Next Nintendo system will "definitely" be out before the competition

[OB1]

Or so they say...

May 13, 2003 - At Nintendo's E3 press conference, Nintendo president Satoru Iwata once again confirmed that Nintendo is not planning to play catch-up with Sony with its next console release.


"Nintendo has never been more focused," said Iwata during his presentation on the state of Nintendo and the industry. "We will not retreat." Iwata said that GameCube's successor is long in the works and that this time around, there would be no head-start for the competition.



GameCube launched a full year after PlayStation 2. Given the convergence of technology and, as it claims, the negligible differences between the consoles' raw hardware power, Nintendo believes that the one year head-start was a crucial advantage for Sony. PlayStation 2 released in 2000, five years after the original PlayStation.



Due to the overwhelming success of the PS2, industry insiders position the launch window for Sony's next console in early 2005, with a US release later that year. If Nintendo were to pull even with PlayStation 3, GameCube's lifecycle would be a mere four years, one year short of the last generation. GameCube released in 2001, five years after its predecessor's debut in 1996.



More as it breaks.

Hmm, perhaps that's why EAD's 2003 lineup is so empty? Maybe they're developing games for the N2005 launch.

[A Black Falcon]

Timing is important.. but not TOO early! And you need games people care about in the mass market. See: Dreamcast.

[Smoke]

They'll probably all launch around the same time. And as for the comment about the Cube getting short changed by a year while that might be partially true Nintendo's never just abandoned a system right away when it's succesor came out.

[A Black Falcon]

Huh? N64 was dead six months before the Cube came out...

[Nintendarse]

It's sometimes misleading when we call a system "dead." I mean, Conker continued to sell in decent quantities long after the N64 was deemed "dead."

I've heard at least two people infer from Iwata's comments that Nintendo would launch its next console before PS3, and I still can't figure out where in those statements he even hints that N2005 will come out before PS3. He makes it very clear that N2005 will come out at the same time as PS3, but I see nothing suggesting a date before PS3. I think it's a delicate balance between being ready and being on store shelves. A bit of rushing is always involved in a console's release, but Nintendo has to do more than show up if it wants to compete with PS3.

I've been questioning Miyamoto's ideal for video gaming: a game that anyone can pick up, play, and immediately enjoy. I think it has a lot of merit. However, if Tetra's Trackers, Four Swords, and Pac-man are the embodiment of this noble idea, then I have a different ideal for the gaming industry. If we draw analogies to books and movies, the Miyamoto ideal for a book would be something like "Harry Potter" or "Goodnight Moon," his ideal movie "Lion King." And while I have immensly enjoyed all of those forms of entertainment, I think the pinnacle of the craft lies elsewhere.

[A Black Falcon]

Conker sold well? By what standards? I remember it selling poorly...

As for the next console... it'd be best if it came out either just before or right around the PS3... since that one will be the most important one. But as I've said, more important than launching simultaneously (as long as its close) is GAMES! It needs to be a better launch list than the Cube, thats for sure!

Miyamoto has always been about fairly simple but very fun games... not really deep (plot or complexity), but that's alright. It works very well.

[Darunia]

"We will not retreat."

Thats what they said about Iwo Jima.

[N-Man]

And hey, they didn't retreat.

Instead they died in vast pools of blood and random bits of body :bang:

[A Black Falcon]

Lets hope that isn't what happens to Nintendo... but I doubt it.

[Nintendarse]

Upon release, Conker did not sell up to expectations, but it continued to sell slowly. In January, it crossed the 400,000 copy mark, which makes it respectable.

[A Black Falcon]

I didn't realize it sold that well...

You know, I still see it new in stores... in the pathetic "new n64 games" collection of places like Kay-Bee. With about 5 wrestling games, I think.

[Darunia]

The local mall GameStop has a metal mesh bin filled with piles of used and new N64 carts...Perfect Dark for $7...what has the world come to. I've yet to find Conker in there though...but it'd take a lot for me to go back to the N64, as much as I love it.


------Barry

[A Black Falcon]

It'd take you a lot? Why? Can you not take those last-gen graphics? How sad...

[EdenMaster]

Nintendo refuses to accept that timing isn't what is killing them, it's their reputation. I don't care how early the release the Nintendo SuperGameDolphin64 is before Playstation3, people don't like Nintendo and they're going to keep not liking them. Nintendo need not change its release dates, only it's game releases.

