DS games that don't need the 3D to be noticeable.

And you know what? Good for Nintendo. They may be gimmics, but just remember that the Wii beat the 360 and PS3 in sales only in a short period of time since it's initial release.

The Nintendo DS's Touch screen was mocked. It was a gimmic. That handheld beat the PSP who was suppose to crush Nintendo's handheld.

And just remember. PS3 and 360 most likely released their motion controls, only because Nintendo was willing to take the risk and put such a thing in the gaming market.

Nintendo may have a gimmic, but the quality hasn't reduced.
Mario Kart on Wii is just as good if not better then the Game Cube's version. (a bit annoyed by the way Mario Kart treats the person in first place like rubbish)

They still make games with gameplay in mind. And they have the balls to throw in these 'gimmics' with their console with a good chance it could backlash and cost them.

 

[MrMrAwesom]

That's because gimmicks have shorter appeal/ fun then magic tricks everyone already knows... that'd be like everyone in the world saying yo mama 600 times or doing the pulling off your thumb trick, gets annoying after a while & seeing someone show off something everyone already knows seems insulting to my intelligence.[/quote]

I did say that the motion control thing was ultimately a failure. But like I said, they aren't putting it in Cafe. It's not like they're still trying to force motion controls any more. In fact, most of their major releases seem to completely ignore motion control.

I agree, it was a bad idea. But it's left such a bitter taste that now if Nintendo does ANYTHING that goes away from the norm, people cry "GIMMICK!".

People are calling Cafe a gimmick console because of the touchscreen, seeming to be more than happy to ignore the fact that it goes back to a Gamecube like controller and has the HD they were asking for. But that doesn't matter. They did something different, so that means... "GIMMICK GIMMICK GIMMICK GIMMICK GIMMICK!"[/quote]

That doesn't look like a gimmick it looks like instead of forcing motion controls, looks like they're trying to force a new gba mini on us

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Nintendo's quality has NOT been improving lately. Their last two "big" things (The Wii and the 3DS) have been gimmicks that weren't even that good. Motion control and 3D? Something the SNES could've done with the Duck Hunter game if they had really tried and something that movies started doing in the 80's and 90's? Come on Nintendo! You're better than this. The N64 was excellent and the GameCube was pretty good. What happened?

What are your opinions?

Innovation isn't the same with quality.
3d might not be new,and motion controls are old by now,but Nintendo has the best quality on their consoles..
I mean it.
My old Super Nintendo plays like it's new until today,and I have dropped its controllers a bazillion times and they still work flawlessly.
On the other hand my Dreamcast started having problems like the inability of reading its discs and loosing its colors (turning black and white) in 5 years of ownership,my original Xbox's hard disc died 4 years after I bought it,and my xbox360 died with RROD in less than 6 months,while the xbox360 controller broke by landing on the floor twice.

Nintendo's hardware is way more durable than anybody's else,and their consoles last a lifetime.
The quality control Nintendo consoles are passing by is excellent and I can only wish for other manufacturers to rise up the quality standards they have for their machines..