At 9/19/05 01:28 AM, T_E_T_R_A wrote:
What's your opinion of Nintendo Revolution's controller? Are you intrigued? Annoyed? Dissapointed? Estatic?
At first glance, I was shocked because the controller looks as if Nintendo did not place a lot of effort in being imaginative. As I noticed more about the controller's capabilities, the interface of the controller did not bother me too much. Nintendo wanted to create a fun machine to every genre of games, and they displayed a great example of what a next-gen console should me. I can imagine when they mentioned the controller as a 3D mouse. The genre that gets the most attention was First-Person Shooters/Adventures. It was difficult to emulate the controls of a PC FPS to the console version. Now, I believed it can happen thanks to the Revolution's controller. Of course, it is not there just for FPSs. As usual, Nintendo will bring games that not only test the controller, but also open a new way to play games. They have done just that with the Nintendo 64's controller with its analog stick and Super Mario 64. Also, third-party developers will jump this hi-tech bandwagon. I can imagine playing Katamari Demarcy with just waving around the controller. Overall, it may spook a little with its appearance, but just like The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, looks can be diseving once the player tries it out.
What system are you most excited about for next-gen (not "which is better" -- no console wars, please)?
I always support Nintendo for their creativity, in my opinion, the way games should be made. Then again, Sony offers a lot of games in just a short term. Some of these games are good, while others are terrible to play. The PSX/PS2 has the reputation of being a grab bag when it comes to games. To most gamers, this is how games should be made. I guess it is all of the hype that is elevating the competition. Perhaps, Microsoft can break this curse. . . Then again, what can it bring to gamers with their XBox 360. Nintendo Revolution offers a new and fun way to play games, and can download their older games (for a fee), and the Playstation 3 offers technological advances on games for the developers to use, like the particle engine. Well, the XBox 360 offers a way for non-gamers to buy this console with its Account feature that allows anyone to express themselves. Also, they can chat to people and shop online. Perhaps what gets someone's attention is XBox Live is free for everyone. I look at this can say, "Does everyone have a computer of their own?" All of these said features seems unnecessary for a console. If it works, I hope Microsoft can install a microwave oven or a snack tray, because people needs to eat and they are too lazy to go to the kitchen.
I am sorry that I sounded a little bit of a fanatic, but I am sticking to the Revolution. I believed the controller of the machine will encourage a great experience of playing a game. Nintendo surprised us before, and they can do it again. . . Then again, a lot of people likes the Playstation's controller for no reason that I have heard of.
How much are you willing to spend on a new console?
I am not a rich people, and they say being rich is the way to become a hardcore gamer. I can believe that having a lot of money is the way to become hardcore, but a hardcore gamer? And I thought having a long history on games is the way. Unfortunate for me, it seems that companies are jacking up the price. I am willing to pay a console for around $200. However, I will pay higher if it was something special to me, like the Revolution. As for the games itself, I overheard that the price will rise to $60 dollars. And you thought paying for gas was a pain!
What's more a game good in your eyes; the way it looks, the way it plays, or overall feeling you get from playing?
I am a gamer of unique and engaging quality. I mostly buy games if it has a unique experience that I will enjoy. Luigi's Mansion may be short, but its control schemes, appearance, and gameplay are something to behold. I also play games that are high quality or best sellers for a reason. I cannot seem to noticed why Soul Calibur 2 was a good fighting game to pay, until I tried it out. In other words, I buy games that are more bang of my buck, especially games that take a long time to complete, like Tales of Symphonia. I will not concentrate on games with a part of quality being higher, like the graphics or gameplay. Presentation is what counts as a hardcore gamer since the age of five. If the game does not have the ideal appeal, then what it is good to have it around?
Still, I would like more games with a cel-shaded appearances. I think there is too much hype for traditional graphics for a reason I did not heard before. There has been great games that are made using toon-shading, like Sly Cooper, Jet Grind Radio, Viewtiful Joe, Wind Waker, and Tales of Symphonia. I cannot think why cel-shading is a turn-off to some gamers. It is not ugly to look cartoony. If it was true, then why do so many people tuned in to Anime or any adult cartoons? As for the gameplay, I thrive to something new. Alas, not many unique gameplay elements are created. It is assumed that many unique ideas for gameplay are homebrewed in Japan. That may seems to be the case when you considered a game when you roll everything into a ball. Psychronauts' presentation is very unique, but the gameplay is. . . well, it is as if Mario wants to play psychologist. It is a platformer without any unique gameplay experience, almost like a "been there, done that" situation. Then again, presentation is what counts for me! A reason why I love playing Banjo-Tooie. I bought it because it has tons of things to explore and it is pretty funny, not for its typical gameplay.
Overall, I enjoy games that are best-sellers, or at least a great game to play.