[Deleted]

[SSJoseph]

[Deleted]

[Sentenal]

I agree on #5, #4, #2 is inaccurate, and agree with #1 more than you can possible imagine.

For #3, I loved Mario Sunshine.  Did you play it?  The game was great!  It wasn't as major as Mario 64, but it was still a very good game.  And it didn't hurt.

As for #2, the GameCube was released the same month as the XBox, a year after the PS2.  I don't think that year hurt the XBox, rather, it was the games that hurt it.  Also, being the first doesn't mean the best.  Didn't the Sega Genesis and TurboGraphics 16 come out before the SNES, the greatest console ever?

[teh Schala]

#5 should be tied with #1 in my opinion.  I originally bought a GameCube for one reason: Metroid Prime.  Later, I realized that Metroid Prime was the ONLY reason I had bought my GameCube.

[Hadriel]

OK, Well I been doing some research on Nintendo.
And I found out alot of things that bothered me.
I gathered up some huge mistakes that nintendo made in the past.
And for you guys, I will list my TOP 5 Favorite mistakes of Nintendo...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Staying Young.

This is #5 on the list, and if you look through the ages...nintendo never grew up.
As we all can see, Sony and Sega grew with the ages (IE. Sega: Soul Calibur...Sony: Many games)

But nintendo just kept releasing games for E-T and maybe 10 M games (none of which developed by them)

Which is why we complain now about the gamecube.
We all used to love the older games, but we grew.
Nintendo Didn't



4. Ow...Red headache in 3D

Game Boy creator Gunpei Yokoi had an idea one day, and he called it the Virtual Boy.
Now even though you play in actual 3D...it was butt ugly and hard to use.
Not to mention the red colors...uhg.

Sure its very innovative at the time but still after 30 minutes or so it gives you the worlds biggest headache ever.
Did I mention the super slower-then-doom 20MHz processor?
and the 1MB of ram also?



3. Mario and his hose...

OK, Super Mario sunshine?
Who dosn't agree with me that it was a huge mistake.

Did nintendo just say "Lets give him a hose, and have the princess go on vacation with him....and somehow Bowser is there, it will be a hit"

WRONG!



2. 2 Years after PS2

This may have been the reason why no one truley plays a Gamecube other then hardcore gamers, and children.

They launched there system almost 2 years after the PS2 released theres.
Huge mistake nintendo



1. Next time someone tells you CD's are the future, tell them to shut up.

You know...sony used to be affiliated with nintendo.
In fact, they were develeoping a supercharged add-on to the 16-bit Super NES.
Nintendo said in a public announcment the following statement "Next time someone tells you that Compact Disk are the future, tell them to stop talking."
Sony realized that nothing was stopping them from releasing PlayStation independently....and well you know what h[appened with that now dont we.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5) You're following a stereotype here.  The PS2 and the Xbox have close to the same percentage of E and T-rated games as the GCN does.  I might also remind you that multiple Resident Evil games as well as Eternal Darkness, quite possibly the greatest survival horror game of our age, are GameCube exclusives.  Eternal Darkness was developed by Silicon Knights in conjuction with Nintendo; the big N was not merely the publisher.

4) I'll concede this one.

3) The sales figures for Super Mario Sunshine beg to differ with you.

2) The GCN's still made a decent showing for itself in spite of every difficulty you claim, at times taking number one in the console wars.

1) Everyone who's anyone in gaming is well aware of this.  Going by the technology of the time, Nintendo was right.  Compared to cartridges, which had no load times and faster response, CDs were sluggish.  In addition, they were fragile, whereas Nintendo's products are practically indestructible.  Only with the advent of DVD technology did optical media attain true quality.

For every criticism you can level against Nintendo, I can level a much weightier one against Sony or Microsoft.  However, I hate Sony more, so I'll go with them.

-------------------------------------------

5) Sony's choice of gaming has ruined diversity and creativity in the gaming market.  One needs only to look at the vast supply of GTA knock-offs and EA Sports titles to understand why.  That doesn't even mention the tasteless atrocity known as the SpikeTV Video Game Awards, which has Sony's flaccid penis in its collective throat.

4) The Sony PSP is getting the shit kicked out of it by Nintendo's portable market dominance.