[A Black Falcon]

Absolutely. Timing would help a lot.... just not as much as Nintendo believes.

[Smoke]

If Nintendo ever wants to suceed they need to comepletly remake their image. They need to be cool, hip, and trendy. They need to be Sony. :p

Actually Nintendo needs to buy some well known action game developers. They need their own Bungie.

As for the timing I think coming out along with the PS3 would be a mistake as any other system would be overshadowed. At the same time you don't want to come out too soon before and have people decide to just wait for the next big thing (PS3) like they did with the Dreamcast.

I think coming out a couple months after the PS3 might be the right choice. Especially if you use that extra time to make sure your system is more powerful. That along with a HUGE marketing campaign could go a long way.

[OB1]

That would probably be the best way to go.

I really think that Nintendo should try as hard as they can to buy out Eurocom and Factor 5. Factor 5 is already pretty much a second-party to them and Eurocom has shown that it can make awesome action games. But I wonder if EA would let them go... that is, if they actually own part of them.

[A Black Falcon]

I don't know about Factor 5... I want it to keep making Star Wars games and that'd be really unlikely under Nintendo. And while it may make games on another console... Rare and Left Field prove Nintnedo ownership doesn't stop that either...

[EdenMaster]

Originally posted by Smoke-X
Actually Nintendo needs to buy some well known action game developers. They need their own Bungie.

You mean that the best game developer in the world needs the assistance of a company who've made (to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) one popular game, and a ridiculously overhyped one at that.

[Darunia]

It'd take you a lot? Why? Can you not take those last-gen graphics? How sad...

No, it's not that...I'm just far too lazy to unplug the GC, fish through the wires and all that shit, and such...:D

[OB1]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I don't know about Factor 5... I want it to keep making Star Wars games and that'd be really unlikely under Nintendo. And while it may make games on another console... Rare and Left Field prove Nintnedo ownership doesn't stop that either...

Haha, I knew you were going to say that. ;) If Factor 5 were to become a Nintendo second-party they would still be able to make Star Wars games. Right now they're making SW games exclusively for Nintendo's console, and Lucasarts is happy about it because the Rogue Squadron series has been their most successful one for a while now. Just do what Nintendo is doing with Twin Snakes. It would work out for everyone.

As for the whole Rare/Leftfield thing, well, you have to assume that Nintendo knew something that we didn't about them. We know now that Nintendo made the right choice with selling Rare. So far, that is...

[Darunia]

I'm starting to think you're right about Rare OB1, but I still wish it'd stay multi-platform. I'd still shit blue bricks of happiness if they were to even announce Perfect Dark Zero for us...oh god yes...

[big guy]

but they never will announce that because there is no Rare anymore...only Microsoft. Rare is 100% owned by microsoft, making them a first party developer. it'd be like EAD announcing mario for the X-Box.

[Darunia]

But GMR said that Rare's being owned by MS was a "thing of the past"...which seemed surreal to me, but it's printed in ink, coast to coast.

[OB1]

Who knows how reliable they are.

[A Black Falcon]

Rare is owned by MS... I can't see any way that could change anytime soon.

And if you don't know of Bungie's successes, try looking up Marathon. Very popular series on the Mac... Myth (I & II, not III) were also quite good and well known games made by Bungie. And *I* at least really liked Oni. :)

[OB1]

Oni was terrible.

[A Black Falcon]

I liked Oni... had a lot of fun playing though it. It got hard near the end... but it was always fun beating people up with the moves it has. Sure, the weapons weren't nearly as fun to use... but you usually didn't have to use them, and they were alright as effective options in most places... it was a fun game with nice graphcs and good, easy to use controls and moves.

All it needed was a option to save when you want to. PC games have no excuse for only having checkpoints! That made the game SO, SO much harder and more frusterating! Oh well... I did beat it (on Easy, anyway). I haven't played it again (though the bonus you get for winning is kind of cool, its not that different, and you're still playing the same levels and game...)

