Every other Nintendo console is a revolutionary console. The console after that improves on the console.

Talk about Nintendo, Xbox, PlayStation and other Sega game consoles here.
escoutdril54
noob
Posts: 1

Every other Nintendo console is a revolutionary console. The console after that improves on the console.

Post#1 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 4:57 am

The NES saved the industry and the SNES improved on the NES by having better graphics. The N64 introduced 3D games and the GameCube had better graphics. The Wii introduced motion controls and the Wii U was Nintendo's first HD console. Finally, the switch is the first hybrid console. Has anyone else noticed this pattern?

User avatar
mazonemayu
Agent Provocateur
Posts: 3953

Re: Every other Nintendo console is a revolutionary console. The console after that improves on the console.

Post#2 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 5:24 am

1) only if you lived in america, the rest of the world did not have a videogame industry crash, it thrived just as good as ever
2) is obviously true
3) the sega cd already did this to an extent (bonus areas in sonic cd), so did the jaguar and everything that came after, the n64 just improved on it
4) the dreamcast also has motion controls
5) the wii u’s maximum resolution is 720p, this is called “hd ready”, it is not hd...
We are SEGA generation.

sunnshine
shadow
Posts: 11

Re: Every other Nintendo console is a revolutionary console. The console after that improves on the console.

Post#3 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 5:46 am

Hmm. I think Nintendo's business model was a little more sustainable than Sega's and there is a certain something about Nintendo games in the same way there's a different kind of something with Sega's games. Sega sickened people by trying to rinse them with crappy hardware add-ons every few years though, that certainly won't have helped things.

You can waffle on about tech specs or whatever but ultimately it comes down to the games on the system, I'm just getting into PS2 stuff now and, man, there are some absolute belters on there and a lot of it should have been on the DC as well. Sega really dropped the ball by not putting the Model 1, 2 & 3 games out on the DC.

User avatar
Roareye
Vagabond
Posts: 722
Contact:

Re: Every other Nintendo console is a revolutionary console. The console after that improves on the console.

Post#4 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:23 am

No, because some of those effects are exclusive to regions and some are not particularly accurate.

NES saved the American gaming industry, in the UK in particular the Commodore Amiga, Amstrad and BBC Micro filled the space more easily. This was the reason the NES was not such a trailblazer in the UK as much as it was in the USA. Nintendo's apathetic attitude to the PAL market was also a major reason why SEGA established a stronghold with the Master System, which continued with the Mega Drive outpacing the SNES in this region. There's no doubt the NES saved the home console industry in America, and that created major waves felt around the world, but the fawning of the NES as the industry saviour has always been a very American sentiment in my experience. I would say Nintendo's revolution with the NES came with the console's in-built screen scrolling, showcased in Super Mario Bros. It took home computers nearly a decade to replicate it.

The fact the SNES was better graphically than the NES is not revolutionary. Every console released is generally better in terms of raw power than its predecessor. Even failed consoles have this strength, the Amiga CD32 was more powerful than most Amiga computers released 5-8 years prior. It didn't make it successful. The revolutionary idea with the SNES was the FX Chip to boost the performance of some games without impacting the price of the console itself or other games which didn't need it. Overall the most revolutionary aspect to the SNES was the Playstation, with Nintendo screwing over Sony to the point where Sony destroyed the competition in the next generation. In fact it's clear Sony was very bitter with Nintendo as they developed so many games for the Sega Mega CD, even after the add-on was clearly not going to survive. It likely gave them a test run for their upcoming home console. I'll agree the SNES itself is not overly revolutionary, but sometimes it's not necessary for a console to be revolutionary to be superb.

