Explain to me why a lot of people dislike Nintendo.

[smart blockhead]

I've never understood this. Nintendo is the developer of some of the greatest games of all time. Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, Wario World, The Legend of Zelda, Metroid, Earthbound, Kirby. Also, I don't get what people problem with the Gamecube is. It has some great games such as: Resident Evil, Wind Waker, Super Mario Sunshine, Metroid Prime, Super Smash Bros. Melee. So discuss what you're thoughts about Nintendo are.

[Liberi Fatali]

I've never disliked Nintendo, but I've never really liked them a terrible lot either.

I can see why some people say their games are generally too kiddy, with few exceptions (that are usually available on other consoles).

The only Nintendo game that I have really enjoyed is Goldeneye, which was a superb FPS back on the 64. Oh and the Final Fantasy series prior to its move to Sony consoles.

[Let's Chop Cats!]

People who dislike Nintendo are the people who represent what is wrong with console gaming. It is all the stupid people who don't even know what good gameplay is.

[smart blockhead]

I don't really see any of their games as "kiddy" just because they don't have a lot of blood and gore. I think their games are incredibly fun though and I think that matters a lot more than how violent a game is. Resident Evil is extremely violent and you kill people in Metroid and Zelda it just doesn't have blood splattering every where.

[smart blockhead]

People who dislike Nintendo are the people who represent what is wrong with console gaming. It is all the stupid people who don't even know what good gameplay is.
I agree. The gameplay on games developed by Nintendo is superb. I would much rather play any Nintendo game than Grand Theft Auto because the gameplay is fun and original and it doesn't need to be violent to be fun.

[manuscriptreplica]

I like Nintendo. a lot. Especialy the 64. The music quality isnt the best... but the gameplay on some of their games (Majora's mask atm) is unbelievable.

[Amit]

People who dislike Nintendo are the people who represent what is wrong with console gaming. It is all the stupid people who don't even know what good gameplay is.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Although, as a long time Nintendo fan, I would just like to say that sometimes Nintendo needs to relax with all the innovation ;)

Too much can be just as bad as too little.

[Mattfanatic]

this new controller thing is too much for me to be honest

edit: is that the main controller or will they have regular ones on the rev too?

[Mr. Ron]

I never met a person who disliked Nintendo. Ever.

[Let's Chop Cats!]

this new controller thing is too much for me to be honest

edit: is that the main controller or will they have regular ones on the rev too?
There will be that controller with the attachments, but you will also be able to plug in a GameCube controller. Not to mention when you turn the remote sideways it becomes an oldschool NES like controller.

[Liberi Fatali]

People who dislike Nintendo are the people who represent what is wrong with console gaming. It is all the stupid people who don't even know what good gameplay is. I think thats a bit extreme. This is a very subjective world, whether for good or bad. People are allowed to share differing opinions on a console, just because they dislike a console company, doesn't mean they're everything that is wrong with console gaming.

I dislike the way the gaming world has become so anti people who partially base their console purchasing and game purchasing on graphics. For me, there is more to gaming than just good gameplay. And more to it than just graphics. And more to it than just storyline etc etc

I would much rather play any Nintendo game than Grand Theft Auto because the gameplay is fun and original and it doesn't need to be violent to be fun. Grand Theft Auto allows you to do what you want with it, quite often I go on long scenic cruises in it, just playing around and seeing what I can do. It isn't all about shooting and car chases. There is much more to the game than just the missions.

I don't really see any of their games as "kiddy" just because they don't have a lot of blood and gore. I think their games are incredibly fun though and I think that matters a lot more than how violent a game is. Resident Evil is extremely violent and you kill people in Metroid and Zelda it just doesn't have blood splattering every where. In general, a lot of Nintendo games that aren't multi-console tend to be aimed at a younger audience.

[john123]

i have a snes, and i love it. i dont dislike nintendo, but seriously, think about it. 40 year old japanese men making kiddie style games. wtf

[manuscriptreplica]

I never met a person who disliked Nintendo. Ever.

I get anti-nintendo pro-playstation people all the time.

The thing is, for people who really aren't serious about gaming, the psx is just better. You can buy the great games like San Andreas and Tekken tag and still have loads of fun with them, but not get too involed with the plot. Most (good) nintendo games involve a complex storyline (i'm speaking of later nintendo here) and are either of the adventure/rpg genre.

[Mr. Ron]

In agreeance with Liberi, the gaming audiance is subjective. But, I do get annoyed when people bash another systems without any knowledge of the system or it's games.

[Liberi Fatali]

In agreeance with Liberi, the gaming audiance is subjective. But, I do get annoyed when people bash another systems without any knowledge of the system or it's games. I agree with that. When people say "I hate nintendo their games are too kiddy" it bugs me.

But I think it is important to add up all the factors for systems. Graphics, gameplay, target audience, amount of originality, storyline in games, long-running franchises etc.

I get anti-nintendo pro-playstation people all the time.

The thing is, for people who really aren't serious about gaming, the psx is just better. You can buy the great games like San Andreas and Tekken tag and still have loads of fun with them, but not get too involed with the plot. Most (good) nintendo games involve a complex storyline (i'm speaking of later nintendo here) and are either of the adventure/rpg genre. Playstation is also a very strong RPG system though.

Xbox too, to an extent. Although I think many of the Xbox RPGs are quite over rated.

[Mr. Ron]

I get anti-nintendo pro-playstation people all the time.

The thing is, for people who really aren't serious about gaming, the psx is just better. You can buy the great games like San Andreas and Tekken tag and still have loads of fun with them, but not get too involed with the plot. Most (good) nintendo games involve a complex storyline (i'm speaking of later nintendo here) and are either of the adventure/rpg genre.
Sort of disagree with you here. You can be serious about gaming and own any consol really. You can be serious with any game. If you're talking about complex story lines, I would say Playstation is the dominant one here with it's RPG's.

[manuscriptreplica]

what i'm saying is that the 'best' (most marketable) Nintendo games are usually complex adventure games, while the 'best' psx games are just platform or fighting games (which appeal to the masses more)

Which is why the snes is so popular, the most marketable charater was Mario, which was a simple side scrolling game that my dad still plays. when it went to the 64, it became all 3d and free, perfect for the serious gamer, but for the average guy it's too complex.

[smart blockhead]

I dislike the way the gaming world has become so anti people who partially base their console purchasing and game purchasing on graphics. For me, there is more to gaming than just good gameplay. And more to it than just graphics. And more to it than just storyline etc etcAmen, I have a PS2 and a Gamecube and they're both good for different things. I can play games like MGS3 and Shadow of the Colussus on PS2 and Zelda on Gamecube. No console is better than another.

