Topic: Ninten-Does What Others Don't!

The ideas already existed in movies and books before 1986.

OMG!! really? !?!
So now we're bringing books into it???
Unbelievable!! @jaz007

sorry maybe I should have made platform more clearer. I'm talking platform games as in Mario, Sonic, Rayman, Crash Bandicoot etc. old fashioned jump up and down on platforms collecting items. I wouldn't class gears and god of war as platform games.

You said Halo was unoriginal because of the basic ideas of the aliens, space, and suits. I'm saying those ideas existed before Metroid. If you think such basic things are important to being original, you have to take into account those basic story foundations already existed. Halo used the same basic space, aliens, and suit foundations that have existed for ages like Metroid did. Nintendo didn't invent the foundations for Halo. The gameplay is completely different too.

Mario also started on the Atari 2600

Always rated E-T games, most of the time, cause i think there was ONE on GCN that was M.... can't remember. not saying they SHOULD have mre M games... but its a fact

That doesn't make you a fanboy. Defending a company in all cases no matter what the issue, and trying to deny every time the company makes a mistake - despite your own judgement, does however. Sound familiar?

Starfox was ripped straight from Solaris Atari 2600

I hope that was sarcasm

...wut?

Actually, Nintendo published 2 M rated games on Gamecube, with Eternal Darkness and Geist.
But yeah, Nintendo doesn't really focus on M-rated games all that much.

Also, if I could interject. Sakamoto has come out and stated that some concepts in Metroid was based on the movie Alien.

@UpTownSoul The Wii sold 100M, not 130M.

I feel like part of what "Nintendo-Does What Others Don't" is this

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/a-little-bit-of-yest...

This is actually a very valid point; it makes sense to look back a ways in truly deciphering the origins of an idea. While tangential to the whole issue of what company launched which concept in particular, it establishes the whole argument as unimportant, really.

@Sony_70
It's not an opinion? What kind of BS post is that? Just because my opinion is not yours, does not make it any less valid.
WTF?

@Geonjaha
Ya it does sound familar, because Nintendo fanboy people argue with PS fanboy people all the time.
As you can see, I just discussed how my opinion is just as important as @Sony_70 . We're at the point of an argument where a Nintendo fans opinion doesn't mean s*** in comparison to a PS fans.

EDIT: Maybe I should word it another way. I've been accused of blind fanboyism so often, that I don't even know what being a fanboy is anymore.
It doesn't matter if your a fanboy or not, because people will think you are anyway.
I generally like Nintendo games better because of the mainly superior gameplay in comparison to PS.

People with PS2 were playing games like Jak and Dexter while people with GCN were playing Super Mario Sunshine. Those are the kind of comparisons I make, and Jak and Dexter have piss poor gameplay in comparison.
The only reason why PS All Stars Battle Royal was as good as it was(and still wasn't as good as Smash Bros. Melee), was because Nintendo had already advanced the gameplay mechanics pretty much 3 times before PS even had enough characters to throw into a mash-up game.
Physics on PS games are floaty and unrealistic, while Nintendo generally keeps their gameplay more realistic.

I admit that PS3's graphics were pretty good, but the games were very reliant on cosmetic attributes vs. actual gameplay. I hated LBP with a passion. The game looked generally interesting, but the gameplay was so piss poor in comparison to a Mario game, that I just avoided the thing altogether.
I'd rather play Assassin's Creed over inFamous anyday, and I dislike both of those games to the point where I won't play them at all.

@SCAR392

I didn't say your opinion didn't matter. I was just clarifying the difference between being objective and subjective. You don't like Sony that much which is fine and all, but to discount that their first party studios don't compare to Nintendo is size, scope, and scale is absurd.

It can go either way for a variety of reasons.
I'm just saying that a game like Jak & Dexter or LBP doesn't compare to Mario games. Those games were arguably more subjective than anything Nintendo offers, because the physics aren't relevant in Sony games.

When I jump in Super Mario Galaxy, it looks more realistic than LBP or J&D. The only thing Sony is really doing better, is cosmetic.

Same thing with Killzone/Uncharted vs. Call of Duty or Battlefield/Gears or War. They are similar titles, but any Sony game doesn't have as real of physics as the other games. An online game of a EA or Activision game still surpasses a game like Killzone despite Sony being 1st party.

IMO, Nintendo games are usually always relevant, but 3rd parties have equalled Nintendo quality in the past. GCN got plenty of 3rd party games that were equal to Nintendo games.
I just don't think Sony 1st party games are as good as Nintendo OR 3rd party games.

i.e.
Super Smash Bros. > PS All-Stars
Super Mario 3D World >Infamous: Second Son
COD/Battlefield > Killzone
Gears of War > Uncharted

This is obviously my opinion, but you can't say your opinion isn't opinion, when there are still other opinions to be considered.

If we were back in 6th gen, you'd still like PS2 more than GCN or Xbox despite being a weaker system.

This is unreal! ! Another turn for the worst in my absence!
@madaussiebloke- you do know nintendo developed those games on atari and coleco vision right??
@sony_70 coleco vision was my first system!
@@scar- your cool!
I'm out!