Good site, but don't you think it's a tad sleazy to use these people's videos without at least letting us click-through to their YouTube channel? I mean it's the absolute least you could do to give them due credit.
Readit Newsblakeyrat commented on Astronaut – YouTube videos with almost zero previous views astronaut.io/... · Posted by u/KeatonDunsford
They're not remakes. There's a difference between using the same characters in brand new games, and remaking old games. Your entire comment reads as though you consider them to be literal remakes, and that's completely wrong. People aren't also just buying them for nostalgia. After all, they're new games, it's hard to be nostalgic about new stuff. People are buying them because they're really really fun. And you'll note that kids, who definitely don't have nostalgia for the old games, also consider them to be really really fun, so it's really not just because people liked the previous games.
You're kind of missing my point. That's great for the person who is already a Nintendo fan and already plays every Mario game like clockwork.
As a person who hasn't own a Nintendo console in a decade, what would be my incentive to buy one to play Mario? How the heck would I be able to tell that the Nintendo Switch Mario is any different than the ones that came before? If it is in fact different, why the heck isn't it in a different series?
(Of course the answer to that last one is: Nintendo's sales are fueled entirely by nostalgia, so of course they want the Mario or Zelda game on it because it's basically "free sales". People will buy it just because it says Mario on the cover. Which, going back to my first post, I find disgusting.)
So Nintendo is doing a great job (presumably) marketing to people who already love their products, but what reason are they giving a person who doesn't to try out the product?
>you just don't get this stuff on Sony or Microsoft consoles.
Well, now you don't really get it on Nintendo consoles either. Out of the series you named only one has had a remotely recent installment, and the metroid IP had only been used for taking down fan projects since Other M. That's why, as of now at least, there's no way I'm buying one of these. I can play all the best games from Nintendo's library in Dolphin, on the same PC I run Skyrim on. I don't really see how that game is still supposed to be a selling point.
> on the same PC I run Skyrim on. I don't really see how that game is still supposed to be a selling point.
It seems embarrassing for Nintendo:
"We finally have the game you've been playing on every other console for literally 6 years!"
But it's a huge boost for Bethesda:
"Skyrim's so goddamned popular that Nintendo approached us about putting it on their new console 6 years after it came out!"
> As years go by the less I'm convinced that the platform with the fastest hardware is the best.
It's never been the case.
The GC was the most powerful console of its generation, the PS2 was by far the least powerful one (with the possible exception of the Dreamcast, not quite sure where that one was).
> The GC was the most powerful console of its generation,
That's not true. The Xbox was far more powerful CPU/GPU-wise, and had far more storage (the 8 GB HD was pretty amazing) so games could install themselves to HD and use virtual memory to increase their performance.
> rehashing the same game titles over and over again (the Switch is getting a Zelda title and a Mario title? What a shocker!)
You say that like this is a bad thing. Nintendo isn't just making the same games over and over again. Every new Mario game, and every new Zelda game, brings something new to the genre. For example, Super Mario Galaxy was a very innovative and award-winning game that had a very unique and well-thought-out core mechanic. And this new Super Mario Odyssey game they announced looks like it has a ton of stuff that hasn't been done in a Mario game before.
And ultimately, the first-party games Nintendo puts out, your Marios and Zeldas and whatnot, are always very polished, excellently-designed, and downright fun games. Typically the best games on the whole platform. So it's no surprise that they keep coming back to the same franchises, since they've demonstrated that they can execute extremely well with this IP and that fans absolutely love it. It's not unreasonable to say that Mario and Zelda by themselves sell a large portion of Nintendo's consoles.
> You say that like this is a bad thing.
Probably because I believe it is a bad thing.
> Nintendo isn't just making the same games over and over again.
Let's say I haven't owned a Nintendo console in a long time (which is true-- the last one I bought was a GameCube, which was a piece of crap so I sold it to my step-sister), how would I be able to tell that 2017's Mario is any different than 2014's Mario is any different than 2011's Mario?
If Nintendo genuinely has new game play ideas, maybe they should actually put those ideas in new games. They're not incapable of this-- for example, Splatoon looks genuinely innovative-- but they're more interested in keeping the nostalgia factor than marketing new game concepts. There's one Splatoon for every 10 Mario X or Zelda X or Metroid X.
> And ultimately, the first-party games Nintendo puts out, your Marios and Zeldas and whatnot, are always very polished, excellently-designed, and downright fun games.
