VGCollect Forum
General and Gaming => Modern Video Games => Topic started by: oldgamerz on August 07, 2019, 05:41:05 pm
-
this is another typical rant coming from what game companies may call a spoiled brat.
To me I would only spend $10 USD maximum unles
s I had no other choice than maybe $20 USD. Since today games are rushed on the market and need to be downloaded to play for $30-$60 USD on a $200-$500 or more
for one console, hookups and controller/s and since most of the game may be worthless in the future
To me I would not buy any PS4 or Xbox One games or consoles even if the console was as cheap as $100USD.
(edit) maybe an xbox One for it's disc reading capacity
Yesterday I now see that games needed to be $60-$80 new to cover production costs, now that is now not a requirement since all a developer needs to do is put up their game on some website and sell it for the say price we used to pay for our own physical copies
(if you are a modern gamer than you already know this)
PS4 and Xbox One games are also not included fully on the disc, and most of them take up 50 Gigabytes or less plus you need to constantly download them off the internet when you first get them. or reinstall them. Sometimes you can only have 10 games on a 500 gigabyte and 20 games on a 1 terabyte console modern console, otherwise you can't fit too many more of the larger games.
if your console runs out of room you either need a compatible external hard drive or you need to re download a game that may or may not be there at the moment
-
Collectors Edition - 100
Collectors edition with statue that is very limited- 200
Regular Copy- 60
Those are my limits. Usually those are the industry standard for pricing :) I think its fair.
Remasters- never over 20. Im sick of Nintendo charging us 60 for 5 year old games.
-
I don't think I'd ever spend more than $30 for a digital game.
Physical.. I don't know. My opinion changes on this somewhat frequently. Sometimes I feel like pre-ordering a game is the right thing to do other times I feel like I should just wait for it to be $20 or less.
-
No issue paying full price for a digital game, been doing that on PC for years since they've mostly abandoned physical releases.
-
In my case, the most I'd pay for a digital release or a DLC would be something between zero and null.
As for a modern game, if it is something I was really looking forward such as Ace Combat 7 or Death Stranding, I don't mind about buying a ¥10,000 (something around US$95.00) or so for a collector's edition. Other than that, I usually wait a couple of months or so in order to buy the game for much cheaper (preferably something under ¥3,000).
-
60 for physical, I think 20 is the most I ever spent on a digital game.
-
My top dollar on digital games is $30 and that's if I really, really, really want it. I'd say 90% of all digital games I've purchased I bought for under $10.
With the video game industry rapidly approaching an all, or at least mostly, digital future, I'm wondering how my consumption of video games will change. Maybe my attitude will change if some new game I'm very excited about comes out, but I have to get it digitally or not at all. Maybe then I'd pay full price for it, but the thought of doing so right now seriously sounds painful. I just have a very hard time getting over the fact that I don't own the game and truly never will. I've mediated this feeling by settings a pretty low dollar amount on most digital games and there's a decent chance I'll always feel this way. I imagine I'll just have to wait several months to several years for a decent sale on some platform for certain games to come down in price before I'm willing to buy them.
-
I have no qualms paying full price for a title, as that would mean that I want to play it day one.
-
When it comes to pricing I see it like this:
A new release which is a Standard Edition £40 - Anything over £40 just seems to be a con, our GAME store had Kingdom Hearts III at launch for £52.99... I had it Pre-Ordered online for £37.85... That is a colossal difference! I can't ever see myself spending £50+ for a Standard Edition release, unless it is an import at best.
Special Editions can vary, I very rarely buy them these days as most of the time they just come with tat or are overly expensive due to including a toy. I will happily pay £5 extra for a nice Steelbook - I did this recently & switched with my MediEvil Pre-order. Or I will wait for the SE to go down, I snagged Days Gone SE for £35 as opposed to the £64.99 RRP.
One thing I look out for more these days is if the game has a Season Pass. If it does I tend to try hold out until a potential Complete Edition is release - Which is really hard to judge prior to a 1 after the game has hit the market. But I'm fed up of buying incomplete games, especially if retailers are charging more for them.