Grand Theft Auto allows you to do what you want with it, quite often I go on long scenic cruises in it, just playing around and seeing what I can do. It isn't all about shooting and car chases. There is much more to the game than just the missions.
I have two of the Grand Theft Autos(3 and Vice City) and I've played them both and think that they're both very fun and you're right they aren't all about car chases. I just think that the gameplay mechanics are not nearly as good as Nintendo. I mean look at the controls in GTA and compare them to Mario 3. Obviously Mario 3 handles a lot better. GTA is definately a great game though.
In general, a lot of Nintendo games that aren't multi-console tend to be aimed at a younger audience.
I'd have to disagree with that. I mean some of the dungeons and stuff in the Zelda games are way to complex for young kids to figure out. The games are just more light hearted and not all about darkness and violence and more about fun. For example, look at Wario World 3. It has a cartoon character for the star of the game, but at the same time you have to solve puzzle by being in different states(on fire, zombie, etc.) So basically the Nintendo games have cartoon like characters, but much deeper gameplay than other more "serious" games.

[Mr. Ron]

what i'm saying is that the 'best' (most marketable) Nintendo games are usually complex adventure games, while the 'best' psx games are just platform or fighting games (which appeal to the masses more)

Which is why the snes is so popular, the most marketable charater was Mario, which was a simple side scrolling game that my dad still plays. when it went to the 64, it became all 3d and free, perfect for the serious gamer, but for the average guy it's too complex.
Agreed.


I personally have experianced Xbox elitism everywhere I look where I live. If it's not multiplayer, it must suck, if the graphics aren't top notch, it must suck. Basically, if it's not Xbox, it must suck. This worries me that future gamers will be influanced by this, and not appreciate great games that might not have the greatest graphics or other things like multiplayer (Although I do know that muliplayer games are the way of the future on consols).

[Mattfanatic]

There will be that controller with the attachments, but you will also be able to plug in a GameCube controller. Not to mention when you turn the remote sideways it becomes an oldschool NES like controller.
wow that's really cool actually

and what i think it is, is that on nintendo systems, it's more about gameplay, not about shocking people with gore or ultra violence, or having the best graphics or whatever.

it's not about making games that will impress or attract people instantly, it's about making games that will stay fun for a long time, and will make an overall greater experience.

that's not for all games by nintendo, just the good ones...

[smart blockhead]

what i'm saying is that the 'best' (most marketable) Nintendo games are usually complex adventure games, while the 'best' psx games are just platform or fighting games (which appeal to the masses more)

Which is why the snes is so popular, the most marketable charater was Mario, which was a simple side scrolling game that my dad still plays. when it went to the 64, it became all 3d and free, perfect for the serious gamer, but for the average guy it's too complex.
I've never really known whether I was a casual gamer or "hardcore" or whatever. My favorite games are the Metal Gear Solid series, Gunstar Heroes, The Legend of Zelda, Mario Bros, old-school Sonic games mostly for nostalgia I've beat them all at least ten times, Snatcher and Wario Land games. I don't know what category this puts me in, but the things I care most about for a game are gameplay and plot in that order.

Anyway, I think that PS2 is pretty good for an average type gamer who just wants to play GTA or Tekken but it also has some games that get pretty involved such as Final Fantasy. So I would say GC or PS2 are both good for serious gaming but I don't have much experience with the XBox.

[Liberi Fatali]

I have two of the Grand Theft Autos(3 and Vice City) and I've played them both and think that they're both very fun and you're right they aren't all about car chases. I just think that the gameplay mechanics are not nearly as good as Nintendo. I mean look at the controls in GTA and compare them to Mario 3. Obviously Mario 3 handles a lot better. GTA is definately a great game though. I think thats a bit unfair comparing them. There is a lot of stuff you can do in GTA than you can do in Mario 3. Wandering around and exploring in a realistic world appeals to me a lot more than wandering around in Mario's platform world.

I'd have to disagree with that. I mean some of the dungeons and stuff in the Zelda games are way to complex for young kids to figure out. The games are just more light hearted and not all about darkness and violence and more about fun. For example, look at Wario World 3. It has a cartoon character for the star of the game, but at the same time you have to solve puzzle by being in different states(on fire, zombie, etc.) So basically the Nintendo games have cartoon like characters, but much deeper gameplay than other more "serious" games. I haven't played much Zelda or Mario, so it is kind of hard for me to compare. But I don't think either has that much depth compared with some RPG games on the Playstation especially. Games like Final Fantasy X, Xenosagas and Romancing SaGa all feel much deeper than most games I've ever played on Nintendo consoles. I just think the main demographic of Nintendo console owners in Western countries (not Japan) is younger than that of the Playstation and Xbox. And the games reflect this, with the lighter feel as you said.

[Amit]

I haven't played much Zelda or Mario, so it is kind of hard for me to compare. But I don't think either has that much depth compared with some RPG games on the Playstation especially. Games like Final Fantasy X, Xenosagas and Romancing SaGa all feel much deeper than most games I've ever played on Nintendo consoles. I just think the main demographic of Nintendo console owners in Western countries (not Japan) is younger than that of the Playstation and Xbox. And the games reflect this, with the lighter feel as you said.

What about Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana 3, and Secret of Evermore? :-O

[Liberi Fatali]

What about Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana 3, and Secret of Evermore? :-O
I was going to rattle on with more (especially chrono), but then you'd all just think of me as an playstation rpg nerd. :(

[dustyboy316]

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Although, as a long time Nintendo fan, I would just like to say that sometimes Nintendo needs to relax with all the innovation ;)

Too much can be just as bad as too little.

Yah, they always seem to have to be ahead.

Have you seen that video where the guy walks over htis virtual bridge, by this thing made by Nintendo. It looked wild.

[Lionheart1827]

A lot of old school NES games are hard enough to make grown men cry.

Nintendo is awesome and will continue to be. Seriously, what does it matter if a game is kiddy as long as it has amazing gameplay, isn't that the point of a game? Atmosphere, gore, violence, cut-scenes, are all part of what enhances a game and it seems like today's gamers are all about flash value and gore and it doesn't matter how good the gameplay is, its how "cool" it makes you look. Why do you think most modern games are so easy? Namco and Nintendo imo is the only two developers that are keeping classic gameplay in with modern ideas.

