Nintendo kills Sega

[LSU]

I think Strider77's list proves that Sega has made plenty of classic games post-console retirement. (I'd also like to add Rez.) And speaking of the Sega Ages discs, I love them... lovely ports, lovely extras and the choice for a lot of games to run in 240p, 480i or 480p. How many re-releases of old titles give you that kind of flexibility?

Pretty much the only Nintendo games I still play to this day are the F-Zeros (and even then, GX is Sega) and Super Mario World. And the only reason I still have an N64 at all is to play Sin & Punishment. I respect Miyamoto's games of course, but slagging off Sega is just really not on.

[kengou]

There is very little depth to any Sega game. The last one I liked was probably Fzero GX or SMB.

never played Virtua Fighter, I see

[orange]

There is very little depth to any Sega game. The last one I liked was probably Fzero GX or SMB.

you're trolling

nicely-played

[jp]

I think Strider77's list proves that Sega has made plenty of classic games post-console retirement. (I'd also like to add Rez.)

Rez was a Dreamcast game though...

[Specineff]

Zelda Wand of Gamelon

Not actually made by Nintendo. Same with all of the CD-I abominations.

They still let it happen. So much for their quality control.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Sega offered to partner up with Sony for the Playstation? Sony would provide the hardware, Sega would produce the software and brand name? Yet, in their infinite nosey pride, they turned them down. Imagine Panzer Dragoon Saga on PS1 graphics. (Provided memory was not an issue.)

And it gets worse. Sega was also offered the basic chip that became the N64, but the Japanese executives kept on rejecting it saying that it wasn't good enough (read: It made by Evil American Men, beef with you makes for unpleasant dealing. Be caution.). They went to Nintendo, and their "not good enough" chip beat the crap out of the Saturn with its kiddie games. Now imagine the Saturn with the graphic capabilities of the N64...

Sad.

[Nuke]

Eh, the more arrogant they get the more likely they're about to spiral down and we'll see a shift in the leading brand. I'll give Nintendo 1-3 years until they're fans start walking away from them, due to underpowered hardware, loose quality control and to much emphasis on non gamers and hipsters (who'll also walk away due to their old toy not being "hip" or fun anymore).

[Skykid]

Nintendo have bags and bags of cash. They are, despite playing underdogs to Sony for a while, the most ruthless and shrewd business in the history of gaming.
Even if the console isn't on top, they find ways again and again to bring in the cash (see Pokemon.)

Nintendo report profits when contenders report losses, even in their first year of console releases. Their marketing strategy and quality control is far beyond just about anyone else, especially current Sega (quality control) and then Sega (marketing).

I have no worries about their welfare, while Sony's PS3 still goes slowly out the door, cut down in functionality, at huge losses.

And breaking news, ex Nintendo President Hiroshi Yamauchi named richest man in Japan in Edge news this month!

The proof is in the pudding, no matter whether Nintendo's flavour suits your tastes or not.

[neorichieb1971]

I am not trolling. I grew up in the golden era of Sega. I remember the first time Shinobi arcade came to town. Followed by Outrun, Enduro Racer. I remember the golden era of Sega Rally arcade and Daytona.

Just because I don't mention VF as a deep game doesn't mean I don't like it for other reasons. It's boring compared to Tekken. For VF you need someone skilled at it and I don't know too many of them. For Tekken anyone could play it which meant I spent a great more deal of time playing it.

Going back to Sega. When they had the chance they didn't release decent versions of any of those above games on DC or the Saturn. They were always late, lacking the graphical flair and missed the opportunity when the property was hot. I remember die hard Sega fans begging for ports that were up there with the arcade and they gave you things like Sega rally 2 DC. Yeah right!

On occasion new I.P would surface and surprise us all, but it happened seldom and usually sold less units than it deserved. Simply because the brand name had lost its credit.

[LSU]

I think Strider77's list proves that Sega has made plenty of classic games post-console retirement. (I'd also like to add Rez.)

Rez was a Dreamcast game though...

You're right of course, how could I forget? (Especially since I own it!)

[Gungriffon Geona]

IMO Miyamoto jumped the shark sometime last year, when he slammed Sega's work on F-Zero GX, one of the best games the Gamecube had to offer...

