The Worst Decisions in Videogame History

[Malak]

Originally posted by: AcidBath
QFT on many levels. Too many kiddies in here are commenting on how the old Ninetndo systems/games suck when the only time they ever played the older games is when they fired them up on an emulator. PSOne was the first system as far as they care. They didn't rush home in '87 with a Copy of Final Fantasy 1 that they just paid $70 for. Crammed the game in the system (blew dust out and tried again) and lost control of their lives for a few days.
But with rare exceptions the golden age of gaming is done for. The push for 3D and realism leaves little room in the budget for story and gameplay.

My first experience gaming was on an Apple IIe, actually. I did have those old games, I played them when they came out. I still recall all the fun I had with double dragon and battle toads. I remember playing Ninja Gaiden and the original NARC. I played them all. I've been gaming for a very long time, as long as anyone.

 

[ZoomStop]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: AcidBath
QFT on many levels. Too many kiddies in here are commenting on how the old Ninetndo systems/games suck when the only time they ever played the older games is when they fired them up on an emulator. PSOne was the first system as far as they care. They didn't rush home in '87 with a Copy of Final Fantasy 1 that they just paid $70 for. Crammed the game in the system (blew dust out and tried again) and lost control of their lives for a few days.
But with rare exceptions the golden age of gaming is done for. The push for 3D and realism leaves little room in the budget for story and gameplay.

My first experience gaming was on an Apple IIe, actually. I did have those old games, I played them when they came out. I still recall all the fun I had with double dragon and battle toads. I remember playing Ninja Gaiden and the original NARC. I played them all. I've been gaming for a very long time, as long as anyone.

Trust me, it wasn't you I was talking about there. In fact the only thing you had said was Nintendo makes a lot of screw ups. But what console maker does not? Sony and Microsoft have not made quite the profound mistakes of the likes of Nintendo, Sega, Atari, 3DO etc, but the came later in the game and were able to learn from their competitors mistakes.
But for Nintendo they have made way more good moves than bad. They were spot on in the market with NES and made a killing. Then they followed up with the SNES which killed the Genesis (fanboys can read sales numbers).
The N64 was cart based, true. But this was back when consoles were using 2X CD-ROM drives. The load times on the PSX were pretty bad on a lot of games. The cart based Nintendo was snappy compared to the PSX in loading. The lack of FMV could also be considered a plus.
And the Gamecube came late to market but has done well for itself and is by no means a flop. If anything the Gamecube is one of the few systems that has not been a large target for the modchip scene which is a boon for them I'm sure.
So I am more than willing to look past a few flops like the Virtual Boy to realize that Nintendo is not only a major player in the home console market, they pretty much re-defined it in the 80's and 90's.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: AcidBath
So I am more than willing to look past a few flops like the Virtual Boy to realize that Nintendo is not only a major player in the home console market, they pretty much re-defined it in the 80's and 90's.

But they didn't redefine it at all, that's just it. The fact that the NES was better than the Atari doesn't mean anything, it came out after the Atari. Of course it was superior. I would say Sega tried a lot harder to be innovative, and people missed the Dreamcast a lot more than people would miss the n64. The playstation has stomped nintendo every generation. The xbox was a monstrosity, but it had a decent selection of games. I actually purchased a PS1, PS2, and an xbox for just one game on each. I couldn't come up with a single game to give me reason to even consider anything nintendo since the NES. They are all either kiddy games or have better alternatives on other systems. I ditched playskool when I was 4.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Malak
They are all either kiddy games or have better alternatives on other systems. I ditched playskool when I was 4.

This tired fanboi argument has been around for years, and really drives home the point that you don't know what you're talking about.

Sorry, but not everyone needs to shoot guns and jack cars to enjoy a game.

 

[JDrake]

Originally posted by: ActuaryTm

Originally posted by: joedrake
No, you see, if I were 11 years old, then I would enjoy those three games

And when exactly will you be turning eleven?

Hmm... I would answer that, but I'm afraid you haven't learned about negative numbers yet :roll:

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: AcidBath
QFT on many levels. Too many kiddies in here are commenting on how the old Ninetndo systems/games suck when the only time they ever played the older games is when they fired them up on an emulator. PSOne was the first system as far as they care. They didn't rush home in '87 with a Copy of Final Fantasy 1 that they just paid $70 for. Crammed the game in the system (blew dust out and tried again) and lost control of their lives for a few days.
But with rare exceptions the golden age of gaming is done for. The push for 3D and realism leaves little room in the budget for story and gameplay.

oh man i remember when FF1 came out. but when FF3 came out was even bigger! i remember playing that for 12+hours straigt for like 3 days! and when Super Mario 3 came out. man that was great.