Play Devil May Cry then try and play the original Zelda, then will see who a real gamer is.:thumb:

[smart blockhead]

I think thats a bit unfair comparing them. There is a lot of stuff you can do in GTA than you can do in Mario 3. Wandering around and exploring in a realistic world appeals to me a lot more than wandering around in Mario's platform world.I agree that theres a lot of stuff to do in GTA but Mario 3 is an NES game from the 80's that has alternate routes you can take to get places, tons of levels, and it's a much more difficult game overall than GTA.

I get tired of GTA because exploring gets kind of old when your character can jump, punch and fire guns when you're just walking around. It's true you can drive boats and cars, but all the cars feel the same and the boats aren't that different. The game play in Mario games however is much different because you have an incredible amount of moves. You can jump, fly, swim, shoot fire, use enemies shells against them, throw hammers, turn into a statue, and jump off walls.

The control in GTA is just kind of bland. For example when you jump with your character it's very sloppy and hard to control. In Mario games you have complete conrol of all your moves. If you're running you can stop instantly, you can aim your jumps, you can change directions in a split second. Keep in mind Mario 3 can do all this on the NES while Gta is on a current gen console and all it has to show for it is huge amounts of area to roam around in that is basically all the same. I think that people will still be playing Mario long after Gta is forgotten.

I haven't played much Zelda or Mario, so it is kind of hard for me to compare. But I don't think either has that much depth compared with some RPG games on the Playstation especially. Games like Final Fantasy X, Xenosagas and Romancing SaGa all feel much deeper than most games I've ever played on Nintendo consoles. I just think the main demographic of Nintendo console owners in Western countries (not Japan) is younger than that of the Playstation and Xbox. And the games reflect this, with the lighter feel as you said.
The genius of the Nintendo games is that the contols are simple, yet at the same time very deep. Since you haven't played Zelda much, in the most current one you do a lot of exploring on different islands and solve puzzles in dungeons. The area in the game is at least as big as GTA's and you can talk with people and actually interact with the enviorment more. There's also tons of sidequests that would take forever to complete. Any of the Mario games has deep gameplay where you can do tons of different things and find secrets etc.

[Krabsworth]

Yeah, but in Mario, can you get up to 7 guys with automatic weapons to gun down local authorities, no.

[smart blockhead]

A lot of old school NES games are hard enough to make grown men cry.

Nintendo is awesome and will continue to be. Seriously, what does it matter if a game is kiddy as long as it has amazing gameplay, isn't that the point of a game? Atmosphere, gore, violence, cut-scenes, are all part of what enhances a game and it seems like today's gamers are all about flash value and gore and it doesn't matter how good the gameplay is, its how "cool" it makes you look. Why do you think most modern games are so easy? Namco and Nintendo imo is the only two developers that are keeping classic gameplay in with modern ideas.

Play Devil May Cry then try and play the original Zelda, then will see who a real gamer is.:thumb:
I beat the first Zelda the first or second day I got it.:cool: I have to agree with you that Nintendo games are a lot more challenging than other games.

[smart blockhead]

Yeah, but in Mario, can you get up to 7 guys with automatic weapons to gun down local authorities, no.
That is all based on the gore factor of what you're doing and not the gameplay. The shooting scheme is sloppy in GTA and despite how open people think the game is, it's actually pretty limited. While you can't "omg gun down teh popo" in Mario you can use your tail to smash a ground turtle with you tail, take its shell, fly into the air and smash an aerial turtle with his bretheren's shell. You can also get inside a giant shoe and ride Yoshi who has his own set of moves. Yoshi in fact has more moves than the main character in GTA and he's a minor character that's roughly the same as a GTA vehicle.

[Amit]

One of my biggest problems with GTA is the horrible controls and awful interface, especially for shooting.

[Liberi Fatali]

I agree that theres a lot of stuff to do in GTA but Mario 3 is an NES game from the 80's that has alternate routes you can take to get places, tons of levels, and it's a much more difficult game overall than GTA.

I get tired of GTA because exploring gets kind of old when your character can jump, punch and fire guns when you're just walking around. It's true you can drive boats and cars, but all the cars feel the same and the boats aren't that different. The game play in Mario games however is much different because you have an incredible amount of moves. You can jump, fly, swim, shoot fire, use enemies shells against them, throw hammers, turn into a statue, and jump off walls. Once again, I think its kind of unfair comparing them in terms of difficulty. They're two different games from two completely different eras. There may not be a whole lot of difference between different cars and different boats, but that doesn't limit you on what you can do. I've spent so much time mucking around in GTA: SA. The only other games that I've played that much are lengthy Japanese RPG games like Final Fantasy VIII.


The control in GTA is just kind of bland. For example when you jump with your character it's very sloppy and hard to control. In Mario games you have complete conrol of all your moves. If you're running you can stop instantly, you can aim your jumps, you can change directions in a split second. Keep in mind Mario 3 can do all this on the NES while Gta is on a current gen console and all it has to show for it is huge amounts of area to roam around in that is basically all the same. I think that people will still be playing Mario long after Gta is forgotten. Mario 3 isn't exactly meant to be realistic though, and GTA is to an extent. Old Sonic games are some of the most crisp and easiest to control, but I think comparing old NES and Megadrive games with the controls of today is quite unfair. And Mario 3 is a platform game, whilst GTA is a real-life action simulation game.

I don't think the GTA controls are the best, but once again they're two different genre games from two different eras.


The genius of the Nintendo games is that the contols are simple, yet at the same time very deep. Since you haven't played Zelda much, in the most current one you do a lot of exploring on different islands and solve puzzles in dungeons. The area in the game is at least as big as GTA's and you can talk with people and actually interact with the enviorment more. There's also tons of sidequests that would take forever to complete. Any of the Mario games has deep gameplay where you can do tons of different things and find secrets etc. They may have a lot of depth, but I really don't think they can compare to Xenosaga 1&2 and Final Fantasy X.

