Read topic.

Nintendo = Good
Sony = Bad
In response to Jermman
I play Super Nintendo! I miss Mystic Quest... :_-(
In response to Artekia
I miss a link to the past :P
In response to Jermman
I so much agree with you. I think the SNES was the best game console. They were forced to rely on thought and gameplay instead of graphics and flashy stuff. The SNES is still awesome :D
In response to SSJ2GohanDBGT
Only idiots say that, a true gamer can evolve with technology and adapt to new styles and systems.

My mom can only play the Nintendo and the Super Nintendo. that dosen't mean she is a true gamer.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Nes and Snes, why else would I illegaly download their roms?

But todays games are just as good.
In response to Jermman
Jermman wrote:
Read topic.

Nintendo = Good
Sony = Bad

read comic:



heck, i'd take my C64 or Amiga over your consoles anyday.

fanboy! :p
In response to digitalmouse
Could it be any more fitting to the situation?
In response to Jermman
I like how people have to define how others should spend their time. How people always happen to know the coveted secret to being a "real" gamer like themselves.
In response to Shades
People make it sound like the UMD is a deadly weapon. It has less power than a toaster when it shoots them out. Although still quite a bad problem.
Haha!
This has been a great topic, thanks for the laugh guys :)


Shades, your first post- couldn't said it better myself, you are my god.

Obviously, I'm a Nintendo-lover, so I'm completely biased.
But the PsP sucks on principle. :P


Anyway, another problem with the PsP. It's got the power, sure, but it's low battery life means that developers will have to cut corners to lower power usage- resulting in that power being wasted. Games will be not as powerful and graphically appeasing as they should (if that's what you like in games, mind you- which seems to be the ideology in every Playstation console since the beginning of the universe.)


I'd also like to add that Nintendo's games are going to be far superior.
Nintendo have been working with hand-helds (or consoles under or around SNES-power) consistently for the last 20 years. They know the fundamental perfect gaming 'rules' like the back of their hand, and continually innovate too.
These guys are like the Lummox JR of handheld gaming. Do you really think that Zeta rippers Sony will be able to outshine them on design of console AND software?

For the stupid:
HELL NO.
In response to Jermman
I don't think it really matters what system it is, you have to decide based on the game, and it really does depend on what you like. I mean, if you like raceing games, theres no way you're going to say the snes is the best. You're proablaly going to worship the ps2 for gran turismo 3/4. But then again, maybe you're like me and you're really an rpg buff, and so you like sony's platforms because nintento likes to skimp on rpgs. Then again, maybe you like team play and such and theres nothing that can beat the x-box live system at then, unless you just like useing computers, which tends to cost more though. All in all I'm just saying, it depends on what you like. I'm not saying there aren't simply great games out there like metal gear solid, but you can't limit ALL good games to one system just because it had killer titles in the past. Although I must say, I think the jaguar flat out sucked.
In response to Shades
Which is where you get into a matter of opinion.

Take a look at Half-life 2 or Doom 3. I see no gameplay difference between the two from "Duke Nukem 3D" or "Doom". They seem to rely more on the "We have a great physics engine and awesome graphics!" than good gameplay.
In response to SSJ2GohanDBGT
They seem to rely more on the "We have a great physics engine and awesome graphics!" than good gameplay.

The good new gameplay comes from the fact that you can have a huge variety of new open ended puzzles which take advantage of the new physics engine. Which opens up many new options that the older FPS games simply couldn't have.
In response to NAND Gate
Great key name, NAND! :D

The SNES has some of the best racing games around though. I'd take F-ZERO and Mario Kart over Gran Tourismo any day.
In response to Theodis
Theodis wrote:
They seem to rely more on the "We have a great physics engine and awesome graphics!" than good gameplay.

The good new gameplay comes from the fact that you can have a huge variety of new open ended puzzles which take advantage of the new physics engine. Which opens up many new options that the older FPS games simply couldn't have.

You *can* have. Unfortunately you seldom do. :P Cookie-cutter games carry less risk, so management likes them better.
In response to NAND Gate
NAND Gate wrote:
But then again, maybe you're like me and you're really an rpg buff, and so you like sony's platforms because nintento likes to skimp on rpgs.

Nintendo doesn't like to skimp on RPGs. The SNES had an increadible number of good, fun, RPGs released for it. Problem is too many third party developers jumped ship due to the Nintendo 64. The 64 was hard to program for by design(bad idea), which resulted in a lower number of games lower quality than they could have been otherwise.
In response to Shades
You're wrong about Nintendo crushing others for handheld games. Lynx and Gamegear were far better than anything up to GBA, but they were large(like the orginal gameboy) due to computer technology at the time.

Game gear did have the nice 16-ish hour batterry packs that attacked to the sides and became comfortable handles too. However, Atari dropped from consoles altogether(ending the lynx), and Sega Focuses more on the non-held consoles because that was the larger market, which ended up leaving nintendo alone with that market and no real competition.


I won't get a psp, or probably even a DS because I have no need for either, and little enough spare time as it is. But alteast they aren't stupid fad items like Ipods. Christ every time I see some Real-world-esque person with one of those overpriced POSes, I just hate U2 and their sucky music even more.
In response to Jon88
Not entirely true. Nintendo-Square relationships just fell apart, and in an act of revenge Square decided to develop for the competitor. It was only very recently that Nintendo actually funded the return of Square the the Gamecub.
In response to Nathandx82
Nathandx82 wrote:
You're wrong about Nintendo crushing others for handheld games. Lynx and Gamegear were far better than anything up to GBA, but they were large(like the orginal gameboy) due to computer technology at the time.

Game gear did have the nice 16-ish hour batterry packs that attacked to the sides and became comfortable handles too. However, Atari dropped from consoles altogether(ending the lynx), and Sega Focuses more on the non-held consoles because that was the larger market, which ended up leaving nintendo alone with that market and no real competition.

So yeah, Nintendo *did* crush their rivals. Their rivals had sucky design, and Nintendo didn't. :)
In response to Elation
But you started off with saying you are a fanboy. Which makes you completely biased. Which discredits most of your post, which already discredited on it's own accord.

Well not completely. The battery issue is very true, but unlike Nintendo, they have little to do with actual game development. I have never owned a Sony console, but looking at some of these upcoming games, wow.

Yeah Nintendo is good at making games, but Sony doesn't make games. They have bought out companies that develop games, but look at their most recent creation in the making, Wanda and the Colossus. If you are going to discredit that as a good game, then you are taking your fanboyism to an annoying level. Or the geniuses at Nippon Ichi, they are new, but they have been astounding so far.

Before you reply with a smart-ass comment about how I just love the PSP, read my other posts.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7