I loved the old RPG games. Where story and gameplay were the important thing. Even teh FF series lost that. now its like playing a movie when a little gameing thrown in. Though dragon quest VIII was pretty good. well worht the money i spent on it.

I really wish the makers would start makeing oldschool rpgs. Where every now and then there was a cutscene (ohh man the world splitting apart in FF3 was great) and that was to tell a story. I do not need one every time i cast a spell.

 

[Shadowknight]

Not a console company, but a lot of them don't have exposue to old Infocom games. They were fun, albiet some of puzzles were impossible, or doing something wrong made winning the game impossible, but the game didn't tell you that. But they were all text adventures. Pong was simpler, but Infocom games were all text; no graphics at all. Much later games had them, but the "golden age" had zero. Also had an interesting form of copy protection, where not having the manuals either made the game impossible to start, or impossible to win/

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: AcidBath
QFT on many levels. Too many kiddies in here are commenting on how the old Ninetndo systems/games suck when the only time they ever played the older games is when they fired them up on an emulator. PSOne was the first system as far as they care. They didn't rush home in '87 with a Copy of Final Fantasy 1 that they just paid $70 for. Crammed the game in the system (blew dust out and tried again) and lost control of their lives for a few days.
But with rare exceptions the golden age of gaming is done for. The push for 3D and realism leaves little room in the budget for story and gameplay.

oh man i remember when FF1 came out. but when FF3 came out was even bigger! i remember playing that for 12+hours straigt for like 3 days! and when Super Mario 3 came out. man that was great.

I loved the old RPG games. Where story and gameplay were the important thing. Even teh FF series lost that. now its like playing a movie when a little gameing thrown in. Though dragon quest VIII was pretty good. well worht the money i spent on it.

I really wish the makers would start makeing oldschool rpgs. Where every now and then there was a cutscene (ohh man the world splitting apart in FF3 was great) and that was to tell a story. I do not need one every time i cast a spell.

when u were a kid your standards were different..and probably much lower. and they were lower to begin with since thats the best you could get anyways.

 

[buzzsaw13]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: AcidBath
QFT on many levels. Too many kiddies in here are commenting on how the old Ninetndo systems/games suck when the only time they ever played the older games is when they fired them up on an emulator. PSOne was the first system as far as they care. They didn't rush home in '87 with a Copy of Final Fantasy 1 that they just paid $70 for. Crammed the game in the system (blew dust out and tried again) and lost control of their lives for a few days.
But with rare exceptions the golden age of gaming is done for. The push for 3D and realism leaves little room in the budget for story and gameplay.

oh man i remember when FF1 came out. but when FF3 came out was even bigger! i remember playing that for 12+hours straigt for like 3 days! and when Super Mario 3 came out. man that was great.

I loved the old RPG games. Where story and gameplay were the important thing. Even teh FF series lost that. now its like playing a movie when a little gameing thrown in. Though dragon quest VIII was pretty good. well worht the money i spent on it.

I really wish the makers would start makeing oldschool rpgs. Where every now and then there was a cutscene (ohh man the world splitting apart in FF3 was great) and that was to tell a story. I do not need one every time i cast a spell.

You can sort of get the old school RPG feel with the RPG's they release on GBA, they released Breath of Fire 2 on it and I loved it

I still love playing the old games, my local arcade has a machine with a bunch of classic games on it. Burger Time FTW!

 

[DotheDamnTHing]

fanboy fight in this thread

 

[FleshLight]

Elitism FTL.

Whether its MarioKart, Puzzlefighter, Halo 2, CS 1.6, Quake 4, Metal Slugs, Warioware, or Mario Party, I'll still enjoy the game. ANd that's all that matters.

 

[ActuaryTm]

Originally posted by: joedrake
Hmm... I would answer that, but I'm afraid you haven't learned about negative numbers yet :roll:

Of course. After all, what would an actuary know about numbers?

One of my particular favorites is -1. Such that:

• -1 = e^(i*pi)

When you wrap your mind around that one, give me a call.