[Mattfanatic]

to be honest, there are only a few games that held my interest, and they were either on ninendo or xbox/pc

[Reaganista]

well i haven't really been keeping up with console gaming recently except for GTA, NBA 2k6 and the odd RPG on PS2, but back when i did keep up nintendo had this nasty tendency of not putting out anywhere near enough good games for somebody who played a lot. I'm talking PS1, N64 era. Nintendo put out just as many, if not more great games during this time but they were slower to get games out and the bad games they did put out tended to be way bad. even if they aren't doing this anymore it could just be old prejudices from past acts at work

but i did play quite a bit of pokemon emerald and something else on gameboy advance at work last summer

[smart blockhead]

Once again, I think its kind of unfair comparing them in terms of difficulty. They're two different games from two completely different eras. There may not be a whole lot of difference between different cars and different boats, but that doesn't limit you on what you can do. I've spent so much time mucking around in GTA: SA. The only other games that I've played that much are lengthy Japanese RPG games like Final Fantasy VIII.
I don't really see what the problem with comparing difficulties is, but I think GTA is far too easy. I think what you can do in GTA is very limited. All the different places you can go are all fairly simialar and killing people gets old after a while. I can't play Grand Theft Auto anymore because I got sick of it after a month when I had done everything. I played Mario today and I've been playing those games since I was six.

Mario 3 isn't exactly meant to be realistic though, and GTA is to an extent. Old Sonic games are some of the most crisp and easiest to control, but I think comparing old NES and Megadrive games with the controls of today is quite unfair. And Mario 3 is a platform game, whilst GTA is a real-life action simulation game.
Ok, since you're saying that GTA is a more exploration oriented game than Mario lets use Zelda for an example. Zelda has huge areas to explore and you can actually do different things in each one. You can talk to people, do tons of sidequests, find secrets, etc. The Wind Waker world is bigger and more varied than any GTA.

Why do think that comparing the controls of old Genesis and NES games isn't fair? It seems to me like game controls should get better and easier to use as time progresses. I totally agree with you that the old Sonic games control brilliantly, the game is based on gameplay and not on gimmicks. This is why I have beaten all the Sonics so many times. My best friend and I beat Sonic 1-3, Sonic and Knuckles and Sonic CD in one day and didn't get bored and we have both beat these games multiple times.

I think that the reason control is getting worse and difficulty is getting easier is because back in the 16 bit era when I first started getting into gaming, there weren't as many people that played games and they were willing to spend more time to master the controls, but nowadays every joe blow has a PS2 and Grand Theft Auto, so the difficulty has been dumbed down accordingly. This is fine, and these people should have control appropriate for them, but I think its good some companies like Nintendo still make challenging games.
I don't think the GTA controls are the best, but once again they're two different genre games from two different eras.
Wind Waker has simialar exploration gameplay and is from the same era, and the controls for that game are head and shoulders above GTA.
They may have a lot of depth, but I really don't think they can compare to Xenosaga 1&2 and Final Fantasy X.
Do you mean depth as in gameplay or as in story?

[smart blockhead]

well i haven't really been keeping up with console gaming recently except for GTA, NBA 2k6 and the odd RPG on PS2, but back when i did keep up nintendo had this nasty tendency of not putting out anywhere near enough good games for somebody who played a lot. I'm talking PS1, N64 era. Nintendo put out just as many, if not more great games during this time but they were slower to get games out and the bad games they did put out tended to be way bad. even if they aren't doing this anymore it could just be old prejudices from past acts at work

but i did play quite a bit of pokemon emerald and something else on gameboy advance at work last summer
I always thought there were a lot of good games for N64. Mario 64, Zelda Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, Banjo Kazooie, Donkey Kong 64, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Goldeneye. Ps1 had some good games, but the only game that stands out as great to me is Metal Gear Solid.

[Lionheart1827]

I always thought there were a lot of good games for N64. Mario 64, Zelda Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, Banjo Kazooie, Donkey Kong 64, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Goldeneye. Ps1 had some good games, but the only game that stands out as great to me is Metal Gear Solid.

dont forget FF7-9, especially 7 and 8, and Chrono Cross (and Xenogears)

But I agree, N64 had less games, but imo, they were considered some of the best games ever.

Mario 64 redefined gaming just as the original Mario did in the 80s. Ocarina of time redefined adventure games, just as it did back in the 80s.:thumb:

I always liked N64 better than PSX.

[Liberi Fatali]

I don't really see what the problem with comparing difficulties is, but I think GTA is far too easy. I think what you can do in GTA is very limited. All the different places you can go are all fairly simialar and killing people gets old after a while. I can't play Grand Theft Auto anymore because I got sick of it after a month when I had done everything. I played Mario today and I've been playing those games since I was six.
Comparing difficulties is silly because almost every game is much easier these days. Some missions in GTA are very difficult. I'd say GTA suffers more from a huge difference in difficulty of levels than being too easy all the time. But as I have said, the game is not just about missions, and I don't know how you can classify the exploring stuff as easy (or hard). I'd say the places in old SNES games are more similar than in GTA. In GTA: SA you've got a huge mountain, a dam, huge gang neighbourhoods, high roller casinos, a massive desert, quiet forrest and farm land etc etc. In terms of what you can do and what you can look at, GTA games are constantly increasing on the amount you can see and do.

I think the best thing is to agree to disagree.


Ok, since you're saying that GTA is a more exploration oriented game than Mario lets use Zelda for an example. Zelda has huge areas to explore and you can actually do different things in each one. You can talk to people, do tons of sidequests, find secrets, etc. The Wind Waker world is bigger and more varied than any GTA.
But then there are RPG games on the Playstation that are just as varied as Zelda games.

Why do think that comparing the controls of old Genesis and NES games isn't fair? It seems to me like game controls should get better and easier to use as time progresses. I totally agree with you that the old Sonic games control brilliantly, the game is based on gameplay and not on gimmicks. This is why I have beaten all the Sonics so many times. My best friend and I beat Sonic 1-3, Sonic and Knuckles and Sonic CD in one day and didn't get bored and we have both beat these games multiple times.

I think that the reason control is getting worse and difficulty is getting easier is because back in the 16 bit era when I first started getting into gaming, there weren't as many people that played games and they were willing to spend more time to master the controls, but nowadays every joe blow has a PS2 and Grand Theft Auto, so the difficulty has been dumbed down accordingly. This is fine, and these people should have control appropriate for them, but I think its good some companies like Nintendo still make challenging games.
The reason is that games are so much more complex these days. Being 3D adds a whole new dimension to games, and makes the control systems a lot more complex. Making games more realistic these days also adds to the complexity. Compare an old Metal Gear game with MGS3, and you've got to do so much more in these new games. So you need more buttons, and you need more complexity.

Nintendo isn't the only company making challenging games though these days. I mean, on the Xbox and PS2 you've got games like Devil May Cry 3 and Ninja Gaiden are bloody challenging.

You may think GTA is too easy and the controls are buggy, but there are tons of games on the PS2 and Xbox that even you would have to admit have excellent controls and are dang hard if you want them to be. I don't think Nintendo is ahead of either Sony or Microsoft in that area.