Oh, and sure, the levels were sparse and the 'furniture' was strange and odd machines and boxes and stuff were everywhere. But layout wise the levels looked more like REAL buildings than most games... they weren't just 'go forward' cooridors. That was nice... even if it could have used more variety of furnishings. :)

Oh, and did I mention how incredibly cool the box is? The PS2 box looks alright, but the PC box blows it away because of how its big and shiny silver everywhere with lots of nice artwork... shiny, refrlective silver is such a cool box design. One other game I have (Micro Machines 2 Turbo Tournament for PC) also has a shiny silver box... )one of the best boxes in my collection. Not that that has anything to do with gameplay... its just cool. :)

[OB1]

The art for that game was soooo bad.

[A Black Falcon]

What art? If you mean the in-level designs for the furnishings of the buildings, sure... but not the box art. or the character designs.

[Darunia]

Box art matters little to the quality of a game.

[A Black Falcon]

Try to read my post again. Then comment on something that I said... I seem to remember saying "box art isn't that important", but when its cool that's nice!

[OB1]

All of the art in Oni was bad. The concept art, the cover art, the in-game art. It was really crappy "twelve-year-old who just learned how to draw anime-style" art.

[A Black Falcon]

Well I liked it. Character art, box art, level design... I thought it was good...

And it felt like a anime style... a good accomplishment for an American studio...

[EdenMaster]

Box art may not add much to the fun factor, but's very important. Say you're standing in from of a rack full of dozen upon dozens of games. The box art should be something which both catches your eye and sparks your interest, so you pick it up and read the back. It can also determine how popular a gaem is, if more people see it more will buy it, and if it is indeed a good game, they'll tell their friends, and thus the box art has helped to make the game popular.

That's just my take on it anyhow.

[Dark Jaguar]

I'm very shallow, as are many here, and it seems I pick games on name recognition and it being "the talk of the town" more than any other aspect. I can't think of the last time I just perused the isles of a rental store (for when it comes to perusing, it's always a rental at first) looking for something interesting.

In fact, even as a kid I was starting to recognize companies. Once I found out how much Megaman rocked, I started renting all sorts of Capcom games like Little Nemo The Dream Master.

EM has a point. When that failed me during those days, I would just look for the games that looked the best, and of course only a catchy name and box art would be that which determined that. If I had the time, I might have read the back of each and every game in it's turn, but of course I was a kid, not the person who drove me there, so I didn't have the time. This also means that a good description on the back is also very important.

My mom used to get me as holiday gifts some random games, since at the time I never did really know what was "coming". It was hit or miss, but I don't think I ever would have played the amazing Crystalis if it wasn't for that random picking of games.

With such a massive number of games, the only way to pick them is in fact in very shallow manners. We as fans have stagnated, complaining about companies giving us MORE games (like those interesting looking new Capcom Zelda games) from genres we are obsessed with. We ought to do more. I think I may start up the old naustalgic thing where I just look through isles, like my first rental at a game store, and pick a game to play based purely on what looks cool. Nah... Actually, my littlest bro and sis are constantly renting games, constantly, using the same old methods. I've seen many of their rentals, and to be honest, it seems that we are the generation who did the weening out already. The best are already put in the glory spot. The only problem is the number of great games we may never play just because we don't rent any more...

[A Black Falcon]

Huh? The way to pick games? Start with reviews. Then rentals or demos. Then opinion, if there is any. Box art really isn't very important... it CAN be for some people but no one should choose games based on box art. It won't result in many good purchases... :)

I"ll admit that Oni's cool box was a plus to buying it, but the cheap ($30) price and the fact I liked the demo a lot were bigger ones.

Reading reviews or previews and seeing games in genres you like that look good is another way... or good serieses. But just 'its from company x'? I don't know... I do admit there are companies I like more than others, but lots of companies make good games...

And when I was young I never got random games. Even in elementary school, I made extensive prioritized lists... we'd go to the mall before my birthday or christmas and I'd make a list of games that looked good... :)

So yes back then box art was more important. But even then I read some Nintendo Power... and by 1996, PC gaming magazines.

Though there are some games I saw in the store, thought looked cool, and got with great results... I don't know if I'd have seen Warcraft 1 otherwise... its not like back then I knew it was made by the same people who'd made Lost Vikings (a game I liked a lot)... :)

[Great Rumbler]

Some gamers do extensive research before they buy something, but there are a lot of gamers who make their purchases based on their first impression of a game, which is usually the box art, company name, features, ect.