The N64 didn't introduce 3D gaming. 3D gaming existed on the SNES via the FX Unit, the Mega Drive had the SVP Chip version of Virtua Racing, Arcades had dabbled in 3D gameplay since the late 1970s and by the time the N64 released both the Saturn and Playstation were on the market with 3D gaming in full swing. The revolution wasn't so much in 3D gaming being introduced, but how Nintendo created and streamlined said games. Super Mario 64 was much more freeform than any game before it, but most of the N64's greatest 3D titles were British. Banjo Kazooie is arguably better than Super Mario 64, Diddy Kong Racing was full-3D as opposed to the 2D sprites of Mario Kart 64, and Goldeneye revolutionised FPS shooters on console and (in my opinion) beat PC FPS titles at the time. PC titles had more power, but the games were shallow Doom clones with the only objective being to murder everything and reach the goal. Goldeneye added objectives and that gorgeous 4 player mode. Perfect Dark is still unrivalled on any platform for the number of multiplayer modes, with 2 player co-op (with additional bot players), 4 way multiplayer (with 8 rival bots in any configuration and AI type) and a counter-operative mode not seen since in any games title. Rare made the N64, arguably more than Nintendo themselves.

The GameCube was a superb bit of kit, with hardware-generated fur affects accessible from the graphics card as well as water effects. This meant the same game on GC vs even home PCs often looked better on GameCube (at least in terms of those specific effects). Nintendo killed it too soon with the horrid "Nintendo Difference", where they released more games in a shorter space of time, with Miyamoto in charge of basically all of them. We ended up with cut down and less impressive games such as Wind Waker (cut down), Mario Kart Double Dash (worst racing game) and a clear abandonment of the Gamecube - not unlike SEGA abandoning the Saturn.

The Wii introduced motion controls, but under the hood it was essentially a Gamecube. In fact on first revealing the "Revolution", someone snapped some photos of the podium the console sat on, and the Revolution was simply an empty box with lights, the wires went into a Gamecube underneath which ran all the hardware. The Wii was a horrid, and frankly gross machine. Morbidly out of date, Nintendo even dropped the component mode the Gamecube had so the Wii was a massive downgrade in terms of screen resolution. The motion controls were below par, with an add-on having to be released a few years in to try and keep the controls actually working. It was shovelware, no better than those AtGames controllers you plug direct to your TV. Game developers knew it too, and it was a machine filled with shovelware. I literally can't even look a the thing nowadays. If anything the Wii was a major step backwards in gaming, and the only revolution it brought was marketing to the Karen market. I'm not against that, the more the merrier as far as games are concerned, but the console was awful.

The WiiU was a bad marketing move. Calling it the WiiU to capitalise on the Wii's name didn't work, and here's why. People who game a lot didn't really like the Wii, for the reasons I outlined above. The massive new market that Nintendo managed to grab with the Wii? They're the type to see the Wii U and respond with "But I already have a Wii." They don't generally care about the next best thing, they don't care about the console legacy or keeping up with the latest tech (if they even wanted current gen tech, they wouldn't have bought a Wii - composite output? In 2006? HDMI was out at that point, component was standard... whatever). I never really got to play the Wii U, but I didn't see anything revolutionary in it. It was definitely an improvement to the Wii in technical terms, but it's now obsolete. I'm pretty sure every title released on the Wii U is now on Switch.

Switch. I had one of these briefly (had to sell it to pay bills due to a motorbike accident a few years ago :( ) and I enjoyed it. It wasn't as revolutionary as I'd hoped, but then I was never going to use it's key selling point of being portable. I don't like portable gaming, so it was only ever going to be a home console. The games were good though, which goes to show the old Nintendo magic wasn't gone after the Wii years. I would be happy to say this is revolutionary as a hybrid console.

Sega were far more revolutionary IMO, at least in terms of hardware. The problem with SEGA was they would come up with a revolutionary idea and make it a single add-on product. Then they'd have another idea and it'd be a second add-on unit. And then a third. Then they'd make a unique variant of their console with that revolutionary idea, but only for that expensive standalone console. The Dreamcast is unique for SEGA in that the Saturn had few radical variants (Outside of the Hi-Saturn Navi with the built-in satnav) so most of the new concepts pretty much saw themselves fully offered in a complete Dreamcast package.
The Mark III/Master System had the FM Sound Unit, which vastly improved the sound. It was only released in Japan.
The Mega Drive had shed loads. CD Gaming (Mega CD), 3D Gaming (SVP Chip), Karaoke Capabilities (Wondermega), Wireless Controllers (Wondermega II - the US version called X'Eye removed this feature!), portable "hybrid" console concept (MultiMega).
The Saturn had a couple of oddities, some became more standard in later machines. Video Disc playback (VCD functionality with the MPEG Card in Japan and PAL territories - later machines allowed for DVDs and now Blu-Ray), Sega Net (online gaming - Japan only, not out of box), Satnav (Hi-Saturn Navi, no idea why haha)
The Dreamcast had online out of the box, Broadband later, VGA Output (Sega have always been fantastic with high quality console outputs, puts Nintendo to shame in this area), Karaoke with downloadable tracks (with the add-on unit), Maracas (first add-on musical instrument), fishing rod, web browsers, portable gaming units (VMU), online chat (microphone, game specific), mouse & keyboard gaming. It turns out there were unused features the DC was prepped for but not implemented too. Hard Drive was planned (later appeared on Xbox), dual thumbstick controls (later seen on PS2), dual d-pads (nobody has ever done this haha), VCD playback (some software can be downloaded to allow it).