Do you mean depth as in gameplay or as in story?
Story and in some ways gameplay.

[smart blockhead]

I bought a DS recently and it's great. It's innovative and the games are great. It may not be as flashy as the PSP but it has but I think it definately holds its own. Nintendo will always at least be the king of handhelds. Wario does the first party platform games and his are always high quality, Zelda gameboy games are always good, Tetris, Castlevania, Metroid, Resident Evil, Mario Kart, Megaman. The PSP is good too though. I think it's awesome that a lot of work is going into handhelds.

[HazMan]

I've never backed any console as such, i think its all a big well of choice for anyone who enjoys the experience. I love Nintendo, i don't own a Gamecube however as i already have an Xbox. Most people don't think twice about Gamecube i have noticed. I'm really intrigued to play some of the games on there.

[smart blockhead]

Comparing difficulties is silly because almost every game is much easier these days. Some missions in GTA are very difficult. I'd say GTA suffers more from a huge difference in difficulty of levels than being too easy all the time. But as I have said, the game is not just about missions, and I don't know how you can classify the exploring stuff as easy (or hard). I'd say the places in old SNES games are more similar than in GTA. In GTA: SA you've got a huge mountain, a dam, huge gang neighbourhoods, high roller casinos, a massive desert, quiet forrest and farm land etc etc. In terms of what you can do and what you can look at, GTA games are constantly increasing on the amount you can see and do.

I think the best thing is to agree to disagree.

Yeah I agree, the exploring can't be classified in a difficulty range. In GTA the areas aren't different in that what you can do is different, it's the same thing with a different coat of paint. I agree that we have to agree to disagree on this one.

But then there are RPG games on the Playstation that are just as varied as Zelda games.
That's true. Zelda isn't really a true RPG, but more of an Action/RPG game the series was originated way back before gaming was established so its a unique blend which keeps it interesting. While you can explore in Zelda you also have tons of items that actually effect gameplay and aren't just different types of swords.


The reason is that games are so much more complex these days. Being 3D adds a whole new dimension to games, and makes the control systems a lot more complex. Making games more realistic these days also adds to the complexity. Compare an old Metal Gear game with MGS3, and you've got to do so much more in these new games. So you need more buttons, and you need more complexity.
MGS3 is way better because it's 3-D and that game has a fairly deep control scheme even with all it's complexity. It's not a cakewalk, if you set off an alarm you're screwed. I think that one stands out from most games these days in terms of difficulty.
Nintendo isn't the only company making challenging games though these days. I mean, on the Xbox and PS2 you've got games like Devil May Cry 3 and Ninja Gaiden are bloody challenging.

You may think GTA is too easy and the controls are buggy, but there are tons of games on the PS2 and Xbox that even you would have to admit have excellent controls and are dang hard if you want them to be. I don't think Nintendo is ahead of either Sony or Microsoft in that area. Oh I know there are definately some games with great control on Playstation at least I don't have an Xbox. The controls in MGS games are great, the story is great, the graphics are great. Shadow of the Colossus is awesome too. I have nothing against Playstation at all. I actually don't think that games for either GC or PS2 are particularly hard to beat though. I'd say games made by Treasure and Sega also tend to be pretty challengeing along with Rare.



Story and in some ways gameplay.
Oh I'm sure they're ahead of the Nintendo games in story no doubt about it. Story was never a huge part of their games. I was talking about the gameplay which is quite deep.

[SKiLLeDcs]

They're for kids....

[Amorpha]

They're for kids....
Old games for NES, SNES, N64 etc. have limited gameplay cause the graphics are so outdated.

The gameplay can be fun, but the fun won't last long because of the games simplicity.

you suck, and remind me of my friend who will only play pro evo 5, counter-strike and need for speed: most wanted because other games are "just fun games, not real games" (direct quote)

[smart blockhead]

They're for kids....
No not really. Just because there's not a lot of gore doesn't make them kid's games.

[Otherside]

My problem with Nintendo is that with their recent consoles they're doing innovation for innovation's sake, because they believe that's the only way they can sell consoles. It's not about how good they can make their games anymore, it's about how different they can make themselves look while still making games that will sell.

[smart blockhead]

My problem with Nintendo is that with their recent consoles they're doing innovation for innovation's sake, because they believe that's the only way they can sell consoles. It's not about how good they can make their games anymore, it's about how different they can make themselves look while still making games that will sell.
I really don't think that they did that with any of their consoles. The GC is pretty standard it's just not flashy and the DS uses both screens and it's actaully a worthwhile addition. Tell me what things you're referring to.

[Kif]

The thing about gaming nowadays is it's becoming a much more serious field. FPS and strategy games are mostly played, whereas platform games are overlooked for being too simple.

I don't really have a problem with Nintendo, but I have met a few Nintendo fanatics as well. Fanboys is the correct term I guess. I truely don't care much for graphics or how many pixels you can fit into a car. I buy systems and play them for fun. That's why I bought a 360, and I can guarentee someone reading this is thinking "Haha he bought a 360 the retard!". So what? It has some great games, the online play is fantastic and I enjoy it.

[Kif]

My problem with Nintendo is that with their recent consoles they're doing innovation for innovation's sake, because they believe that's the only way they can sell consoles. It's not about how good they can make their games anymore, it's about how different they can make themselves look while still making games that will sell.
I agree with this to an extent. The DS seemed incredibly gimmicky to me, and felt more like they are trying to be different for the sake of it. I am not saying every handheld console should now include MP3 players, video players and the works. But the DS felt like it had the same Nintendo franchise games on 2 screens.

[AA-12]

I find too many games on it to be more cartoon like and aimed at pick up and play type deals, which isn't really my style. Also, the lack of violent/dark games really puts me off.

[smart blockhead]

I find too many games on it to be more cartoon like and aimed at pick up and play type deals, which isn't really my style. Also, the lack of violent/dark games really puts me off.
I don't know how you can get more dark than Resident Evil 4.

[AA-12]

I don't know how you can get more dark than Resident Evil 4.
It's pretty dark, but I never said they have no dark games, just a lack of.

[Iron Bug]

Nintendo is my favorite gaming company, I just bought Mario & Luigi: Partners In Time and the gameplay is awesome. Its the secks.

[Scoot]

I've always been a Nintendo fan.

[Mr. Ron]

One of my biggest problems with GTA is the horrible controls and awful interface, especially for shooting.
I personally think the whole GTA series is boring.

