[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]
Well we obviously differ on what's good and bad for the industry. I find Microsoft to be just as guilty for setting consoles in a wrong direction as you do in your feelings about Nintendo. Microsoft charging for online when everyone else's is free, Microsoft switching focus with their first party devs to Kinect and almost abandoning the base that made the 360 popular in the early years, charging high prices for HDD's and wireless adapters, having a welfare system that takes advantage of poor people with their buy for cheap upfront, and get locked into a higher-than-normal subscription fees for Gold program, terrible backwards support, popularizing DLC and FPS on consoles (much to the chagrin to PC FPS fans everywhere because they casualize and strip them down to bare-bones to please the masses) and so on.
Â
At least Nintendo continues to provide excellent and high quality first party support, free online, lots of variety and options to play games and always has reliable hardware. Of course, on the negative side they're slow to adapt, don't focus on graphics, over-use some of their franchises and have droughts due to a lack of western developer support. I don't defend that stuff.
Â
There's nothing to be gained by attacking people's opinions, since the attacker doesn't live or walk in the other person's shoes. They didn't grow up in the same situation, don't have the same likes and dislikes, or have the same experiences with games. It just comes off as either a) being egotistical, or b) not being able to accept opinions.
Â
Grammaton-Cleric
Sorry to break it to you but attacking an opinion, chipping away at the logic (or lack thereof) of a postulation, is the basis of argumentation and rhetoric. You've entered into a debate space and then take offense that your assertions are challenged, which is entirely nonsensical.
Your opinion, without backing, evidence or logic, is flatly worthless. People walk around with this notion that having an opinion shields their views from criticism when in reality you open yourself to such attacks the moment you make that opinion public. If you can't roll with argument and debate then remove yourself from those situations where such skills are necessary because opinion alone doesn't insulate your ideas from criticism or rebuttal.
Your analysis of MS is further evidence of your inability to objectively analyze this medium beyond the narrow parameters of your myopic fandom. While I certainly agree that Kinnect was a weak peripheral, your admonishment of Microsoft's online interface is flatly amusing given that, as a console manufacturer, they are essentially the most directly responsible entity for the propagation and proliferation of online gaming as it pertains to the console model. The fee they charge for XBL is nominal and clearly profitable given Sony's own attempt to adopt a pay model. On the other side of the spectrum is Nintendo's online interface, which is perfunctory at best and at least five years behind the curve. The only reason Nintendo has even attempted to implement online functionality (feeble as it may be) is because of the trail blazed by MS and, to a lesser extent, Sony.
The claim that the XB "popularized DLC and FPS" is nothing more than specious propaganda; FPS were popular long before even the original XB launched and DLC is hardly a new model, even if this generation ushered in a new level of widespread micro-transactions that have delivered mixed dividends. (And for the record plenty of the DLC released this generation has been excellent and worth the price)
The notion that Microsoft's newest model is exploitive of "poor people" is nonsense. Like any subscription-based service, this newest model offers consumers an option to mitigate upfront costs by paying a larger fee per month. Such a practice is hardly exploitive and actually par for the course among consumer electronics, specifically media-infused cell phones. I agree the plan is a rip-off from a consumer standpoint but the model is hardly as nefarious as you would hyperbolically suggest.
Objectively, regardless of pitfalls, Microsoft's contributions to this medium since their entry into the marketplace far exceed Nintendo's over the course of the last decade. MS pioneered and standardized HD resolution for consoles, pushed for hard drives as a standard, created the most coherent and centralized hub for online gaming, created and executed an excellent online storefront for downloadable content, and created a dedicated conduit for indie gaming.
By contrast, Nintendo has used outdated tech, latched onto outdated physical media that in turn limited the type of software that could appear on their console, largely ignored the benefits of having a dedicated hard drive, refused to implement, on any level, support for HD resolutions, implemented only the basest of online functionality, stubbornly utilized controllers that limited certain genres by default, and ushered in motion gaming, which was eventually proven to be a gimmick that the casual crowd initially embraced but inevitably abandoned. (And if you want to really discuss the issue of impediment, we can talk about the early tyrannical years of Nintendo, when they tried to block, among other things, the rental market and also enacted and advocated censorship within this medium)
And your postulation is that MS is doing more harm than Nintendo?
For all their mistakes (some of which have been epic) both MS and Sony have done far more to propel this medium forward than contemporary Nintendo who, post-SNES, has been nothing short of an egocentric entity, entrenched in hubris and buoyed by fans who will forgive them any and all transgression because of that aforementioned devotion, which is a mixture of both misplaced adoration and blind veneration. While I will be the first to concede they are, for all time, one of the most important companies to ever grace this medium, that historical reality does nothing to negate their persistent failure to deliver quality consoles. Â Â
What you consider Microsoft's "contributions" I think took console gaming in a wrong direction. Thanks to them, console gaming has become a FPS genre nightmare. I'm sure EA and Activision are greatful for that online, Call of Duty and its clones have stagnated the industry and made it hard for other developers to make money, and limited the US market to not much more than shooters for bro gamers and sports games for frat boys.Â
Sony tried to cater to the West and it was almost its downfall. The PS2 was a haven for JRPGs and Japanese games in general, and maybe it's just a coincidence, but since Sony started developing shooters and trying to appeal to western gamers, they've fallen off the top of the mountain. Vita is having problems, especially in Japan, for the same reasons.
Â
I just think the consoles' jump to be a watered-down, pseudo PC experience isn't the way to go, and that consoles peaked during the PS2, Gamecube and Xbox generation and has gone downhill since. Instead of staying strong, there is a lot of speculation that this upcomming generation of consoles will be the last batch.
Â
That's just my personal views on console gaming, and I believe consoles should be led by the Japanese, and western developed games should be done on PC.
Â
Nintendo has never "failed to deliver quality consoles" either. You and I just have vastly different views about where the console industry needs to be heading.
Log in to comment