I love Nintendo, I still regularly enjoy my N64 and Gamecube, and I have a lot of love for the NES. But I do feel they are unfairly praised in the US, because the hail of praise they receive doesn't match the experiences I've had in the UK. That being said, Nintendo are often a superb company. The only time I would refuse to accept them as a quality console manufacturer or games company is during the Wii era - absolute trash games, a cheap and trash piece of hardware. I'd have bought it only to play Gamecube games on it, which was pointless because my Gamecube had a higher quality output than the Wii - so it would have only been a major step backwards. N64 is one of my favourite consoles of all time.

2koolpa
photon blast
Posts: 112

Re: Every other Nintendo console is a revolutionary console. The console after that improves on the console.

Post#5 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:44 am

Roareye wrote:The only time I would refuse to accept them as a quality console manufacturer or games company is during the Wii era - absolute trash games, a cheap and trash piece of hardware.


An ignorant take. The fact that so much shovelware was made for the console only proves how successful and highly regarded the Wii was. The ps2 had just as much shovelware as the Wii but nobody says the same things about it. If a console sells so much that it's almost literally in every single homes living room then game companies are going to capitalize on that and throw as much crap at it as possible.

How that diminishes that quality of the console overall or the quality of the games that came out to GET so many people to buy it I will never understand.

I could name many incredible Wii games. Whether you personally like them or not is subjective. But you can not objectively say these examples are low quality, trash games.

User avatar
mazonemayu
Agent Provocateur
Posts: 3953

Re: Every other Nintendo console is a revolutionary console. The console after that improves on the console.

Post#6 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:07 am

2koolpa wrote:
I could name many incredible Wii games. Whether you personally like them or not is subjective.


You contradict yourself here, because you finding those games incredible, is subjective too :mrgreen:
We are SEGA generation.

User avatar
Roareye
Vagabond
Posts: 722
Contact:

Re: Every other Nintendo console is a revolutionary console. The console after that improves on the console.

Post#7 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 7:09 am

2koolpa wrote:
Roareye wrote:The only time I would refuse to accept them as a quality console manufacturer or games company is during the Wii era - absolute trash games, a cheap and trash piece of hardware.


An ignorant take. The fact that so much shovelware was made for the console only proves how successful and highly regarded the Wii was. The ps2 had just as much shovelware as the Wii but nobody says the same things about it. If a console sells so much that it's almost literally in every single homes living room then game companies are going to capitalize on that and throw as much crap at it as possible.

How that diminishes that quality of the console overall or the quality of the games that came out to GET so many people to buy it I will never understand.

I could name many incredible Wii games. Whether you personally like them or not is subjective. But you can not objectively say these examples are low quality, trash games.

I already stated that the Wii hardware was garbage and stated why. Shovelware isn't the reason for that, that's just poor design. The fact it is a Gamecube with lower output quality doesn't justify it as a new console at full price several years later. My take is not ignorant, it's taste based on the facts of the hardware itself.

I actually do not like the PS2 either. The difference is I've not played one because the graphical output is awful. It's a blurry mess. However the PS2 had a gaming market it was advertising to, and grabbed a core market of people actually into the gaming scene. The Wii did not. The Wii did something revolutionary in regards to who it marketed to - it sold to the elusive "I won't buy a games console" crowd. The proof was in the Wii U's launch, when almost the entire Wii playerbase seemed to drop off the face of the Earth and the Wii U sold less machines in two years than the Sega Dreamcast did. Nintendo relied on people upgrading their Wii to a Wii U. Outside of stout Nintendo fans, nobody who bought a Wii saw any point. They owned a Wii, they didn't need a second one. The downside of grabbing an ignorant market is that they don't follow you, out of ignorance. They're not repeatable sales. Again, proven in history by the Wii and Wii U.

