The Impression That I Get

[UnknownH]

*snip*
It's all about choice. Everyone always thinks they made the best one. And everyone always tries to sway everyone else to their cause :p

Yeah I was just stating an honest opinon about various things I've heard about video games. And now that I did I'm done. Thank you for listening.

[That One Internet Guy]

Can I say somethings honestly?
F the kiddy image some people say nintendo has. I don't give a SH.
F the idea that graphics are the most important thing.
F the whole thing about the N64 being cartidge based.
F the fact that good game have to be M rated or that nintendo may not have many of them. I don't care.

I think I got all of them but my point is I started playing games back when nintendo brought back from the crash, and I've played nintendo/sega games all my life and my second choice for a console would be a PS2.

-Nintendo has a kiddy image, since barely any of its games are aimed at a target audience above 11 years old.
-Graphics aren't THE most important thing, but they're still important.
-The cartridge-based N64 was fine for me.
-The 'good' games that are rated M are the most action-intense ones usually, as there's only so many times you can see an enemy dissapear in a flash of light or a puff of smoke until you want to see some explosions or dismemberment. MGS, for example, was a great game that utilized violence in an excellent way, instead of just being able to say 'blood, lol'. A game like, say, Star Fox could go a long way towards ridding itself of the nintendo-assosciated 'kiddy image' if, say, a gaping wound appeared on an enemy who just got LASERED IN THE FACE. Besides, a large portion of the gaming community is made up of young, inherently violence-inclined males.

[Nate Hunter]

On the matter of graphics I believe we've reached the peak. We do not need to go any further with graphics than the current gen systems are capable of, which is quite stunning already. In no way would I advocate Nintendo going backwards in graphical capacity, but maintaining near-stasis for the next generation, the transitional period from Analog to Digital televisions, will make it easier to optimize the graphical performance and focus on making the games over the graphics.

To be fair, the only problem with Nintendo using cartridges (mind you, PS2 load times can take as long at this point as PS1 games) was the cost of a cartridge when compared to a CD. It's not that different from what I think will happen in the next gen -- Sony sets the high price, Sony has high priced games, and so: good as they may be, they don't sell as well as the cheaper Wii and 360 games, which hurts the profit of the PS3. Sony may call it quits if the PS3 flops more than last night's dinner catch, and I don't expect this thing to thrive outside of a hypothetical market where branding means a LOT more than money.

[UnknownH]

-Nintendo has a kiddy image, since barely any of its games are aimed at a target audience above 11 years old.
-Graphics aren't THE most important thing, but they're still important.
-The cartridge-based N64 was fine for me.
-The 'good' games that are rated M are the most action-intense ones usually, as there's only so many times you can see an enemy dissapear in a flash of light or a puff of smoke until you want to see some explosions or dismemberment. MGS, for example, was a great game that utilized violence in an excellent way, instead of just being able to say 'blood, lol'. A game like, say, Star Fox could go a long way towards ridding itself of the nintendo-assosciated 'kiddy image' if, say, a gaping wound appeared on an enemy who just got LASERED IN THE FACE. Besides, a large portion of the gaming community is made up of young, inherently violence-inclined males.

I'll say something honestly again.
I don't personally care much for your opinion about games.
Thank you very much.

[Harie Krauzer]

Well, I think the graphics can go a bit farther still, but I don't think the difference will be too revolutionary.

[Renamon_S3]

When mario 64 came out for the N64, i thought that was revolutionary.

wow, 3-d! everything else just builds on that.

[Harie Krauzer]

Sony, even to me, sounds undeniably worried.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/19/sony-...costs-700/

[That One Internet Guy]

-Nintendo has a kiddy image, since barely any of its games are aimed at a target audience above 11 years old.
-Graphics aren't THE most important thing, but they're still important.
-The cartridge-based N64 was fine for me.
-The 'good' games that are rated M are the most action-intense ones usually, as there's only so many times you can see an enemy dissapear in a flash of light or a puff of smoke until you want to see some explosions or dismemberment. MGS, for example, was a great game that utilized violence in an excellent way, instead of just being able to say 'blood, lol'. A game like, say, Star Fox could go a long way towards ridding itself of the nintendo-assosciated 'kiddy image' if, say, a gaping wound appeared on an enemy who just got LASERED IN THE FACE. Besides, a large portion of the gaming community is made up of young, inherently violence-inclined males.

I'll say something honestly again.
I don't personally care much for your opinion about games.
Thank you very much.

Is this because I don't like Megaman?

[UnknownH]

Huh? No. I just don't really care for the games you like to play and vice versa. We have conflicting personalities here. No big problem.

[senjuro]

I'm visiting a friend in Pittsburgh for American Thanksgiving and apparently, one of his friends there is loaning him his Wii for the holiday. I'll be sure to evaluate it!