[Illmatic]

I've always been a sports gamer, and Nintendo was always the worst when it came to sports.

But I'm just a dumb frat boy so what do I know, eh?

[Master Arkam Kannon]

many of the top developers in japan now got their start at nintendo and sega.

i feel the problem they had was that being on a nintendo system they were always outshined and outsold by anything that was nintendo. also nintendo has more money then they can ever use and therefore just made games till they were perfect in most cases caused people to be very pissed off at the wait. usually they were rewarded for waiting but it was already too late for nintendo.

what i find funny is that the PSX was originally made by nintendo with sony then scraped in order to make the N64. sony took the idea and thus the playstation was born, thanks to nintendo.

nintendo the developer is hands down the most successful developing team ever created. publishing wise, they needed to be more modest and understanding that other developers need money too in order to make just as good games.

sony is by far the best publisher in this day and age, (mainly or PS2) by making it incredibly easy and cheap for developers to make games, but with PS3 they seem to be forgetting what got them to the top in the first place.

[Chrysostom]

The SNES was always good. Donkey Kong, Yoshi's Island, some Mario Compilation thing I had, a couple of fighting games (one was that thing with the fat *** wolf in the green tee, and that ninja guy Jago.

[slashjunior]

A lot of people base consoles on speed. Both the PS2 and XBox were both quicker than the Gamecube. Plus developers preferred the other two consoles because they are apparently easier to work with.

Also the games are a bit kiddy. I still like playing Mario Kart with my girlfriend though. It's pretty addictive.

[Chrysostom]

Also the games are a bit kiddy. I still like playing Mario Kart with my girlfriend though. It's pretty addictive.

Mario Kart and Crash Team Racing are good.

[Master Arkam Kannon]

A lot of people base consoles on speed. Both the PS2 and XBox were both quicker than the Gamecube. Plus developers preferred the other two consoles because they are apparently easier to work with.


GC had much better load times then both the PS2 and Xbox. What are you implying about speed? Also, GC was made with developers in mind unlike the N64. The fact that no one worked with GC was that they already had restrictive contracts with Mircosoft and Sony.

[slashjunior]

GC had much better load times them both the PS2 and Xbox. What are you implying about speed? Also, GC was made with developers in mind unlike the N64. The fact that no one worked with GC was that they already had restrictive contracts with Mircosoft and Sony.

I don't know I think I read somewhere that the Sony and Microsoft specs were higher, which is what a lot of people base their purchase on these days.

[Master Arkam Kannon]

I don't know I think I read somewhere that the Sony and Microsoft specs were higher, which is what a lot of people base their purchase on these days.

oh there's no doubt the spec for PS2 and Xbox were higher, but the games required more, and the load times were greatly increased. GC made the games on their own little dvd thing and it made load times, at least for a early generation games a very quick experience.

people dont know what specs are anymore, they are just blind numbers, only computer scientists know. the average gamer honestly doesnt know sh!t about what goes into make a game, myself included.

[Amorpha]

oh there's no doubt the spec for PS2 and Xbox were higher, but the games required more, and the load times were greatly increased. GC made the games on their own little dvd thing and it made load times, at least for a early generation games a very quick experience.

people dont know what specs are anymore, they are just blind numbers, only computer scientists know. the average gamer honestly doesnt know sh!t about what goes into make a game, myself included.
the specs for ps2 werent higher

[Let's Chop Cats!]

The avg Console gamer atleast.

[Jonny]

Nintengay is kiddy rubbish. Only kids play kiddy rubbish.

[Master Arkam Kannon]

the specs for ps2 werent higher

call that a gross misunderstanding on my part. its just that the average consumer (myself also) tends to think so.

[Master Arkam Kannon]

Nintengay is kiddy rubbish. Only kids play kiddy rubbish.

clever, did your mommy write that one, or did you come up with that all on your lonesome?

[Jonny]

clever, did your mommy write that one, or did you come up with that all on your lonesome?
Oh, I made that one up myself. I'm pretty good at sarcasm, don't you know?

/Goes to play gamecube or DS.

[Reaganista]

I've always been a sports gamer, and Nintendo was always the worst when it came to sports.


yeah they have

[smart blockhead]

Oh, I made that one up myself. I'm pretty good at sarcasm, don't you know?

/Goes to play gamecube or DS.
Are you going to get New Super Mario Bros. for the DS?

[DJ Ducksauce]

yeah they have
You have to admit that the Mario games were fun though.

[eddie_the_great]

the specs for ps2 werent higher

tr00

PS2 was by far the weakest system this generation. I think PS2 was 250mhz, GC was 450 and XBox was 700. Alhough Xbox was really powerful, I've yet to find one Xbox exclusive game but almost every GC exclusive game has been great.

[Liberi Fatali]

tr00

PS2 was by far the weakest system this generation. I think PS2 was 250mhz, GC was 450 and XBox was 700. Alhough Xbox was really powerful, I've yet to find one Xbox exclusive game but almost every GC exclusive game has been great. Mhz aren't everything.

And you're yet to find an exclusive Xbox game? :|:|:|:|

Try Halo 2 and Project Gotham Racing for starters.

[Emperor]

Probably been said in this thread before but todays gamer wants super awesome graphics and a poweful machine, wheras Nintendo goes for the gameplay first then the graphics. Nintendo is also seen as a kiddy game company, but thats not true just take Resident Evil 4 for example. I do have to admit though I am getting really tired of all these Mario games. I mean sure, Mario Cart is pure fun and the original ones kick *** but I mean Mario Soccer, Mario Baseball, Mario DDR...that to me is going a little overboard. I am also sceptical about the revolution, not because of the power but because of the controller. It is unique, thats for sure but I think it might make all the games feel a bit more arcade like...plus I don't want to shell out $40 for all those stupid attachments to it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see though.

[Jonny]

Are you going to get New Super Mario Bros. for the DS?
Absolutely. One of the games I'm looking forward too the most.

[Amorpha]

Are you going to get New Super Mario Bros. for the DS?
I played demos of that last year when I played Twilight Princess demos

hooray for irrelevant boasting

[Jonny]

I played demos of that last year when I played Twilight Princess demos

hooray for irrelevant boasting
Was it good?

Edit: I don't know much about making games, but it's been in development for ages, hasn't it? And 2D games are pretty simple to make, so I reckon it's gonna be really long.

[Amorpha]

Was it good?