I don't buy new releases Digital, I will buy games Digitally on SALE if they're not available physically (Or if they've been exploited by a company like Limited Run) - Star Ocean 4K being a prime example, I'd have bought it on disc but it was only available on PS4 via download, so I waited for it to be on sale under £10.
I'm the same with Season Pass/DLC content, I managed to breakdown Watch Dogs 2 DLC when it was on sale and bought the important Story DLC for cheaper than buying a Season Pass with cosmetic tat.
-
Depends. For DOOM Eternal I'm willing to front the $200 for the collector's edition but for any other game 60 max.
-
$300 bundle with specialized controllers
$150 collectors edition
$60 standard copy
$25 digital (I would never buy a special/collectors edition digital copy)
-
I use to buy modern games at full price, but seeing how rapidly games go on sale, I don't anymore unless of course it's a collector's edition with limited quantities that I am interested in. Or Elden Ring :P.
Physical games go on sale pretty fast these days. For example I recently bought Shadow of the Tomb Raider Limited Steelbook Edition, Darksiders III and Days Gone on PS4 for less than half the price each through promotions and price drops. Just have to look in the right places and combine with rewards programs and what not through online buying.
I probably only pay full price for low quantity produced Switch games, and even those are not that high priced since they are not major releases.
Basically, modern game when it's at least 30% off the starting price. Digital, which is mainly Switch indie games at least 15% off. But they are reasonably cheap to begin with. The Nintendo Switch eShop has a decent amount of sales, and what I like is that they send you a notification via email if any of your wishlisted games go on sale, so you can't miss it. ;D
-
I'll pay $60 for a modern game if I really really want it. Otherwise, I need at least $10-$15 bucks off or I wait for a price drop. Just too much to play to be worth it. I pay more for the occasional collector's edition but I have majorly cut back on buying those.
For digital- at most $5-$15 bucks max. I once spent $40 on the Witness and forever regret it. Not that it was a bad game, but eventually it dropped to half and even became a free game. I don't buy much digitally anymore except for the occasional switch title. And most of those are on discount.
-
For me, it all depends on the game. I prefer physical over digital, but I'd still spend full retail price if it was the only way to play. It's just a game to me at the end of the day. Although I think it's kinda odd OP is complaining about 60/70$ price tag for modern games when games in the 90's/00's were 50$ (including Genesis and Snes) and significantly shorter game play wise.
I only buy games new that I'm anticipating the release, so I'd be willing to spend more on a franchise I really love (looking at you Persona 5R) I think statues and collectors editions are extremely pointless. It's just my opinion, but they've got to pack something more enticing than a 100$+ do nothing statue in the "collector's edition."
-
Games have actually gotten cheaper over the years
money is worth way less than it was back than not to mention that there where games especially rpg's with save memory wich costed close or over 100$. wich is even more $ by today standard inflation. money had more value back than.
The only exceptions to modern games being more expensive than back in the day are expensive dlc or lootboxes wich would increase the price well over 100 sometimes over 200$. but most games for 60 retail occasionally with the small 25$ or less dlc are cheaper than back in the day no questions asked.
-
It varies, depending on the game- but I don't usually buy collector's edition & would be loathe to spend over the standard $60 without a good reason. As for digital, right now my max seems to be around $20 if I really want the game- considering I can get physical copies of many games I want for that price, it seems silly to spend that amount on a digital copy.
My big 'overspending' moment, is if a game i bought digitally gets a physical release. despite already owning it, I almost always get the hard copy too- the only exception I can think of is Donut County. I enjoyed the game, but thought it was way too short & not worth the $13 I did pay for it- so spending another $30 seems like a bad idea. I'm still tempted, though.
-
The most I ever spent was $40 CAD on a digital copy of wolfenstein 2 for switch -- I felt like such a sucker at the time although I got a lot of hours out of it in the end so I don't regret it.
