Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo?

Post Reply New Topic

So, in the gaming revalution, who'll win?

It will be between Sony and Microsoft, can't really predict any further than that Im afraid, and then this maybe wrong but hey.

Sony and Nintendo. I don't get involved with Microsoft as S and N take up my gaming money.

I don't see why anyone should just stick to one company.

I think Nintendo are too experimental and diverse to ever be taken as seriously as SONY and Microsoft,no matter how much effort they put into it.
SONY and Microsofts' game styles appeal more to the casual gamer-who have the majority share of the gaming market and-which is why there are so many bland sequels with little improvement [Spyro,FIFA,ISS/Winning Eleven,WWF/WWE..].
The result-tried and tested route wins over originality,look what SEGA offered before their non Japanese downfall in the hardware market-Shenmue,panzer dragoon,Burning Rangers, NiGHTS,Powerstone..the first games console to offer internet access and online game play internationally/on a large scale[as far as I know,they are still actually releasing dreamcast games in Japan-the home of originality and obscurity].
Another factor in Nintendos' lack of popularity [in comparisson to both SONY and Microsoft] is their credibility,the uninitiated see Nintendo as a producer of games exclusively for children,and SONY and Microsoft being more 'grown up' consoles.
It doesn't help having a previous console prematurely being removed from the market either.

I would like to think Nintendo are going to be around forever,as well as SONY,Microsoft and any future console makers,because there needs to be competition,a gamer can not get the same experience from Nintendo what they do from SONY,Microsoft and vice versa.
However,I really doubt that Nintendo will win over SONY and Microsoft..ever,especially in major casual gamer territory- eg,America and Europe.

KingdomofRats,

I'd love to say that Nintendo is the best company ever and makes the best video games ever, but they've done some pretty bone-headed things. Using cartridges for the N64, all but ignoring online play, making almost exclusively " kiddie " games, and doing questionable things with their main characters ( like the cel-shaded Zelda ) don't give me much confidence in them regaining the top spot in the industry.

However, don't totally discount originality-- the casual gamer may prefer the same old sequels they've been playing for years, but every now and then a new game will come along that will offer a totally new experience and change the way people play video games. And Nintendo is great at doing that. Super Mario Bros., the Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario Kart, Super Mario 64, Metroid, Pokemon, the Ocarina of Time, Star Fox, Mario Party, Super Smash Bros., Nintendogs....all games that have created and developed genres, all great sellers, and all by Nintendo. Even now, when they're last place in the industry, Nintendo still releases a lot of original new games that offer and experience no other company can match.

I don't really play much in the way of home console games ( I'm more of a portable console person myself ), but the Revolution looks a lot more interesting than the PS3 or XBox 360. The " remote control " should open up whole new realms of possibility ( and if not, developers can just use the original GameCube controller ).

Personally I'm not into the remote control, because it just seems like an excuse to make people buy a bunch of peripherals that will be necessary to play certain games. Also, I don't even want to think of the ones they'll invent for AO rated games...hahah.

Graphically, the footage I've seen from the X-Box 360 hasn't impressed me nearly as much as the footage I've seen for the PS3--Metal Gear Solid 4, Resident Evil 5, etc. Sure, the 360's Fight Night is seriously damn impressive, but not quite at the same level because of the clunky animation. Plus, the 360's already pissed a lot of people off because Microsoft deliberately made it in short supply so that they'd get 'em sold out and make a higher prophet.

However, Sony's not having a single online service for all their games a la X-Box Live or Nintendo Revolution's system, supposedly in favor of making you pay for each individual game's multiplayer. (I could be wrong about this but that's what I heard.) This'll no doubt piss a lot of people off.

So what do I think? I think all the consoles will make millions, but within a year will be technologically inferior to what'll be availible on the PC. It's what always happens. Not to say that PC's better than consoles, because it's so much more complex and expensive, but whatever. I personally prefer the PC, though there are quite a few PS2 games I wish I could play. (Shadow of the Colossus, MGS3, Resident Evil 4, Ico, etc.)

None of those console interest me much, All those blimin Single-Player 3D, how much of Quake style games can we live with.

Now that Playstation 3 has been put back till release in Europe and America till next year, Sony has no chance of coming out as the winner of this generation of video games consoles. Nintendo will gain some ground in this generation by capitalising on people's boredom with Xbox 360 and impatience for the PS3 to come out.

At least Nintendo are innovating. A new controller is an experiment but I think it could pay off. A lot of people like me are getting sick of FPS games, adult-themed spy and army games etc. I actually like kiddie games. I loved Mario and Sonic games not because they were kiddie, just because they were simple, awesome games.

The key to making a good game is just not putting any filler in it. I think franchises like Mario can still be used to Nintendo's advantage because they are great but they need to be implemented better like Mario 64 instead of the Mario that came out for the Gamecube. The key is to make the gameplay fun, addictive and simple yet that takes a while to master.

Racing games, army games, spy games, sports games, blah. Gaming will be dead if these continue to dominate against platforming or interesting original games. Games shouldn't be too three dimensional or realistic because reality is boring. That's why we play games in the first place. Streets of Rage, that's a classic game.

Nintendo Revolution will be the dark horse in this generation. Xbox 360 will win the casual dumbasses. But it will lose people who have been towing along who should know better and who will give Nintendo a proper chance now and forget online gaming and gimmicky nonsense like that in favor of just plain old good single player games that you can play time and time again.