Box art isn't everthing, but it can be a deciding factor for some people.

[Darunia]

Then I dare say that those people are idiots. Box art can be good or awful...but no one should arbitrarily buy a game because it's box is shiny and colorful.

[OB1]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Well I liked it. Character art, box art, level design... I thought it was good...

And it felt like a anime style... a good accomplishment for an American studio...

Plenty of American artists can draw anime-style very well. The art of Oni was just very amatuerish.

[EdenMaster]

Originally posted by Darunia
Then I dare say that those people are idiots. Box art can be good or awful...but no one should arbitrarily buy a game because it's box is shiny and colorful.

Never have I bought a game based on it's box art, nor has any sensible person here I hope (that excludes you, Dark Jaguar). But you must admit, Darunia, you're more likely to check out a game with shiny graphics, cool lettering, and the like instead of a simple monochrome box. Maybe you won't buy it just because of that, but you are much more likely to pick it up and just see what it is.

[Dark Jaguar]

RENT I say, there's a diff. I never buy a game I've never heard of, but I rented games I never heard of all the time. Sheesh, read what I said. I used to rent games all the time, and had nothing to base the decisions on but the boxes. Buying was ONLY done with games I'd already played. I had nothing at all to find out about games with. The net didn't exist (at least not as it is now), and I didn't have the slightest idea that there was a magazine. Even if I did, I wouldn't have got it. My parents weren't about to get me a magazine subscription, and that was regarding stuff I did ask for, like computing magazines in general. ABF, you really need to think in the terms of what a KID can do with their VERY limited control. Maybe if I got money (I hear some kids got this thing caled "allowance", a concept that was foreign to me) I could have got a magazine myself, but kids don't get money, except those rich kids with that allowance thing.

If I already know a game is great, I don't bother renting it. Best not ruin some of the experience before I buy it if I already know it's great. Renting is for one purpose only, playing games you never heard of to see if they happen to be worth playing. Guess what? When it comes to that, it's very superficial in the selection process.

Why am I defending myself? I'm almost positive I have no need to at all.

[Great Rumbler]

Originally posted by Darunia
Then I dare say that those people are idiots. Box art can be good or awful...but no one should arbitrarily buy a game because it's box is shiny and colorful.

I certaintly hope that people don't buy a game because of the box art alone, but I'm sure that for people who don't check up on gaming news everyday would be more attracted, at least at first, to games with better box art.

Take these two box arts for example [Robby the Robot isn't game but just imagine it is]:





Which would you pick up first? Some might be drawn to the cheesy box art of Robby the Robot, but most would probably go straight for the cool, stylized box art of Ultima Online.

[Dark Jaguar]

I guess I'm the former. The Ultima Online one actually looks cheesy, but not enough to be funny. The other one is hilariously cheesy, so I'd have to look at that one, assuming I'd never heard of either of course and wanted to know more about them, that's the order I'd pick.

[A Black Falcon]

UO's boxart cheesy? How so? Its nice looking fantasy art... though very small sized picture.

And Forbidden Planet is a movie!

[EdenMaster]

I used to be a game-renting fanatic. I rented at least one game every week or two, but nowadays, I take the risk that the game will suck. Sure, I have some duds in my game collection, but for the most part, many of my current favorite games I never rented. Final Fantasy X, SSB:M, Wind Waker, and many others.

[A Black Falcon]

For PC, I almost always play the demo first, unless I KNOW it'll be great. For consoles it varies... for the big games I won't rent, but I do rent some games. Not a lot... but some. And I look at reviews, etc. so I know what games I'd consider when I go to the store... though exactly what I get isn't always certain.

I've rented a few NGC games... none of which I bought, actually. I did buy a few games I rented for N64, though.

[OB1]

Wanna see some horrific boxart of a good game? Look no further:

[A Black Falcon]

Yeah, that game sounds great... like Death Rally but not quite as good. And its got AWFUL boxart.

Want another example? Look no further than Death Track Racing for PC. Awful, awful box, manual, etc... but the game contained inside is brilliant (its actually Rollcage Stage II...).

[Great Rumbler]

Originally posted by OB1
Wanna see some horrific boxart of a good game? Look no further:

Hahahaha, I completely forgot about that game when I was looking for box art!! EGM had a hilarious piece on it.