Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DarrenMcLeod
There's a problem with your theory. Nintendo going third party (ala sega) would mean that they'd put games on both M$ and Sony's systems. That'd be even worse, because now you have to buy two systems in order to play different Nintendo franchises in case they make some console exclusive!
Now, I don't know about you, but the amount of gaming I get out of the GameCube, even if I want games on other systems, is quite sufficient. I have a large library of Cube games, haven't had a chance to finish lots, and there are still more Cube games that I'd love to own. Nintendo's system is all I need.
And Null, call it blind loyalty or whatever you want, but I probably won't buy a system other than by the big N. I don't want to play Zelda with an Xbox controller. I don't want games pumped out for money rather than enjoyment. I don't want Sony's anti-multiplayer policy (2 controller ports, GREAT plan). Nintendo innovates while others copy... without Nintendo I fear there will be no innovation anymore.
Crash said it best... Nintendo for life.
|
I would rather that Nintendo be bought by Microsoft so that I would only have to buy that system, an no other. But how would Nintendo, by making games for Microsoft and Sony, be worse than them being first party and designing games for their own hardware? Either way I would need two systems. As it is currently, I have to have a GCN if I want the Nintendo titles, and another system if I want to enjoy anything else. I don't care what the biggest GCN fanboy says, Nintendo's third party support sucks.
And I would still be saving money, anyway, because I currently own all three current generation consoles. If Nintendo dropped out and started developing only software, that's one less system I would need.
And lets say that Nintendo did become third party and developed games for Microsoft and Sony. Nearly all of their games would be available for both systems (that makes the most money), and if a game is exlusive for one console, it probably wouldn't remain that way forever, a la Resident Evil 4.
And really, what does a different controller matter? I didn't know anyone really LIKED the GCN controller. It's my biggest turn off to the entire system. It just feels wierd. I like using the XBox controller for shooters, and the PS2 controller for everything else. (except maybe driving games)
And it is flawed thinking to say that Nintendo develops games for enjoyment rather than for money. Face it, every company is in it for the money. If Nintendo was just doing it for the fun of things, than why aren't their prices lower than everyone elses?
And Nintendo claims to be the great innovator of the gaming industry...yet they are clearly the most hard headed and stubborn of them all. How can they claim to be innovators when they won't even give up the idea of online gaming not being mainstream? They are the most unwilling to change, yet somehow get landed with being the "most innovative". If you ask me, Xbox Live is innovative. The Eye Toy is innovative. The DS is kind of innovative...but still really gimmicky, and pretty much a rehash of that old two screen game and watch thingy.
But you are right about Sony's two controller port concept. I don't know where they got that idea. But this thread isn't supposed to be about Sony, it's supposed to be about Nintendo and Microsoft coming together, and other than for the sake of tradition, I can't think of a single negative connotation to this idea.