3) Final Fantasy VIII, X-2, and arguably IX.  That's something of a diss against Square-Enix as well, but it remains a fact that for the most part, they're still entrenched with Sony.  This trend will only be reversed when the next-gen FF game appears on all three consoles.

2) The PS2 is one of the least durable pieces of equipment out there.  I might also remind you that in general, PlayStation games are shit.

1) Why, oh why does the PS2 not have 4 controller ports?

[Sentenal]

Hadriel, dispite those marks agianst Sony, they are appearently doing SOMETHING right to gain dominance.  Being the first to move to CDs made Square jump ship, and IMO, it was Square that destroyed the N64, not Sony.

I wouldn't say that Sony's choice of games ruined diversity and creativity.  With the PSX having a cheaper medium than cartridges, allowed more devolpers to make games for them, so more knock-offs and copies.  Sony themselves have made some innovative games, such as The Mark of Kri, which IMO is a very good game.

But lets hope there is something about the Revolution to claim Nintendo's title back.  I think they made a bad decision by making the hardware not up to spec with the other 2...

[DeweyisOverrated]

I think Nintendo's main thing is that they're too stuck up to listen to anyone but the few main people at the top of their ladder.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a Nintendo fanboy.  But they could take some hints.  Mainly, put some freaking high-def support in the Revolution!

[saridon]

i don't hate nintendo at all, but one thing that they should do in my opinion is... KILL MARIO and make Link or Samus the mascot

[V_Translanka]

Samus for the kill! An asskicking female mascot would rock way harder than a mustached, plumber guy O_o

5. Staying Young.

Anyways...I don't think that they should have followed Sony & Microsoft in trying to make "older" games because, well, that market is obviously already tapped with both of those respective companies. Nintendo OWNS the youth and party game market. And even with Sony's (much better) PSP system out, they still have a firm grasp on the handheld market as well (not to mention ALWAYS HAVE).

4. Ow...Red headache in 3D

Virtual Boy was a mistake, and they realized it pretty quick...I mean, how long was it even on the market? I only remember it out for a few months or so...They were just experimenting w/new technology. I never blame companies for trying new things, no matter how rediculous.

3. Mario and his hose...

I don't really know about Mario Sunshine. I heard it was fun and that's basically all I ever want out of Mario. I mean, can you truly make him any more rediculous? Nope. You could dress him up like a clown for all I care...Mario will always be Mario no matter what they give him as a new weapon or w/e whakky situations they put him in.

2. 2 Years after PS2

Late releases can often be good things. I think it worked out for Gamecube since they became the less expensive of the "Big Three". Late releases also means finer tuned systems (which is why PS3 will still win when it comes out after XBOX 360 ). And since Nintendo does so many of it's own games, it doesn't really have to worry much about developers jumping on other systems prematurely.

1. Next time someone tells you CD's are the future, tell them to shut up.

Nintendo kept up w/CDs as long as they could. They truely advanced upon cart technology (hello handhelds!) and made remarkable advances. But w/the advent usage of blue lasers now, they're now forced to make that jump.

I think something missing from the list would be the feud w/Squaresoft that Nintendo had. This made Nintendo severely lacking in the RPG market for years. When Squaresoft went to Sony I knew that Nintendo's reign had come to an end...the crown passed to a new generation.

But honestly, I think we'll all do to remember that Nintendo is not Sony nor is Nintendo Microsoft and it's especially not that blundering Sega. Nintendo is Nintendo.

[Radical_Dreamer]

I think Nintendo's main thing is that they're too stuck up to listen to anyone but the few main people at the top of their ladder.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a Nintendo fanboy.  But they could take some hints.  Mainly, put some freaking high-def support in the Revolution!

Why should Nintendo spend money to include a feature that less than 10% of people are going to be able to use throughout the life of the system? Are Nintendo and Microsoft foolhardy for using 9gig dual-layer DVDs while Sony is going for 30gig Blu-rays? No, of course not. Sony will be paying a heavy premium for those drives (and disks...well, actually, You the Consumer will), and it'll seriously ramp up the cost of buisneuss.

Now if the system AFTER the Revolution doesn't have high def, that'd probably be a fool move, but that'll all depend on what percentage households have high def (and how high? There are several high def resolutions) t.v.s.

[DeweyisOverrated]

I think Nintendo's main thing is that they're too stuck up to listen to anyone but the few main people at the top of their ladder.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a Nintendo fanboy.  But they could take some hints.  Mainly, put some freaking high-def support in the Revolution!