Nintendo released some good games for the Wii. Nintendo always had a knack for that, still do. Outside of their "Nintendo Difference" era, they are generally consistent as some of the best game developers out there. However unlike the N64 era where each unique title was able to stand out and shine, several titles of quality were lost in the quagmire of the shovelware on the Wii. Especially those developed by people outside of Nintendo such as No More Heroes and Mad World.

And again, the hardware made any of these games look worse than they would have looked on a Gamecube. Ironically the initial post stated the SNES was graphically superior to the NES and I stated that was a given. But when I said that I hadn't yet reached the Gamecube to Wii debacle. It stands as the only time in gaming history I can think of where graphical quality went DOWN from one generation to the next. Sure the Wii had basically the same power as the GC, but outputting that via composite blurred and smeared the visual clarity into a total mess. This would be the second time Nintendo downgraded the output of a system too. The SNES had RGB capabilities but the N64 was composite only - the only reason it barely noticed was because of the jump from 2D to 3D. Had the N64 run more traditional 2D titles it would have looked worse than the SNES in terms of visual output, even with the extra power of the console. At least the N64 had additional power for 2D gaming and allowed for full 3D titles. The Wii didn't even have that.

You can't convince me. I've played the Wii and know exactly what it is and how poor the options are on it - and even then the motion controls were dire, which was it's one exciting killer difference. I don't deny it was insanely popular, but it's biggest starting flaw is hardware, which is nothing to do with shovelware games at all. And my point on the audience it marketed to was proven when the vast majority of the player base refused to pick up the Wii U. The Wii was a once-and-done concept, even Nintendo hasn't returned to it, but they should have marketed a brand new revolutionary machine off the back of the Wii, rather than a sequel. The Wii U itself, in regards to hardware, wasn't the problem. How it was marketed as a sequel or "upgrade" to the Wii is what killed it. And we know the Wii U wasn't a bad console, because the Switch is a slightly upgraded Wii U with most of the games transferred and it has been widely accepted and beloved. The Wii was a great success for Nintendo, but it tainted them when they tried to "sequalise" it.

If you love the Wii, good for you. I hope you get many years of fun out of it. I just can't abide the thing, not because of ignorance but because I know exactly what I got the first time and how poor the options still are for the machine. Hardware, controls and software. What else am I supposed to love about it when those three are fundamentally poor? Obviously it doesn't gel with me, but again, I hope you continue to enjoy your Wii for years to come. Some people can overlook things like these to enjoy what the machine does offer, I'm just not one of them.

User avatar
Ragfish
Graffiti Grind
Posts: 311

Re: Every other Nintendo console is a revolutionary console. The console after that improves on the console.

Post#8 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 11:38 am

Roareye wrote:I actually do not like the PS2 either. The difference is I've not played one because the graphical output is awful. It's a blurry mess.

Is it really that bad? I have my ps2, dreamcast, gamecube, and xbox all connected to a crt via s video and they all look pretty much on par with each other. If there are differences, then I'm not able to notice them during actual gameplay.

Maybe the differences are more apparent on an hdtv, but 480p looks like blurry crap on my flatscreen no matter what console it is.

jasondaigo
noob
Posts: 1

Re: Every other Nintendo console is a revolutionary console. The console after that improves on the console.

Post#9 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 11:53 am

mazonemayu wrote:5) the wii u’s maximum resolution is 720p, this is called “hd ready”, it is not hd...

1080p is called Full HD, it is not hd

User avatar
Ian Micheal
Developer
Posts: 2953
Contact:

Re: Every other Nintendo console is a revolutionary console. The console after that improves on the console.

Post#10 » Tue Jan 05, 2021 11:58 am

There is quite a big change on the ps2 is very blurry talking on a pal crt back in the day compared to the dreamcast output the ps2 looked like i need to take the vasoline off the crt

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Other Consoles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users