Except that GX was terrible and tried too fucking hard to be like the anime that came out for it, complete with the extremely bizarre attack manuevers and inability to win a race by racing. you were forced into some little hell that felt like a fighting game from satan.

[antron]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Sega offered to partner up with Sony for the Playstation? Sony would provide the hardware, Sega would produce the software and brand name?

No, that deal was with Nintendo. It was for the SNES-CD, but Sony wanted to own the games, so Nintendo wisely backed out. The hardware became the Sony Playstation.

[UnscathedFlyingObject]

It probably was the wise thing to do at the moment, but it made them bitterly regret it when Sony made them their bitch.

The cards are now reversed, though. And Nintendo execs are wiping their asses with 10,000 yen bills.

[kengou]

Nintendo have bags and bags of cash. They are, despite playing underdogs to Sony for a while, the most ruthless and shrewd business in the history of gaming.

Haha what? Nintendo makes amazing games and usually very high quality consoles (hardware quality wise). But ruthless, intelligent businessmen they most certainly are not. Look at Microsoft, they created the 360 with the express intent of drawing as many 3rd party developers to the platform as possible. Charging for online play and downloadable content takes the cost off the developers and onto the customers. MS also buys out a ton of studios, makes excusivity and timed-exclusivity agreements with tons of studios, and generally just throws cash around to get what it wants. Great for their developers, terrible for the actual gamers who have to pay for all that crap and then replace their console every 3 months. MS did the same thing on the PC market; they lock down all the third-party companies into working with their platform, and that forces the users to use MS products even if those products suck (and they all do). And the users/gamers put up with it, too, because they want that third-party software. That's MS's strategy and it pays off for them.

Nintendo made a great move (for their business) marketing the Wii to the casual market and whatnot, but they make so many mistakes it's crazy. Barely any storage space? Hardly any focus on online play? Crappy third-party support? They could do things much better.

I love Nintendo and I hate Microsoft, but MS is simply a much more ruthless and shrewd business in every sense of the word.

I've been told Sony is pretty evil too but I don't follow them too much, worst I know was Lik-Sang and that Rootkit disaster.

[antron]

I love Nintendo and I hate Microsoft, but MS is simply a much more ruthless and shrewd business in every sense of the word.

isn't MS loosing their ass in the gaming sector?

[UnscathedFlyingObject]

Nintendo have bags and bags of cash. They are, despite playing underdogs to Sony for a while, the most ruthless and shrewd business in the history of gaming.

Haha what? Nintendo makes amazing games and usually very high quality consoles (hardware quality wise). But ruthless, intelligent businessmen they most certainly are not. Look at Microsoft, they created the 360 with the express intent of drawing as many 3rd party developers to the platform as possible. Charging for online play and downloadable content takes the cost off the developers and onto the customers. MS also buys out a ton of studios, makes excusivity nd timed-exclusivity agreements with tons of studios, and generally just throws cash around to get what it wants. Great for their developers, terrible for the actual gamers who have to pay for all that crap and then replace their console every 3 months. MS did the same thing on the PC market; they lock down all the third-party companies into working with their platform, and that forces the users to use MS products even if those products suck (and they all do). And the users/gamers put up with it, too, because they want that third-party software. That's MS's strategy and it pays off for them.

Nintendo made a great move (for their business) marketing the Wii to the casual market and whatnot, but they make so many mistakes it's crazy. Barely any storage space? Hardly any focus on online play? Crappy third-party support? They could do things much better.

I love Nintendo and I hate Microsoft, but MS is simply a much more ruthless and shrewd business in every sense of the word.

I've been told Sony is pretty evil too but I don't follow them too much, worst I know was Lik-Sang and that Rootkit disaster.

You're making Nintendo sound like they're poor innocent kittens .

[Kiken]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Sega offered to partner up with Sony for the Playstation? Sony would provide the hardware, Sega would produce the software and brand name? Yet, in their infinite nosey pride, they turned them down. Imagine Panzer Dragoon Saga on PS1 graphics. (Provided memory was not an issue.)