Possibly; that doesn't make me interested in buying them. The 1998 Psycho color remake was very polished, excellently designed, etc. But it was just an identical remake of a movie that'd already been made, and if you've seen the original there's no point to seeing the remake.
> Typically the best games on the whole platform.
Because Nintendo's great at games, or because they can't convince anybody else to develop games for their wonky-ass platforms? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Just to drop a note here from the Xbox universe, the Xbox perennial first-party title is Halo. Halo 4 and Halo 5 kind of suck. Kind of suck a lot, really. But the strength of Xbox is that if Halo sucks, you can play Titanfall or Evolve or Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare or Battlefield 4 or... you get the point. And that's just in that one genre.
Unlike Nintendo, Microsoft (and Sony) isn't crippled by bad first-party games. If they were they'd probably put a heck of a lot more effort into ensuring their first-party games didn't kind of suck. So it's kind of an apples-to-orange comparison. Nintendo first-party titles are good because Nintendo has far more incentive to make them good.
> It's not unreasonable to say that Mario and Zelda by themselves sell a large portion of Nintendo's consoles.
Of course not; that's exactly what I've been saying. The company relies almost exclusively on nostalgia to sell its products. Mario and Zelda are nostalgic titles.
I personally am excited for the Switch and will get one at launch. And for me personally, the Wii U is the best console of this generation. But I'm not nearly as enthusiastic about the Switch in general as you are from this presentation.
So far it feels like "the Wii part 3". Yes the Wii sold well, but it didn't sell very many games. Most Wii owners were perfectly content with Wii Sports. The Wii U has pretty much been a flop. Nothing about this presentation suggests to me the Switch will finally do what Nintendo has tried three times now: make a gimmicky, low powered console that appeals in non traditional ways and is successful. So far (and sure, a 1 hour video 3 months before launch isn't much), this very much feels like the Wii and Wii U, and not in the good ways.
I love Nintendo and am a huge fan. But part of me can't help but wish Nintendo would just straight up compete with Sony and Microsoft.
> I love Nintendo and am a huge fan. But part of me can't help but wish Nintendo would just straight up compete with Sony and Microsoft.
Well I don't love Nintendo, I think their consoles are pretty gimmicky and sales are fueled mostly by nostalgia and rehashing the same game titles over and over again (the Switch is getting a Zelda title and a Mario title? What a shocker!)
I honestly don't believe Nintendo is capable of competing with Sony or Microsoft. Maybe they could create hardware on-par with a PS4, but they can't get the publisher relations down, nor have they been able to get their online service to feature-parity with Xbox Live circa 2007 after a decade of trying. They also have this awful customer-hostile attitude that simply will not go away.
(Why should anybody have to buy a game title more than once, just because they bought a new game console? That's pure scam, Nintendo. On Xbox, you buy it once and you own it forever. On Nintendo, people re-buy Super Mario Bros 3 like clockwork every 3 years.)
Which is fine. There's already lots of competition in the "high powered console gaming" arena, and Nintendo would run the risk of becoming another SteamBox. And if their strength is nostalgia, maybe embracing that is a good business decision, even if the constant rehashing of the same titles over and over personally makes me gag.
As pointed out by many gamers on Twitter: Switch officially ends the era of consoles with free online services[1].
[1] - http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/13/14261018/nintendo-switch-p...
Define "online services". Xbox Live still lets you do quite a few things for free. (Although I gladly admit the free capabilities suck compared to the Gold capabilities.)
blakeyrat commented on EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-... · Posted by u/denzil_correa
This is the subtitle of the article:
> FCA allegedly installed and failed to disclose software
> that increases air pollution from vehicles
> The undisclosed software results in increased
> emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the vehicles.
I need more random people on the internet to tell me how stupid and illiterate I am, I guess. Thanks, that's really helpful.
blakeyrat commented on EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-... · Posted by u/denzil_correa
FTA:
"This testing revealed that the FCA vehicle models in question produce increased NOx emissions under conditions that would be encountered in normal operation and use."
Wow. Someone needs to tell the EPA about the inverted pyramid.
You can't blame me for missing that when they bury the lede in the very last paragraph.
That aside, the headline here still says the opposite of what it means to say. Exceeding the standard is a good thing. Exceeding the emissions limit is a bad thing.
EDIT: sorry I know it's negative, but while you're posting stuff about "oh I'm tearing up", what I'm seeing is some guy who wrote a website that steals people's videos without attribution. I realize you didn't "intend" it to do that, but that's what it's doing, and I don't have the psychic powers to know what you "intended" to do with the site.