Edit: I don't know much about making games, but it's been in development for ages, hasn't it? And 2D games are pretty simple to make, so I reckon it's gonna be really long.
It was alright but didn't seem that polished, but then again this was back last summer. I think the game would have been average to good (maybe review scores around the 80s from the big US sites) if they didn't delay it so much, but i have very high hopes for it now.

By the way do you have MKDS and wireless internet? I need people to play against who don't suck.



edit: and the fact that it's 2D and has been in development for ages probably has little relevance on the length of the game, as they probably just made the game with a smaller dev team or spent ages fixing the engine to make it feel better.

[Jonny]

It was alright but didn't seem that polished, but then again this was back last summer. I think the game would have been average to good (maybe review scores around the 80s from the big US sites) if they didn't delay it so much, but i have very high hopes for it now.

By the way do you have MKDS and wireless internet? I need people to play against who don't suck.



edit: and the fact that it's 2D and has been in development for ages probably has little relevance on the length of the game, as they probably just made the game with a smaller dev team or spent ages fixing the engine to make it feel better.
I do, but my DS is at home and I'm at uni.

And the comment about the length was because 2D mario games are mostly scrolling backgrounds and the same style ground throughout each level- so it's not as difficult as crafting a full 3D world and all that. But I guess they will have a smaller team working on it. But I'm hoping it's at least as long as Mario World. Cos so many games recently have been really short.

[Amorpha]

I would have disgreed with you about the length, but I just saw some Famitsu scans from an updated build (November '05, here (http://www.jeux-france.com/images0_4_13083.html) and here (http://www.jeux-france.com/images1_4_13083.html)) and the backgrounds look pretty varied and nothing like any of the levels I played, so I guess there are a lot of worlds. The overall quality of the game seems to have improved too.

Also, you should get a USB gamepad (or an adapter for a cube/snes pad) and play this (http://www.musicianforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11354666&postcount=68) in the meantime.

[Timm]

my problem with nintendo right now is that they pushed the new zelda back once again. I know it's gonna be bloody brilliant but still :(

also for a lot of people it's about the coolness factor of a game and the more violent and gore-ish a game is the more it is considered "cool"
that's just the way it is right now among 12-17 year olds

[spitfirejunky]

Super Mario World still holds the record for most sales for a videogame of all time, doesn't it?

[PAJJ]

I thought it was tetris.

I like nintendo, they've alot all my favourite games, i don't see why there's so much hate, yeah things are brightly coloured and kiddy sometimes, but games like mario kart are amazingly good fun which is what it's all about.

[Jonny]

Super Mario World still holds the record for most sales for a videogame of all time, doesn't it?
Nah. Tetris has that record. Of course, the Mario series (Mario bros 1,2,3, Mario World, Yoshi's island, Super Mario 64 and Mario Sunshine... and maybe some more) is the best selling game franchise of all time. Or something like that, anyway.

[spitfirejunky]

Aaah OK.

[Chrysostom]

Nintendo have a great history but they should go the way of Sega and concentrate on games. Leave the consoles to the big boys (Sony and Microsoft).

[Jonny]

Nintendo have a great history but they should go the way of Sega and concentrate on games. Leave the consoles to the big boys (Sony and Microsoft).
What, exactly, makes Sony and Microsoft the ''big boys'' in comparison to a company with at least 15 years more experience than them?

[Chrysostom]

What, exactly, makes Sony and Microsoft the ''big boys'' in comparison to a company with at least 15 years more experience than them?

Well, essentially because their consoles have been better.

[spitfirejunky]

Nintendo has always been the master of gaming interfaces and controllers.

[PAJJ]

Nintendo have a great history but they should go the way of Sega and concentrate on games. Leave the consoles to the big boys (Sony and Microsoft).

I see what your saying, and you have a point, but if nintendo stops with the hardware, we won't get anywhere near as much inovation in that department, the only thing that'll really change if graphics.

[Jonny]

Well, essentially because their consoles have been better.
Opinion.


Nintendo makes more money than both of them in their gaming divisions: Fact.

[Chrysostom]

Opinion.


Nintendo makes more money than both of them in their gaming divisions: Fact.

Precisely why I said they should concentrate on making games not consoles: Fact.

[Mr. Ron]

Personally, I think all companies and their gaming divisions should consolidate into one big company. This would lower the prices of games, more people would be working on projects so the games would be out faster and be worked on more and stupid competition would be over with.

[Chrysostom]

Personally, I think all companies and their gaming divisions should consolidate into one big company. This would lower the prices of games, more people would be working on projects so the games would be out faster and be worked on more and stupid competition would be over with.

Interesting idea...

[Jonny]

Personally, I think all companies and their gaming divisions should consolidate into one big company. This would lower the prices of games, more people would be working on projects so the games would be out faster and be worked on more and stupid competition would be over with.
But with no competition, the market would stagnate pretty fast.

Precisely why I said they should concentrate on making games not consoles: Fact.
They make money on consoles too :p

[PAJJ]

Prices are more likely be lower with if there are different companies competing for your money.

[Mr. Ron]

Prices are more likely be lower with if there are different companies competing for your money.
Nah, the only reason why games are $50++ is because of competition.

[Jonny]

Nah, the only reason why games are $50++ is because of competition.
That makes no sense. With no competition, they could charge whatever they want.

When they have competition, they can each lower their prices to try and outdo the other companies.

[Chrysostom]

They make money on consoles too :p

Fair enough. :thumb:

[Mr. Ron]

That makes no sense. With no competition, they could charge whatever they want.

When they have competition, they can each lower their prices to try and outdo the other companies.
More competition means more ways to compete. Adverts....more magazine adds (even more if there wasn't competition) ect. So more money is spent to get it over on the other guy. If there was no competition, less money would be spent so the devlopers wouldn't have to drive the prices of games up to pay for it.

[Jonny]

More competition means more ways to compete. Adverts....more magazine adds (even more if there wasn't competition) ect. So more money is spent to get it over on the other guy. If there was no competition, less money would be spent so the devlopers wouldn't have to drive the prices of games up to pay for it.
So you're saying less competition would mean fewer adverts which would mean cheaper games?

Then how come some games have no adverts and still cost the same?

[Amorpha]

So you're saying less competition would mean fewer adverts which would mean cheaper games?

Then how come some games have no adverts and still cost the same?
If only one game existed no one would have any choice so it wouldn't have to be advertised at all!

..I don't really get it either

[Amit]

Nah, the only reason why games are $50++ is because of competition.

Dead, dead, DEAD wrong.

[eddie_the_great]

Mhz aren't everything.