And it gets worse. Sega was also offered the basic chip that became the N64, but the Japanese executives kept on rejecting it saying that it wasn't good enough (read: It made by Evil American Men, beef with you makes for unpleasant dealing. Be caution.). They went to Nintendo, and their "not good enough" chip beat the crap out of the Saturn with its kiddie games. Now imagine the Saturn with the graphic capabilities of the N64...

Sad.

How is it sad that the Saturn had clear and distinct resolution that it could run at 60 fps? All of the Saturn's display modes beat the living shit out of the vaseline-smeared visuals of the N64.

[GaijinPunch]

Sega's best game since Shenmue: Senjou no Valkyria. It proves they have some life left in them.

And for the record, VF5 was a huge let down. It kind of shows the sucky side since Sammy took over.

[Specineff]

How is it sad that the Saturn had clear and distinct resolution that it could run at 60 fps? All of the Saturn's display modes beat the living shit out of the vaseline-smeared visuals of the N64.

Oh, no. I mean that it's sad that Sega didn't capitalize the opportunity. The vaseline-smear look (an opinion I totally agree with, and if I'm mistaken correct me.) was caused by the puny texture ram available on the N64, and the storage medium. (Detailed textures take more space than a simple one, right?. ) So if you imagine the Saturn built around a graphics chip like the N64's, combined with its stock texture and video memory and its clearer resolution, it would have been the system to own.

Now, not to argue with you, but vaseline look or not, I can't think of a single Sat 3D game that beats the crap out of the N64. (I haven't played any of the N64 Zeldas, so I can't honestly compare them to say, Panzer Dragoon Saga.)

[Strider77]

I forgot to mention

Yakuza 1, 2 and 3
F Zero on game cube
And the Intial D series..... I'm can't wait for the PS3 one coming soon..

[The Coop]

Nintendo + Quality Control =

A good look at either the NES, SNES, or N64 alone prove this. Tack on the Virtual Boy, and the whole QC argument by Nintendo is sent to "ROFL Get!"-land.

[D]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Sega offered to partner up with Sony for the Playstation? Sony would provide the hardware, Sega would produce the software and brand name? Yet, in their infinite nosey pride, they turned them down. Imagine Panzer Dragoon Saga on PS1 graphics. (Provided memory was not an issue.)

And it gets worse. Sega was also offered the basic chip that became the N64, but the Japanese executives kept on rejecting it saying that it wasn't good enough (read: It made by Evil American Men, beef with you makes for unpleasant dealing. Be caution.). They went to Nintendo, and their "not good enough" chip beat the crap out of the Saturn with its kiddie games. Now imagine the Saturn with the graphic capabilities of the N64...

Sad.

Stuff like this is not their downfall, but perhaps it could have been big, but teaming up with Sony? Such a big company? This is more for the discussion whether or not Sony killed Sega. And it's the same answer, Sega killed themselves. The Saturn is a supergreat machine. Ask yourself how many Sega arcade games were even released for the Sega Saturn. Too few. All they had to do was port, port, port which is always easier than designing a new game from scratch!
ohh, here I go again, together we could write a book of things they did wrong.

[Specineff]

That's the point I was trying to make. Sega killed themselves with stupid decisions. Partner up with Sony? Hell no. How is a solid relationship that we built with them in the 16-bit era going to help us now? An advanced graphics chip that offers features only found in advanced video cards? Heru, no. It made by American deveroper; no good enough. It wir-u onry bring bad ruck to our mirioanaire business, de arimasu.




(Not that going the above routes would have necessarily meant a better outcome, but blind stupidity like the examples shown is epic.)

[Skykid]

Nintendo have bags and bags of cash. They are, despite playing underdogs to Sony for a while, the most ruthless and shrewd business in the history of gaming.