Hear hear

Bring back good old turn based strategy

I have alot of respect for Nintendo unlike Sony and Microscum

No one will "win" the console war... It's kinda silly to assume one will..and if one competitor did crush their "enemies" we'd be the losers ultimatley as competition in the marketplace breeds lower prices... and better technology.

Last generation I had a Sony PS2 and a Microsoft Xbox, I also bought a Nintendo GameBoy Advance SP... This generation I've already got a Nintendo DS, I also plan on buying the Xbox 360 and a Nintendo Revolution. I may get the PS3 some years down the track.

It's so true, though--games these days are much too similar. It's why I'm so disillusioned with the industry, and why I haven't bought very many games in the past few years. It seems like every PC game is either:

-A sci-fi FPS, usually one that's dark and gory with lots of neon lights, and cyborg alien enemies (Doom 3, Quake 4, Prey, in some ways Half-Life 2 (though not so much), Fear, etc.)

-A mideval/fantasy RPG or MMORPG (countless...not even gonna try mentioning some examples, there's no point)

-A mideval/fantasy RTS

-A sci-fi RTS

-WW2 themed

-Desert Storm/Modern Warfare themed

-Vietnam themed

-GTA clone/Urban-themed racer-shooter with a lot of ghetto punk slang

-Yet another $20 piece of junk adventure game released by the Adventure Company


I mean, bloody hell! Can we please have more interesting concepts? There were only a few games I bought last year: Psychonauts (loved it--make more games like that one!), Indigo Prophecy (disappointing that you couldn't actually change the story as much as it said you could--it always wound up basically being the same, with minor tweaks), Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones (was quite a lot of fun, and probably the best of the PoP new trillogy, but I wanted a better story!), and F.E.A.R, which I found completely and utterly disappointing--such a great set up wasted by a horrible, horribly nonexistant plot...basically run through grey corridor after grey corridor, with "Damn, we lost Fettle's signal, guess we gotta go here now" at the end of every level...and the one time something actually HAPPENS...the one time the stakes are raised and there's an actual development in the story--it's the end of the game! Goddamn it! What's really frustrating is that there's apparently a reasonably decent backstory (or at least according to a recent PC Gamer article). NOTE TO GAME DEVELOPERS: If you think of a cool backstory for a game, don't make it backstory. Make it be the game's PLOT rather than having repetitive, aimless, usually pointless levels (nearly all of which would seem like "filler" in a game with an actual STORY). And s**t, at least have some great characters or dialogue if your plot stinks, or at the very least some friggin' humor. Why aren't there more tear-jerking games?

Two games for PC I'm keeping an eye out for is:

Rise Of Nations: Rise Of Legends
A Sci-Fi/Fantasy RTS, different concepts in building and fighting, and the Rise Of Nations concepts of borders, diplomacy, trade, etc... Should be awesome

Spore
A game from Will Wright, which is sorta RTS, sorta SIM City, sorta PacMan... This game has everyone I've ever wanted in a game and it's fully customisable... Not sure on it's release date though...

well it think that sony is the best for gaming especially with the ps3 coming in november but microsoft is good with the 360 and they did take it out first and nintendo F-up with the revolution controller but still sony is the best for next-gen systems with the good processor and abraham lincoln pop out of his grave so iam going to wait for the best but wating sucks MGS4, GoW2, KZ2 are going to be awsome

RTS games are absolutely dull. Apart from the one or two that actually try to move beyond command and conquer and age of empires gameplay

Its also a fallasy to call them Real Time "Strategy" I wouldn't really call them strategy games properly, click-fests is more appropriate.

If you want examples of innovative RTS games I suggest you look at

Highway to the reich and its new sequel coming out later this year Conquest of the Aegean

The Paradox Entertainment games such as

Europa Universalis 2 (play any faction in the world from 1419AD to 1819AD, and thanks to a community mod you can port the game over to Victoria)
Victoria: An empire under the sun (Guide the economic,military and sociological development of any country in the world through the industrial revolution from 1836 to 1920)
Crusader Kings (1066 to 1419AD)when you finish the game you can convert it over to Europa universalis 2)
Hearts Of Iron 1 and 2 (control any country in the world through world war 2)

I also suggest people check out the You go-I go-go style games that Battlefront has done very well with the Combat Misson series

www.Battlefront.com
Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord is alittle outdated now and looks very old but was superb for its time. Covers the Normandy invasion to the surrender of Germany on the western front from 1944-45
Combat Mission: Barbarossa to berlin: Sequel set on the Eastern front of world war 2 1941 to 1945 absolutely huge amount of improvements over the original combat mission. Its my personal favourite despite not having the most up to date fancy effects that CMAK has. Very soon will have an add on for it released called Combat Mission Campaigns which will enable you to keep track of Division+ size battles and play battles at the tactical level using the CM:BB game engine.

Combat Mission: Afrika Korps: was released 2 years back, had some fancy graphic effects added (dust effects from exploisions and tank movement) Covers the fighting in Africa (north and Ethiopia) from 1940-1943, The invasion of crete/scilly and the Italian front up to 1945

Its not technically real time its 60 minute "movies" of action taking place as units follow orders you issued, its alot of fun to be played head on against other people.

Turn based strategy you say? Look up Nippon Ichi Software, they make nothing BUT strategy rpgs, and they all rock to varying degrees. if you can find Disgaea:Hour Of Darkness, buy it.

Also, but Final Fantasy Tactics, you'll be glad you did.