NerdRAGE's forum posts

  • 31 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for nerdrage
#1 Posted by NerdRAGE (30 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

-GameCube (even before the fandom for this console became so revisionist)

-Wii U

Nintendo profited off of both consoles, so I don't consider either of these failures. If you come out of the casino with more money than what you went in with, you won!

The Dreamcast was also a profitable machine, BUT, because of their dire financial position and declining arcade business, their profits were offset and they couldn't continue support the console. They were basically faced with pouring what little money they had left into the Dreamcast and possibly going bankrupt, or staying alive as a company by going 3rd party. They chose to stay alive.

Anyway, my favorite failed console is easily the Atari Jaguar. Like the Dreamcast, it has some hits and misses. But unlike the Dreamcast, the Jaguar sees supports to this very day.

Avatar image for nerdrage
#2 Edited by NerdRAGE (30 posts) -

They're both really good racers, but not the same.

CTR is much more challenging and unforgiving than Mario Kart 8 is. CTR demands more racing skill from the player than just relying on item use. So the game feels more balanced (in my opinion) than MK8. But the game's challenge factor feels too high sometimes (even frustrating) and that's why MK8 is more enjoyable to most people; Anyone can pick it up right away and dial-in with the controls and mechanics quickly.

Between the two, I enjoy MK8 more, but CTR is not a bad game by any means. But you will have to put in more work than you'd probably expect with CTR.

Avatar image for nerdrage
#3 Edited by NerdRAGE (30 posts) -

BoTW, hands down.

OoT is the Zelda I like the least.

Avatar image for nerdrage
#4 Posted by NerdRAGE (30 posts) -

I'll be getting this for sure. My current Switch has a defective heatsink that occasionally grinds inside the unit.

Avatar image for nerdrage
#5 Posted by NerdRAGE (30 posts) -

PROFITS. That's what decides success. If you're profitable, you succeeded.


Avatar image for nerdrage
#6 Posted by NerdRAGE (30 posts) -

@Pedro said:
@nerdrage said:

No, it's Hybrid nature is what's touted. The Switch needs both. Some games need both. Nintendo points this out in their announcement video.

I don't play any of my Switch games purely in TV or Handheld mode. The flexibility of having both is what makes the system what it is and I think it's great. But I feel that if you're going to go the route of a dedicated handheld, then the answer is the DS. If the route is a dedicated TV device, then I feel a pure console is the answer with a form-factor for suited hardware and features.

But as a Hybrid, the Switch absolutely delivers as it is and most of us are/were happy with that.

In this forum the portability is touted. Nintendo release of the Switch Lite is most likely closer to their original intentions. The Switch Lite exist to replace the DS and possibly always been the desired replacement. There willingness to drop the hybrid nature and focus on the portability is more proof of this. This version is going to move more units than ever before because its the replacement for the 3DS.

In this forum, yes. But it's touted by the usual names that don't want to acknowledge the system as a hybrid (no need to drops names, you all know who you are). 😜

But anyway, no. The Switch is exactly what Nintendo intended all along, which is a Hybrid system, not a 3DS replacement. The Lite however is a 3DS replacement. But personally, I would have rather had a new DS model. I'm one of those folks who is still getting a lot of the 3DS because I'm more interested in it's utility software (which doesn't exist on the Switch) than it's games.

The Lite exists for two reasons: 1) The 3DS is on a decline now and Nintendo needs to fill that void with something before someone else does. 2) A Switch model priced at $199 with an already established quality library will sell... ALOT.

So I agree with you, it's going to sell like mad by moving into the price slot of the 3DS. But I won't be picking one up because it offers nothing that I don't already have.

.. well, maybe that D-Pad. Ha!

Avatar image for nerdrage
#7 Edited by NerdRAGE (30 posts) -

@Pedro said:
@nerdrage said:

I'm not impressed by this. You lose a lot of good features that define the Switch for that $100 you save. If a dedicated Handheld was what we wanted, I think it would have been better to just give us a new DS. That device really has the best formula for dedicated handheld play IMO.

I think what most of us expected/wanted was our current Nintendo Switch with improvements.

And sadly, that's not what this is.

The most touted feature of the Switch has been portability. So, its odd reading that you think it loses a lot of good features.

No, it's Hybrid nature is what's touted. The Switch needs both. Some games need both. Nintendo points this out in their announcement video.

I don't play any of my Switch games purely in TV or Handheld mode. The flexibility of having both is what makes the system what it is and I think it's great. But I feel that if you're going to go the route of a dedicated handheld, then the answer is the DS. If the route is a dedicated TV device, then I feel a pure console is the answer with a form-factor for suited hardware and features.

But as a Hybrid, the Switch absolutely delivers as it is and most of us are/were happy with that.

Avatar image for nerdrage
#8 Posted by NerdRAGE (30 posts) -

I'm not impressed by this. You lose a lot of good features that define the Switch for that $100 you save. If a dedicated Handheld was what we wanted, I think it would have been better to just give us a new DS. That device really has the best formula for dedicated handheld play IMO.

I think what most of us expected/wanted was our current Nintendo Switch with improvements.

And sadly, that's not what this is.

Avatar image for nerdrage
#9 Posted by NerdRAGE (30 posts) -

@Micropixel said:

They're both really good games and I love them both!

BOTW's combat, exploration and overall freedom trumps The Witcher (and other games like it) by sooo many miles. The only things The Witcher really has over BOTW are graphics and story telling. But everything else, BOTW wins.

But like I said, they're both great games!

Seeing my old messages on my old account with my original "Member Since" date brings a tear to my eye.... lol

Avatar image for nerdrage
#10 Edited by NerdRAGE (30 posts) -

For those of you blaming the "Nintendo Fanbase" for Nintendo's short-comings with their Online service, I'd like to point out that Nintendo themselves is on record discussing ways to boost the appeal of Nintendo ONLINE due to subscribers opting for short subscription plans. In fact, they were unwilling to reveal the number of it's subscriber base at launch initially.

[LINK]

So clearly the fanbase is NOT eating this stuff up or defending it at every turn as you guys are suggesting.

Look, it's no secret that Nintendo ONLINE is BAD. It has gotten negative feedback on every social platform it's been shared on. Believe me kids, Nintendo knows we don't like it. The service is waaaaay inferior in terms of features and value compared to what's offered by Sony and Microsoft. BUT, Nintendo, not it's FANS, are being stubborn about this and are hilariously trying to convince us that using a smart phone for in-game chatting is a good idea.

Nintendo isn't listening to anyone. Not it's fans or it's critics. We asked for way more than this but got way less instead. They have this delusional idea that they can somehow pioneer something that is different and better than the solid, PROVEN working models that already exist. This WILL bite Nintendo in the *ss down the road because I really feel that their ONLINE service is the one and only valid reason for possible buyers to opt for something other than a Switch, or any other Nintendo device that uses this incredibly feeble service. And if you're hardcore about ONLINE interaction and achievements, then a Nintendo system is definitely the wrong system to own. And no matter what anyone says, the base will eventually figure this out and Nintendo will be hurt by this when they do. Sure, the service itself isn't really costing Nintendo anything because they're not really investing much into it, but remember what you get with this lame Online plan: Access to server-side classic titles that most of us don't care about, cloud saving for SOME games and access to online play via peer-to-peer, no dedicated servers. That's pretty much it. So yeah, the gains are definitely stacked in their favor, not ours.

Fortunately for me, my Nintendo ONLINE service is included free thru Twitch Prime. So I lose nothing. But if it's ever taken off of Twitch Prime, that's one subscriber Nintendo will lose.

  • 31 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4