And you're yet to find an exclusive Xbox game? :|:|:|:|

Try Halo 2 and Project Gotham Racing for starters.

I know they aren't everything, but since there are some people here who aren't too knowledgable on computers I figured it would be best to show it like that. The GC is also way more efficient than PS2 and XBox and uses little power.

I meant I haven't found an XBox exclusive game that I like yet, not that I haven't found any. I never saw why people enjoyed Halo that much, it's just another cliche sci fi shooter.

[Mr. Ron]

Dead, dead, DEAD wrong.
At least thats what I have heard. Yeah, i'm probably wrong. :(

[Arucard]

I find that most Nintendo haters are chav idiots who like to 'gun down dem blax and chinks' on GTA games instead.

[Chrysostom]

I find that most Nintendo haters are chav idiots who like to 'gun down dem blax and chinks' on GTA games instead.

:lol: I love it.

[smart blockhead]

I meant I haven't found an XBox exclusive game that I like yet, not that I haven't found any. I never saw why people enjoyed Halo that much, it's just another cliche sci fi shooter.
I totally agree about Halo, it must be the most overrated game ever. I mean it's ok but there are so many other shooting games and people act like it's the greatest game in the world.

[Illmatic]

I totally agree about Halo, it must be the most overrated game ever. I mean it's ok but there are so many other shooting games and people act like it's the greatest game in the world.

I love it because it's a fun game to play in multiplayer

[Mr. Ron]

Halo sucks for multiplayer. There are so many superior multiplayer FPS's.

[Lionheart1827]

Halo sucks for multiplayer. There are so many superior multiplayer FPS's.

I still think that Goldeneye is one of the best FPS games ever made. Perfect Dark and Counterstrike are other notables.:thumb:

[Reactor158]

I've never disliked Nintendo, but I've never really liked them a terrible lot either.

I can see why some people say their games are generally too kiddy, with few exceptions (that are usually available on other consoles).

The only Nintendo game that I have really enjoyed is Goldeneye, which was a superb FPS back on the 64. Oh and the Final Fantasy series prior to its move to Sony consoles.

My thoughts exactly, although I do really like Metroid Prime and Zelda:Wind Waker

[smart blockhead]

I think they definitely have a lot of good games:

The Legend of Zelda
Resident Evil
Super Mario Bros.
Wario Land
Metroid
Super Smash Bros.
Mario Kart

[Led-ZeppelinIV]

The Gamecube's controller may as well be a rabid armadillo, and 64 had a lot of shitty games. I have nothing against Nintendo, though. Contra III and Battle Tanx are some of my favourite games.

[smart blockhead]

The Gamecube's controller may as well be a rabid armadillo, and 64 had a lot of shitty games. I have nothing against Nintendo, though. Contra III and Battle Tanx are some of my favourite games.
How did the 64 have shitty games? Goldeneye, Ocarina of Time, Mario 64, Super Smash Bros., Banjo Kazooie, Majora's Mask, Starfox, Donkey Kong 64.

[Arucard]

I love it because it's a fun game to play in multiplayer

Yup, Halo 2 kicks alot of arse online, especially when you get into a great CTF game.

[Mr. Ron]

CS>any other multiplayer FPS.

[Led-ZeppelinIV]

How did the 64 have shitty games? Goldeneye, Ocarina of Time, Mario 64, Super Smash Bros., Banjo Kazooie, Majora's Mask, Starfox, Donkey Kong 64.
Yeah, those were good but about 80% were just lousy, stupid, forgettable games. The good N64 games were really good, though.

[Jonny]

The Gamecube's controller may as well be a rabid armadillo, and 64 had a lot of shitty games. I have nothing against Nintendo, though. Contra III and Battle Tanx are some of my favourite games.
Funny. Most people I know think the Gamecube controller is the most comfortable...

Yeah, those were good but about 80% were just lousy, stupid, forgettable games. The good N64 games were really good, though.
And every single game released on the Playstation was amazing and got over 80% in reviews.

[Master Arkam Kannon]

Yeah, those were good but about 80% were just lousy, stupid, forgettable games. The good N64 games were really good, though.

People complained that there werent enough games for the N64, so how could that many games be great and 80% be sh!tty. You're just a tool of misinformation. Unless youre confusing it with the original Playstatiton that made about 10% good games and hundreds others that were either fair to terrible.

Take that for skewing facts.

[Led-ZeppelinIV]

People complained that there werent enough games for the N64, so how could that many games be great and 80% be sh!tty. You're just a tool of misinformation. Unless youre confusing it with the original Playstatiton that made about 10% good games and hundreds others that were either fair to terrible.

Take that for skewing facts.
I'm not trying to start a relgious argument, in fact I really like nintendo, I'm just saying that there were a lot of bad games for N64. If you're inclined to disagree, that's fine.

[Jonny]

I'm not trying to start a relgious argument, in fact I really like nintendo, I'm just saying that there were a lot of bad games for N64. If you're inclined to disagree, that's fine.
He's not disagreeing. He's just telling you that it's the same for any console. I reckon the ratio for good:bad games for PS and N64 is about the same.

[Illmatic]

I think they definitely have a lot of good games:

The Legend of Zelda
Resident Evil
Super Mario Bros.
Wario Land
Metroid
Super Smash Bros.
Mario Kart

Yeah the thing is, they'll release a Mario or a Zelda game, then for a few years until they make another one you're stuck with next to nothing.

And can someone tell me what the **** Wario Land is?

CS>any other multiplayer FPS.

If you like being in the same room as the people you're playing with, then no, you're completely wrong.

Also, I love how all the big game fans are up in arms about how somebody like me who doesn't really play games can pick up Halo and like it. Don't take it out on the game, guys.

[MBS]

Banjo Kazooie

Such an excellent game. :cool: Too bad that Rare belongs to Microsoft now so all Rare games are going on the Xbox/ xbox360. If they make a banjo-kazooie game for xbox, I'm gonna cry. :(

[smart blockhead]

Yeah the thing is, they'll release a Mario or a Zelda game, then for a few years until they make another one you're stuck with next to nothing.
I've never had the problem with having "next to nothing." What great games are there for PS2 that aren't on another console?
And can someone tell me what the **** Wario Land is?
See, you don't even know what you're talking about.

[Chrysostom]

What great games are there for PS2 that aren't on another console?

Red Faction.

Devil May Cry.

Dirge of Cerberus.

There's a ton.

[Ganondorf]

Red Faction is on PC

[Chrysostom]

Red Faction is on PC

I kinda guessed as much. :upset: