Gaming Games becoming "boring"?

[Red]

[B]In a recent interview Satoru Iwata (about to become president of Nintendo) has said that "games are becoming more and more boring, less involving and that they lack a fun aspect." he has also said that "Nintendo will refuse to produce [i]any[/i] new consoles" to keep up with any next-gen machines that may get released. Instead he plans to push the Gamecube to it's absolute limits and make its games as enjoyable as possible and "revive the games industry".

I completely agree with Mr Iwata's point, if you glance through titles that are on the shelves, you will see a lot of sequels. Metal Gear Solid 2, THPS 3, GTA3, GT3 to name a few. (examples I'm not implying that they are bad games)

Anyone else agree?[/B]

[Treble]

I personally agree that games today are getting kind of less enjoyable, but none-the-less there are still plenty of games out there that are still enjoyable.:)

The way I see it, Nintendo makes their games very enjoyable and addicting, in other words they focus mainly on the gameplay of a game than anything else, which is a good thing.But what I'm really trying to say is that Nintendo is always bringing out something new and enjoyable.;)

Any game company can do something of their own to become as sucessful as Nintendo if they work hard enough, but judging from games that I see today I see nothing but games that try to use the same mechanics of another game to be even better, or sequel to games that doesn't have much of a change.Everybody should try something of their own, using their imagination anything can be possible.

[Kent]

i think nintendo is walking a fine line, but its one i like. its almost like the dreamcast. come out with a consoul and go fully to the limits of capability without a consoul in mind to replace it with in 8 years. but i also think nintendo woulnt fall apart, the game cube can go beyond a ps2 easily and keep with an xbox in prossecing capabilitys; so it doesnt need replacing any time soon. nintendos' only problem in my opinion (as towards why i dont want to buy) is the game situation. for now they dont have too many that intrest me. only mario maybe zelda, metriod and a few others. in a couple of years i may get a 64 and luckily the pres. of nintendo obviously wants the gamecube to be there for me.
i also wanna add that nintendo games are truely the best for game play when they hit the right cord. im still right now at this moment trying to play and beat mario world 64.

[Red]

[B]The Dreamcast was a display of pure gaming genius, it had a lovely balance of games, with reasonable graphics to boot, yet it sold poorly even when the PS2 wasn't around. Why? Because people didn't like the new games that the DC was introducing, e.g Phantasy Star Online. Now, a few sequels and a console switch later, PSO is very popular.[/B]

[Charles]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Elite DBZ [/i]
[B]yet it sold poorly even when the PS2 wasn't around. Why? Because people didn't like the new games that the DC was introducing, e.g Phantasy Star Online. Now, a few sequels and a console switch later, PSO is very popular.[/B] [/B][/QUOTE]

I disagree with you on that point.

The DreamCast did not fail because people did not like the new games. Although the DreamCast [I]did[/I] have some original games, some of its flagship titles were sequels and established titles.

Directly out of the gate, the Dreamcast saw strong first party effort, launching with a true Sonic title and a spectacular sports lineup that continues to challenge EA Sports to this day. Eventually they released a batch of stellar games like Skies of Arcadia and a flawed, but still nice, Virtua Fighter 3.

Furthermore, strong third party games like Soul Calibur 2, Tony Hawk, Street Fighter 3 and the later released Resident Evil: Code Veronica gave DreamCast the support that the Saturn lacked.

You see, gamers approached the DreamCast with a certain amount of trepidation due to the Saturn's failure. In fact, it was because of Sega's past failures that the DreamCast failed.

The games on the system were far from boring. People just didn't want to make the investment. A similar situation occurred with the NeoGeo Pocket Color.

Anyway, I agree to some extent with what has been said. We really aren't seeing much originality as far as new franchises go. Indeed, the 2001 calendar year proved to be incredibly frustrating and overly competitive for game manufacturers. By today's standards, if a product doesn't have a significant historical backing, or an innovative feature that really stands out as extraordinary, it's destined to be buried within the over abundance of software on the market.

[I]However,[/I] I don't necessarily think that the gaming industry is becoming boring. The market, as we know it today is more competitive than it's ever been. [I]encouraging[/I] stronger development.

Many of the already established franchises on the GameCube are completely reinvented. The Legend of Zelda, Star Fox and Metroid all have new twists to their forumlas that keep them fresh and exciting, rather than simple updates.

New franchises, such as Eternal Darkness, Super Monkey Ball and Pikmin are nice and the latter two prove that classic gameplay still exists in the next generation of gaming.

It's all at a matter of how you view things. There is a little truth to most opinions, but a lot of non truth as well....

[RicoTranzrig]

Yeah, there has been way too much competition in that...videogame developers who love what they do really get messed up...like when Hideo Kojoma finally released MGS2...he was completely transformed into a tired frail man, depressed...there's so much pressure to come up with something fresh...it's just not fun anymore...Nintendo's making a great effort with the fact that the GCN is concentrated towards video games only, which makes perfect sense and keeps everything simple.

[Red]

[B]You made a good point Crazy White Boy, I also don't think the [i]whole[/i] gaming industry is getting boring and going downhill.

I was at an art centre called the Barbican in London where an exhibition called Game On was showing, it had the history, current status and future of global gaming. There have been many gems released in the past, but the exhibition did show something else. Even though there are plenty of games being released, they are not neccessarily a torrent of good games.

But if you look at Mr Itawa's standpoint, he's just moved into an ever-growing games market that's getting harder to please, with more and more games coming out that are focused on a huge variety of subjects. (for example, westlife fanomania, a quiz game about a pop group. It's terrible, but a good example)[/B]

[James]

[color=royalblue]Despite the whole Saturn issue, the Dreamcast ultimately failed due to SEGA. And that's really all there is to it. SEGA lacked the courage to make some tough decisions during Dreamcast's early life and that created a downhill run for the console.

Mr. Iwata (now President of Nintendo Co., Ltd.) has basically said that consoles won't be getting much more powerful anytime soon. He's saying that games are starting to approach the physical limits, when it comes to graphics and sound production.

And therefore, he's saying that Nintendo will be focusing on gameplay and on creating new types of games in all-new genres, rather than focusing on rolling out "GameCube 2" anytime soon.

I'm sure Nintendo will produce another console, but, like the SNES, Nintendo clearly feels as though it is able to push GameCube a lot further than it could with the N64.

And really, for those who have purchased GameCube (and perhaps especially those who will purchase it in future), we can be assured that Nintendo will support the console in a longterm context, rather than simply releasing its successor prematurely.

Remember, they were making SNES games well into the life of N64. And that was probably due to SNES's overall success.

GameCube can be just as successful though. Nintendo plans to sell around 50 million units by 2005. And that is a fairly conservative estimate, as it is already 1.5 million units ahead of target.

So I think that Nintendo will have every reason to support this console for a long time. Let's face it, GameCube is probably the most well-balanced machine Nintendo has ever produced. Its proprietary media is cheap and easy to work with...and most importantly, it is invulnerable to piracy. And of course, the console itself is more than powerful enough to last for several years.

So I think that more or less, Nitendo was reiterating what it has always believed in -- consoles are not the focus...they are the tool through which you provide software-based entertainment. If you have a good formula with your console, then you are in a position to explore new ideas in gaming, rather than focusing on hardware issues.[/color]

[RicoTranzrig]

Well said :D Simplicity is the key...I think Nintendo is keeping a lot from us and surprising us at a lot of turns...when they announced the polygon rate with full effects, it was actually much more than that. It's an amazing and very friendly machine, refelcting much of its games. Even though it's missing some of it's 3rd party support, like Square...their games aren't producing the same impact as their SNES counterparts or FFVII.

[Guest ProudClod]

Call me crazy, but the best games console era had to be the time of the snes and the sega megadrive. Why, you ask? Simple. These were some of the first games consoles to have been released in the world, and almost every game released was 100% original, because they were the first of their kind.

Most games out these days are just re-makes of the originals, or just something similar with a different name. There are a few things in a game which make them what they are though, for example Final Fantasy, sure every FF game looks the same, but its battle system gives it its name, square try hard to produce something new for the people, like in FFX, you can control the summon spell, where as in the previous FF games you just call it, does its move, and there, it goes.

In my opinion, the battle between all of the consoles are just battles about which one has the best graphics. If you were to compare all the games in the world, you would end up with all the same type of games, just one has better graphics tha the other.

[Red]

[B]The SNES and the Mega Drive weren't the first consoles out, but they were the first to become so popular.

Nintendo didn't actually need to bring out the SNES, the NES was competing against the Mega Drive until, like all consoles, the games began to grow more graphically impressive and so forth. Nintendo made the SNES and brought it out, starting the huge console war that Sega pretty much lost...

What I love about the Gamecube and Nintendo's policy is that they don't really mind if their console can't push hundreds of millions of polygons, as long as the games are good and fun to play. [/B]

[Guest ProudClod]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Elite DBZ [/i]
[B][B]The SNES and the Mega Drive weren't the first consoles out, but they were the first to become so popular.[/B] [/B][/QUOTE]

I know that they werent the first, thats why I said "some of the first", ok.
To be honest, I dont really think about graphics in a game, as long as theyre not that bad, *duh*. There have been many great games without up to standard graphics, like GTA3, that was really cool.
The new zelda games graphics dont really bother me, cell or no cell, I know that it will be a great game, like all the others.
Nintendo have got a lot of really cool games, very addictive ones too, so yeah, I agree with you there Elite.

[Red]

[B]I think cel-shading Zelda was a great move for Nintendo, it gives the game a fresh feel and it still looks great. Judging by past Zelda games, the gameplay formula is great and it works well.[/B]

[Charles]

Well, I see the phrase "Simplicity is Key."

Like or not, the opposite is going to be true in the future of console gaming. As a few of us on the boards have discussed before, the next generation of systems, like the Xbox are going to have similar architecture to a personal computer.

Features such as being able to streamline the transfer of 3D images, speech, and games over a broadband network will become increasingly important in the industry.

If this new era of online gaming is successful, then a built-in hard drive, Ethernet support and the ability to play double layer DVDs will [I]force[/I] Nintendo to release new hardware.

Due to the fact that the industry may, in fact, take a step in a different direction, it might be wise of Nintendo to follow, or face the risk of being left behind.

[The Harlequin]

[quote][I]Originally posted by ProudClod[/I]
Call me crazy, but the best games console era had to be the time of the snes and the sega megadrive. Why, you ask? Simple. These were some of the first games consoles to have been released in the world, and almost every game released was 100% original, because they were the first of their kind.[/quote]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]Quite obviously you never encountered a commodore 64 or an Atari... Not the best gaming systems around, no matter how originaly the games.[/color][/font]

[Hyper]

Putting the gamecube ti its limits sounds like a lot can be done.
Games are getting less enjoyable.There is only a certain amount of fun you can have before it wears out on you.some games last loger than others. Maybe balancing out games will lead to big sucess.

[Guest ProudClod]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Harlequin [/i]
[B]

[font=gothic][color=crimson]Quite obviously you never encountered a commodore 64 or an Atari... Not the best gaming systems around, no matter how originaly the games.[/color][/font] [/B][/QUOTE]

Of course I have, it is just that people see the commodore and the snes in a different manner, the snes had much better graphics so the originality on all games for it could be stretched even further because better things can be done with better graphics. The commodore 64 may have introduced these games to us, but the snes/megarive revolutionised them, which is why they have a better name.

[James]

[color=royalblue]It's also an issue of franchises...Commodore 64 didn't have the same kind of franchises that Nintendo consoles did.

And those franchises (based on their originality and uniqueness) have really become the bread and butter of Nintendo.[/color]

[Desbreko]

[color=indigo]Well, I think this is good. Personally, I don't want to have to buy another console in a few years. I want my GCN to last, like the SNES did. I think that, if anything, the amount of space on the GCN discs would limit Nintendo. The mini-DVDs can't hold as much as a full-size DVD, so developers may have to start using multiple discs on the GCN, while they only have to use one on other consoles.

I really don't think Nintendo will have a problem with online gaming. The 56K Modem Adapter and Broadband Adapter are coming out this fall, and there is still that high-speed port on the bottom of the GCN. Nintendo hasn't said a thing about that, so they may still have something up their sleeve. Maybe they will actually end up making a hard drive for the GCN? I really don't think online gaming will a problem for the GCN at all.

I've said it before many times: I don't care about how good the graphics in a game are, as long as I can tell what things are easily. Heck, I like the look of FFVI more than FFVII (sprites rule, lol). The graphics on the GCN are plenty good. I've heard it said that Super Mario Sunshine pretty much looks like it's just a little smoother than Super Mario 64, so it must not be that great... So what if it doesn't look a whole lot better?! I care about how the game [i]plays[/i] not how good it looks. I don't know about other people, but I don't buy games so I can sit and stare at the pretty graphics...

Actually, I care more about sound than graphics, lol. The quality of the music in a game is more important than the quality of the graphics, for me. The music sets the mood for the game, whereas the graphics just show what's going on. If I'm fighting a big boss in, say, a Zelda game, I don't want some slow, soft music playing. I want loud, strong music that'll actually make you almost frightened of the huge monster coming after you!

As for the issue of franchises and originality, I think Nintendo is going in the right direction. I seem to remember a quote from someone at Nintendo, maybe Shigeru Miyamoto, saying that other game companies are always trying to establish franchises like the ones Nintendo has, while Nintendo is trying to get away from the old franchises and create new, original games like Pikmin. I think that new games in series like Mario, Zelda, and Metroid are great, but they can't be exactly the same thing as the last game in the series. If they are exactly the same, then they won't be all that fun. You might as well replay the old game, rather than spending the money for the new game. All three of Nintendo's main series seem to have had a twist. Zelda has its cel-shaded graphics, which allows for more gameplay possibilities, because the game doesn't have to be at all realistic. Also, it allows more emotion to be shown, as seen with Link's rather large eyes. Mario has the water pump, something new to the series that could and undoubtedly will add a lot of new gameplay aspects to the game. Metroid has the new first person view, which allows for all new sorts of gameplay with the different visors and other things that we probably don't even know about yet. My only concern is that Pokémon won't follow. There have been six games for the Game Boy now that all have basically the same story and gameplay. If it doesn't move on in the new GBA game, I'm afraid it's going to fall behind. I know I'm not going to buy it if it's basically the same as the previous games, regardless of how many new Pokémon are added.[/color]

[Guest ProudClod]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Desbreko [/i]
[B][color=indigo]Actually, I care more about sound than graphics, lol. The quality of the music in a game is more important than the quality of the graphics, for me. The music sets the mood for the game, whereas the graphics just show what's going on. If I'm fighting a big boss in, say, a Zelda game, I don't want some slow, soft music playing. I want loud, strong music that'll actually make you almost frightened of the huge monster coming after you![/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Well that is in my case as well, graphics are of no interest to me (as long as I dont get two dots fighting each other!). About the music though, it is the music that makes the battle, but not only BIG fat boss music, for example, look at FFVII, the fight with Jenova just after aeris dies, theres a slow calm rythm, and you wouldnt want the loud reactor music just after a main character has died would you. Music is something to thing about in a game, it adds more effect on the situation.

As for Mario sunshine, from what Ive seen [I]and[/I] heard, its a whole lot more than just smooth graphics.

[Desbreko]

[color=indigo]Well, yes, I agree that the slow music when you're fighting Jenova-LIFE (Aeris' Theme, isn't it?) is good in that situation. But that's different from the example I gave. In Zelda games there really aren't many dramatic fights, though, so the boss music is usually fast and loud. It really depends on each individual situation, though. It all depends on the current setting in the game.

Oh, and could you put a spoiler warning before giving away stuff like that? That's quite a plot twist that you could be revealing to someone that's just at the start of the game...[/color]

[James]

[color=royalblue]I can tell you, regarding Super Mario Sunshine, that screenshots and Internet movies just don't do the game justice.

In reality, you have to take the game as a whole. The levels are enormous (several times larger than Jak & Daxter, even) and there is constantly something going on in each part of them. The level of activity and objects being displayed is simply amazing.

As far as Nintendo goes, I think their philosophy is right. And the GameCube has a much greater chance of surviving long term than the N64 did.