Haha what? Nintendo makes amazing games and usually very high quality consoles (hardware quality wise). But ruthless, intelligent businessmen they most certainly are not. Look at Microsoft, they created the 360 with the express intent of drawing as many 3rd party developers to the platform as possible. Charging for online play and downloadable content takes the cost off the developers and onto the customers. MS also buys out a ton of studios, makes excusivity and timed-exclusivity agreements with tons of studios, and generally just throws cash around to get what it wants. Great for their developers, terrible for the actual gamers who have to pay for all that crap and then replace their console every 3 months. MS did the same thing on the PC market; they lock down all the third-party companies into working with their platform, and that forces the users to use MS products even if those products suck (and they all do). And the users/gamers put up with it, too, because they want that third-party software. That's MS's strategy and it pays off for them.

Nintendo made a great move (for their business) marketing the Wii to the casual market and whatnot, but they make so many mistakes it's crazy. Barely any storage space? Hardly any focus on online play? Crappy third-party support? They could do things much better.

I love Nintendo and I hate Microsoft, but MS is simply a much more ruthless and shrewd business in every sense of the word.

I've been told Sony is pretty evil too but I don't follow them too much, worst I know was Lik-Sang and that Rootkit disaster.

This is dumb. I don't like people opening a post with "HA HA" when they're bloody clueless.
The big N is by far and away the shrewdest profiteering gaming business entity ever. Microsoft are childs in a playgroundz in comparison.
Look at profit reports to see what's what - Microsoft have lost hundreds of millions of dollars for faulty 360 repair costs, and that's while they're headed out the door at a loss.
Pokemon, Tetris, Gameboy, Famicom and Super Famicom and now DS and Wii: All major licences to print money.

That post made you look silly man.

[Shatterhand]

Yeah, NES lockout chips, exclusivity contracts with 3rd-parties and other stuff like that doesn't make them look any "innocente kitties". Study the history and you will see they are at least as "evil" as microsoft.

[Strider77]

Except that GX was terrible and tried too fucking hard to be like the anime that came out for it, complete with the extremely bizarre attack manuevers and inability to win a race by racing. you were forced into some little hell that felt like a fighting game from satan.

are you talking about the GC game???? or do you mean the gameboy ones??

[Skykid]

Except that GX was terrible and tried too fucking hard to be like the anime that came out for it, complete with the extremely bizarre attack manuevers and inability to win a race by racing. you were forced into some little hell that felt like a fighting game from satan.

are you talking about the GC game???? or do you mean the gameboy ones??

That's what I was thinking. GX is amaaaazing!

[D]

Yeah, NES lockout chips, exclusivity contracts with 3rd-parties and other stuff like that doesn't make them look any "innocente kitties". Study the history and you will see they are at least as "evil" as microsoft.

nes lockout chips killed sega.

as for the exclusivity contracts, sega had enough games of their own to port anyway and by the time Sega released the Megadrive everybody released games for Sega, so that excuse doesn't hold up since 1988 when the megadrive was first released. No, it's Sega himself.
Nintendo mau have been ruthless way back, but that has nothing to do with Sega. Nintendo never did agressive marketing like Sega and SNK did. I am a sega fanboy and I'm not so into Nintendo, but Nintendo cannot be blamed for anything. Lot's of people buy their stuff, so those people must be happy!

[E. Randy Dupre]

I'm posting in a console war thread? It's 1993 again?

Also:

I'm posting in a "Sega are dead/what killed Sega?" thread? It's 2001 again?

[FIL]

Sonic would kick Mario's ass, he'd run at like 200mph into him and skewer him on his spikes and then go for a chilli dog.

[Shatterhand]

Yeah, NES lockout chips, exclusivity contracts with 3rd-parties and other stuff like that doesn't make them look any "innocente kitties". Study the history and you will see they are at least as "evil" as microsoft.

nes lockout chips killed sega.

as for the exclusivity contracts, sega had enough games of their own to port anyway and by the time Sega released the Megadrive everybody released games for Sega, so that excuse doesn't hold up since 1988 when the megadrive was first released. No, it's Sega himself.
Nintendo mau have been ruthless way back, but that has nothing to do with Sega. Nintendo never did agressive marketing like Sega and SNK did. I am a sega fanboy and I'm not so into Nintendo, but Nintendo cannot be blamed for anything. Lot's of people buy their stuff, so those people must be happy!

Yeah yeah, I know nothing of this is in anyway related to Sega, I am just replying to the "Nintendo are sooo nice guys" post