I'm late to the party, but I'll try and catch up.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']It's the only one that's truly next-gen.[/QUOTE]
Bingo
[quote name='Zoglog']eck metroid prime games were a trainwreck. And like gamecube the only game to look forward to for the rev would be smash bros. But would the rev controller really make smash bros more fun? I doubt it....
Nintendo is content on being 3rd, but whether they like it or not generation moves and so does the industry so they are in competition for marketshare. Fanboys don't determine the market, sales do. There has already been the study that shows that hardcore fanboys don't move the market, the casual gamer does.
And that metroid prime 2 screenshot looks strictly Gamecube. There is nothing there that previous gen hasnt done with RE4 or Colossus. You have none of the next gen effects present.
if you need a reference
[/QUOTE]
First of all, your comment on the MP games is, from an objective standpoint, entirely incorrect. Based on
96 reviews Metroid Prime has an average score of 96% with no scores under the 80 range. Metroid Prime 2 has an average score of 92% after
70 reviews with no scores under the 70 range. Hardly what anyone would consider a trainwreck. If they didn't suit your personal taste, that's one thing. But to call them a trainwreck when the evidence shows quite the opposite is erroneous.
As for your "reference" images, those are called Targets.
Remember this target for Madden on the 360?
They did a good job, but not quite that nice:
More importantly, however, is the notion we've been fed that prettier graphics make a new generation. The jumps in quality, in terms of graphics, are shrinking. We will never see another jump like we did between the Playstation and the Dreamcast. That was the last true generational shift. Everything from that point on has been a steady stream of polishing. What we are left with to decide generations is innovation. Nintendo is the only company doing that. Sure, Tony Hawk 15 will look better than Tony Hawk 3, but will it be all that much more entertaining? Will we see a lot of "Tech Demo" games at first on the Revolution? Probably. But will we eventually see some very innovative games down the road? Definitely.
[quote name='furyk']The one advantage the Revolution does have though is price. There are enough casual gamers out there that would buy a Revolution just for Smash Brothers, a new Zelda, and the Nintendo back catalogue at 100 or even 150 that wouldn't touch it at 300 or 400. I like the idea of the system being so cheap that rather then having a PS3, Xbox 360, or Revolution people will think of the Revolution as their secondary system the same way practically everyone had a Game Boy or a GBA. It's an interesting approach to the market that hopefully will succeed.[/QUOTE]
This is another reason Nintendo will succeed. Sony and Microsoft, by having consoles and games becoming increasingly more expensive, are limiting sales to a certain extent. Casual gamers aren't going to buy a $400 console and then lots of games to make up for Microsoft's loss on the console price. Hardcore gamers are the ones who buy the games that recover financial losses for the company. Casual gamers will buy the Maddens, the Halos, etc., but they're looking at maybe 2 to 6 games a year at most. Nintendo is making the Revolution affordable to the point that a casual gamer could potentially walk into a store and take home a console, an extra controller and a couple games for the price of just an Xbox 360 with no games.
[quote name='sonderiaom']The interesting thing that I've noticed is that the majority of people are moaning and complaining about the graphics of the games that could likely coming out for the revolution. I know, personally that because the developers are working on graphics more and more, the stories have gone to the dogs. With the knowledge that we'd have the WHOLE FRICKIN NINTENDO BACKLOG means that we'd have access to Secret of Mana, Final Fantasy 3, Breath of Fire, etc.
Another thing that people have failed to mention is that with M$ losing around $240 each 360 console they sell (if it's wrong, tell me and I'll fix it), they're hoping to god that everyone buys every single mediocore launch title to make up that. With the revolution however, I don't see how they can be at too much of a loss on the console itself, (they haven't said really); but the Snes, Nes, GB, etc, games are ALL PROFIT. All they have to do is put it on their network and people can download them. There is no middleman distributors that would get any cash, no stores to pay off to give shelfspace; it's all downloadable. Now, spank me if I'm wrong, but I know that people who have a 360, seem to be playing the games that they bought for $5 on Live Arcade about equal to to the games they have bought for $60. What does that tell you right there?[/QUOTE]
I agree on your point about story taking a backseat to graphics. Whether or not we get games with good stories on the Revolution is up to the developers, but the fact that Nintendo is not succumbing to graphics-whore fever is heartening.
And, back to the financial point, as sonderiaom pointed out, Nintendo has built in a direct profit pipeline with their online backlog. Yes, XB Live has the Arcade, but this is Nintendo's backlog, not generic games you can already play for free online from your PC. In addition to being nearly pure profit, it also attracts older former and casual gamers who have drifted away from gaming for whatever reason. Nostalgia is a very powerful factor.
And that, my friends, wraps up my longest post ever.
ing cute I must pet him. Is he really yours?
D