GameCube has a virtually ideal media format (with more memory than you would ever need to create a game) and in particular, the hardware is extremely well balanced. And balance is much more important than raw power (as seen in the case of PS2).

It's interesting to consider where games are going in the future, too. Shigeru Miyamoto said that at this year's E3, Nintendo were showing updates to a lot of classic franchises, which will be released over the coming year.

But he mentioned that next year's show will not focus on these "Game Giants" at all -- infact, next year's show will focus almost entirely on all-new franchises and concepts.

I'm very happy to hear this, because I know that Mr. Miyamoto would prefer to develop new types of games, rather than continually update older franchises.

Of course, Mario Sunshine, Metroid and Zelda are all more than mere "updates" (especially Metroid), but I am sure that all gamers will welcome some truly new and disctinctive franchises (like Pikmin etc).[/color]

[ZeroBlade]

Hmm....Nintendo finally taking their time again to make great games. Nintendo has finally grabbed my interest. I haven't bought a GCN yet because I don't want another "N64" lying around my house. Seeing how they made numberous children's games for the N64 (man, you can lose count on how many games have an animal as the main character), I have lost faith in them. If they proved the GCN is worth buying, then they have regained my trust. It would be great if this does turn out to be as great as the SNES and besides, I wonder what kind of 'new' games they spoke of.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ZeroG214 [/i]
[B]Hmm....Nintendo finally taking their time again to make great games. Nintendo has finally grabbed my interest. I haven't bought a GCN yet because I don't want another "N64" lying around my house. Seeing how they made numberous children's games for the N64 (man, you can lose count on how many games have an animal as the main character), I have lost faith in them. If they proved the GCN is worth buying, then they have regained my trust. It would be great if this does turn out to be as great as the SNES and besides, I wonder what kind of 'new' games they spoke of. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]As a long time game player, this attitude really pisses me off.

Nintendo finally taking their time to make great games again? Are you kidding? The Nintendo 64 was home to many highly innovative and groundbreaking games.

If you deliberately didn't buy N64 just because a [i]few[/i] of its games contained animals, then you shouldn't be playing games at all.

You clearly don't know a great deal about games (or the history of games). If you had actually spent some time with some of N64's greatest titles (there are too many to list...Super Mario 64, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Pilotwings 64, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, Super Smash Bros...there are [i]heaps[/i] of them) then you'd realize that you were seriously missing a major part of gaming history.

I recommend that you put your silly, childish bias aside and go out and buy an N64 (they are cheap as hell now anyway) and sit down for a few hours with some of its classics.

If you don't come back here with a different view, then you don't deserve to play games at all.[/color]

[ZeroBlade]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B]

[color=royalblue]As a long time game player, this attitude really pisses me off.

Nintendo finally taking their time to make great games again? Are you kidding? The Nintendo 64 was home to many highly innovative and groundbreaking games.

If you deliberately didn't buy N64 just because a [i]few[/i] of its games contained animals, then you shouldn't be playing games at all.

You clearly don't know a great deal about games (or the history of games). If you had actually spent some time with some of N64's greatest titles (there are too many to list...Super Mario 64, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Pilotwings 64, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, Super Smash Bros...there are [i]heaps[/i] of them) then you'd realize that you were seriously missing a major part of gaming history.

I recommend that you put your silly, childish bias aside and go out and buy an N64 (they are cheap as hell now anyway) and sit down for a few hours with some of its classics.

If you don't come back here with a different view, then you don't deserve to play games at all.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Ah but I do have an N64 my friend. I was one of those who went and got one on the day it was released back in '96. I own/played the games you mentioned and they are great. However, I was expecting more and the games they did make with great effort was more aimed for a younger auidence like Banjo Kazooie. It was my assumption that if the SNES did great then so will the N64 that led me to buy the N64 in the first place. Which was in a few ways but now I find myself spending more time playing games on my SNES than my N64. Now because of this 'let down', new systems have to prove their worth to me. I'm not gonna go out and buy a brand spanking new system just because a famous video game developer made it nor how powerful it is. And the the wait was worth it too now that the system only costs $150 and the GCN is showing more titles that I'm looking forward to. In the end, the N64 was great, but I think it could've been better.