I think the most I've ever spent on a digital title for PC was ~$30, but I only purchase DRM-free titles. Last physical PC title I bought was Skyrim (~$60-70) only to discover the install CD was basically just an installer for Steam. I was extremely annoyed and never bought another.
To answer your question, I think $40 CAD is my celiing for digital titles, but I usually refuse to spend more than about $20. That said, I could see myself dropping $50 on doom eternal when it sales if I can't get a physical around the same $ :P
-
Games have actually gotten cheaper over the years
money is worth way less than it was back than not to mention that there where games especially rpg's with save memory wich costed close or over 100$. wich is even more $ by today standard inflation. money had more value back than.
The only exceptions to modern games being more expensive than back in the day are expensive dlc or lootboxes wich would increase the price well over 100 sometimes over 200$. but most games for 60 retail occasionally with the small 25$ or less dlc are cheaper than back in the day no questions asked.
Money may be worth less, but production costs have also decreased while prices have not fluctuated much at all. Everyone said that discs would make games cheaper, it didn't. Solid state memory is becoming cheaper by the year, yet Switch games are typically more than their PS4 counterparts. Nintendo goes from charging $20 for a Selects copy of Tropical Freeze, back to a $50 price grab when porting it to Switch. Bandwidth is not all that expensive either in terms of one time downloads, yet they still charge the classic MSPR rate of $60 per download. Steam runs some really fantastic deals sometimes, but it seems like the console marketplaces don't.
Game publishers have always been afraid of selling their software too cheaply, for fears of not making back and profiting from sales. IMO, $60 is and has always been, a prohibitive price target. Not many people are willing to just throw down $60 for something that might amuse them or a few days to a week. Games being $60 is the primary reason I only ever got about 4 or 5 games per year as a kid. It's a lot money, dacades ago and today. I think they scare off many would-be buyers by not pricing them lower and producing a higher amount of copies like most other media.
-
Games have actually gotten cheaper over the years
money is worth way less than it was back than not to mention that there where games especially rpg's with save memory wich costed close or over 100$. wich is even more $ by today standard inflation. money had more value back than.
The only exceptions to modern games being more expensive than back in the day are expensive dlc or lootboxes wich would increase the price well over 100 sometimes over 200$. but most games for 60 retail occasionally with the small 25$ or less dlc are cheaper than back in the day no questions asked.
Money may be worth less, but production costs have also decreased while prices have not fluctuated much at all. Everyone said that discs would make games cheaper, it didn't. Solid state memory is becoming cheaper by the year, yet Switch games are typically more than their PS4 counterparts. Nintendo goes from charging $20 for a Selects copy of Tropical Freeze, back to a $50 price grab when porting it to Switch. Bandwidth is not all that expensive either in terms of one time downloads, yet they still charge the classic MSPR rate of $60 per download. Steam runs some really fantastic deals sometimes, but it seems like the console marketplaces don't.
Game publishers have always been afraid of selling their software too cheaply, for fears of not making back and profiting from sales. IMO, $60 is and has always been, a prohibitive price target. Not many people are willing to just throw down $60 for something that might amuse them or a few days to a week. Games being $60 is the primary reason I only ever got about 4 or 5 games per year as a kid. It's a lot money, dacades ago and today. I think they scare off many would-be buyers by not pricing them lower and producing a higher amount of copies like most other media.
tropical freeze was released on wii u. it's only understandable that they wanted a 2nd chance for their hard work and charge near 60$ on switch. the wii u failed badly I can see why they wanted to see them sales on switch. also considering that it has 2 million sales compared to the wii u 2 million plenty of new people bought it. double the amount after all not that many people bought a wii u that game could have easily come out on switch only.
it seemss to me that many wii u owners are complaining about ports and having almost no exclusives left from a business perspective this was the correct thing to do.
The wii u was lackluster console aside from smash bros and mario kart 8. there where some other good titles as chronicles x and them zelda 3d hd's where nice but it had the most lacluster mario 3d game in the entire series even if it was better advertised it would not have done well also not even a unique zelda game. botw does not count imo not to mention that the wii u version lacks stuff.
how do discs not decrease prices of games? looking at xbox one and ps4.