Why should Nintendo spend money to include a feature that less than 10% of people are going to be able to use throughout the life of the system? Are Nintendo and Microsoft foolhardy for using 9gig dual-layer DVDs while Sony is going for 30gig Blu-rays? No, of course not. Sony will be paying a heavy premium for those drives (and disks...well, actually, You the Consumer will), and it'll seriously ramp up the cost of buisneuss.

Now if the system AFTER the Revolution doesn't have high def, that'd probably be a fool move, but that'll all depend on what percentage households have high def (and how high? There are several high def resolutions) t.v.s.

Here's the thing.  I would agree with you, generally.  But Nintendo has been wrong how many times speaking about the features their next-gen consoles aren't going to have?

I think the option should at least be INCLUDED.  You can always NOT have the game run in high-def.  Plus, its gonna kill a lot of business for Nintendo in the 3rd party market.  For example, let's take the Madden series.  Now, EA is most likely gonna put this in high-definition.  The games are going to be the exact same price across the consoles, regardless.  Now, why would anyone in their right mind buy it for Revolution, when they can get it for the same price WITH high-def for ps3 or 360?  Pretty much no one will.  So is EA going to waste their time re-writing the code for a system that the game will bomb on?  Nope.

Basically, Revolution is going to be good for exclusives, but that's it.  (whether they be from Nintendo, or 3rd party exclusives).

[Sentenal]

I think Nintendo's main thing is that they're too stuck up to listen to anyone but the few main people at the top of their ladder.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a Nintendo fanboy.  But they could take some hints.  Mainly, put some freaking high-def support in the Revolution!

Why should Nintendo spend money to include a feature that less than 10% of people are going to be able to use throughout the life of the system? Are Nintendo and Microsoft foolhardy for using 9gig dual-layer DVDs while Sony is going for 30gig Blu-rays? No, of course not. Sony will be paying a heavy premium for those drives (and disks...well, actually, You the Consumer will), and it'll seriously ramp up the cost of buisneuss.

Now if the system AFTER the Revolution doesn't have high def, that'd probably be a fool move, but that'll all depend on what percentage households have high def (and how high? There are several high def resolutions) t.v.s.

Here's the thing.  I would agree with you, generally.  But Nintendo has been wrong how many times speaking about the features their next-gen consoles aren't going to have?

I think the option should at least be INCLUDED.  You can always NOT have the game run in high-def.  Plus, its gonna kill a lot of business for Nintendo in the 3rd party market.  For example, let's take the Madden series.  Now, EA is most likely gonna put this in high-definition.  The games are going to be the exact same price across the consoles, regardless.  Now, why would anyone in their right mind buy it for Revolution, when they can get it for the same price WITH high-def for ps3 or 360?  Pretty much no one will.  So is EA going to waste their time re-writing the code for a system that the game will bomb on?  Nope.

Basically, Revolution is going to be good for exclusives, but that's it.  (whether they be from Nintendo, or 3rd party exclusives).

Even if the option is simply included, and not made standard, it still ramps up the cost of the console.

[Radical_Dreamer]

I think Nintendo's main thing is that they're too stuck up to listen to anyone but the few main people at the top of their ladder.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a Nintendo fanboy.  But they could take some hints.  Mainly, put some freaking high-def support in the Revolution!

Why should Nintendo spend money to include a feature that less than 10% of people are going to be able to use throughout the life of the system? Are Nintendo and Microsoft foolhardy for using 9gig dual-layer DVDs while Sony is going for 30gig Blu-rays? No, of course not. Sony will be paying a heavy premium for those drives (and disks...well, actually, You the Consumer will), and it'll seriously ramp up the cost of buisneuss.

Now if the system AFTER the Revolution doesn't have high def, that'd probably be a fool move, but that'll all depend on what percentage households have high def (and how high? There are several high def resolutions) t.v.s.

Here's the thing.  I would agree with you, generally.  But Nintendo has been wrong how many times speaking about the features their next-gen consoles aren't going to have?

I think the option should at least be INCLUDED.  You can always NOT have the game run in high-def.  Plus, its gonna kill a lot of business for Nintendo in the 3rd party market.  For example, let's take the Madden series.  Now, EA is most likely gonna put this in high-definition.  The games are going to be the exact same price across the consoles, regardless.  Now, why would anyone in their right mind buy it for Revolution, when they can get it for the same price WITH high-def for ps3 or 360?  Pretty much no one will.  So is EA going to waste their time re-writing the code for a system that the game will bomb on?  Nope.

Basically, Revolution is going to be good for exclusives, but that's it.  (whether they be from Nintendo, or 3rd party exclusives).

The fundamental flaw in your argument is your assumption that most people will have high definition tvs. This is simply not true. Yes, many games on the PS3, and all games on the Xbox360 will support higher resolutions than the 480p that the Revolution will support. Speaking of which, Microsoft is requiring all games from the Xbox360 to support 720 (I forget if it's 720i or 720p) resolution. Sounds pretty nice, right? Wrong. The Revolution and the 360 both have the same size disks, so that means less room for content on the 360. Sure, it's nice if you have a tv that can support it, but for most people, they're going to be losing out because the disk will be filled with images they can't use. Some benefit that is.

[CatchRBFivy]

I think something missing from the list would be the feud w/Squaresoft that Nintendo had. This made Nintendo severely lacking in the RPG market for years. When Squaresoft went to Sony I knew that Nintendo's reign had come to an end...the crown passed to a new generation.

AGREED!  Got to post it before me though....

[DeweyisOverrated]

The fundamental flaw in your argument is your assumption that most people will have high definition tvs. This is simply not true. Yes, many games on the PS3, and all games on the Xbox360 will support higher resolutions than the 480p that the Revolution will support. Speaking of which, Microsoft is requiring all games from the Xbox360 to support 720 (I forget if it's 720i or 720p) resolution. Sounds pretty nice, right? Wrong. The Revolution and the 360 both have the same size disks, so that means less room for content on the 360. Sure, it's nice if you have a tv that can support it, but for most people, they're going to be losing out because the disk will be filled with images they can't use. Some benefit that is.

I agree with some of your statements.  The flaws in high-def are that the framerate can often drop below an acceptable level.  I'm actually shocked XBOX360 is REQUIRING that, thats stupid.  I still think it should be an OPTION.  Some companies want that, some don't.  If they want it, then they have it.  If not, no problemo.

I'd really like to see how much a high-def output would cost per unit for Revoultion.  Keep in mind, Revolution probably won't be coming out till late 2006, so it will drop a little bit from its current price.  I personally would be willing to pay an extra $50 (assuming the Revolution's going to be $200, making it $250) for High-def, as I would be able to use it.  The way I see it, I have about 35 GC games, a good deal of which were bought for $50 anyway.

Although, I do understand that that extra $50 might drive a large casual audience away, which is exactly what Nintendo is trying to get a hold of.

[Radical_Dreamer]

The fundamental flaw in your argument is your assumption that most people will have high definition tvs. This is simply not true. Yes, many games on the PS3, and all games on the Xbox360 will support higher resolutions than the 480p that the Revolution will support. Speaking of which, Microsoft is requiring all games from the Xbox360 to support 720 (I forget if it's 720i or 720p) resolution. Sounds pretty nice, right? Wrong. The Revolution and the 360 both have the same size disks, so that means less room for content on the 360. Sure, it's nice if you have a tv that can support it, but for most people, they're going to be losing out because the disk will be filled with images they can't use. Some benefit that is.

I agree with some of your statements.  The flaws in high-def are that the framerate can often drop below an acceptable level.  I'm actually shocked XBOX360 is REQUIRING that, thats stupid.  I still think it should be an OPTION.  Some companies want that, some don't.  If they want it, then they have it.  If not, no problemo.

I'd really like to see how much a high-def output would cost per unit for Revoultion.  Keep in mind, Revolution probably won't be coming out till late 2006, so it will drop a little bit from its current price.  I personally would be willing to pay an extra $50 (assuming the Revolution's going to be $200, making it $250) for High-def, as I would be able to use it.  The way I see it, I have about 35 GC games, a good deal of which were bought for $50 anyway.

Although, I do understand that that extra $50 might drive a large casual audience away, which is exactly what Nintendo is trying to get a hold of.

$50 is beyond extra, it's absurd. Adding 25% to the cost of the system (assuming the $200 price point) for a feature that, at best, 10% of the system oweners can use is absolutely insane.