Titles like dragon quest XI and many other ps4 games drop in price kinda fast. few of the non indi games stay above 30$ usually in the 20's or lower.
They say that switch carts are a bit more expensive to make than ps4 discs as nintendo's counter point. besides people still buy it since the switch is the best handheld console out there atm. and ps4 games cannot be played in handheld mode. so for some people switch games count for both tv and handheld games so quite some people who prefer a switch release for this reason alone.
besides why complain about the 60$ price tag while for pretty much all new released games it is a bit or allot more. 20+ or way more $ in dlc or worse micro trans actions wich even some nintendo games have atm. few games have no dlc anymore. the best case is like 20ish $ for them bigger titles. your going to be lucky if a triple aaa game is complete for just 60$. dlc and sometimes even micro transactions increase the price. let's be honest the dlc of botw should have been in the base game but even with nintendo dlc is like almost 100% a thing. many things that came out in dlc where canceled from the base game. i get it is great value compared to other games even with extra dlc costs but still that would not have happened in the past.
dlc and micro transactions make games way more pricy than 60$ I wish new games where just 60$ in wich you can unlock all the stuff by gameplay. where going to be lucky if we get a mario or zelda game on release with a 60$ price tag withouth any dlc it's not happening anymore.
in terms of download only even if switch carts are more pricy to make than discs the production value of even switch games is less than 10$ if not just a couple of $. also people who buy a digital copy are lazy and pay for the comfort. they know their audience to well they will not get more profits by lowering the price for downloads only since not that much more people would buy them. it would not compensate for the losses.
Download always seems to be 5 to 10$ more than a physical copy when a game is brand new in the case of nintendo but i can;t blame them since the audience for digital only is either lazy or pay for comfort and want to play the game as early as possible. i don't get why people complain while digital only on consoles is for the lazy audience. This isn't steam on pc it's a totally different market in wich for example nintendo has exclusives wich are not sold on any platform aside from their own. Also on consoles the companies decide what the market is while on pc you have many competitors as the reason for the many sales. not to mention that indi games on switch are also in the low price range al be it not with crazy sales sometimes just a couple $ or 1$ like steam isn't it normal that their big titles are 60$
also speaking of digital of the switch games sales almost 40% was digital in 2018. so their doing just fine. why lower the prices it will probably hurt the profits allot more even if slightly more people would go digital.
People speak with their wallet. the increase of pretty much everything being a collectors edition having dlc and the rise of micro transactions in console games speak volumes about how much the majority of people are willing to spend on games. 60$ is nothing if where looking at it that way considering it is usually more pricy than that.
-
Typically, my number was $5 unless it is something I really want and then maybe $10. However, I had come to the realisation about this time last year, that I can't be buying all these cheap digital games. I even stopped doing the humblebundle. I just don't have the time to play all of them. Unlike physical games, where I can eventually play them, digital games still have a limited shelf life.
How long will it take for me to play even half of the purchased but unplayed digital games? How long before the platform I had purchased them on decides to sunset my OS? Don't think it would ever happen, well Steam is actively blocking users on Windows XP systems. People bought games to play through that platform, and one day there was an update and they couldn't even log in or launch some games. That made people develop hacked clients and crack their installs. Where does that time come from?
I have only paid full price on two digital games so far.
1. The first was the Necromancer add-on for Diablo III. I already had the base game and expansion in physical.
2. The first base game was Black Ops 4, only the cheapest option. It was $60. Ended up being a good decision to not get the DLC.
3. Then I buy the Borderlands 3 with the season pass, because I know that I will use it. It was $100.
And even since my decision to stop buying all the cheap digital games, I haven't made any inroads to my digital library. It doesn't help that I am playing games that have no real end. Games that I can't just beat and be done with.
-
I’ve repurchased several games I have on Steam on my Switch for this exact reason (Bastion, Crypt of the Necrodancer). I’m never going to find enough time sitting at my computer to play these games, but for another $3-4 I may find the time on my Switch.
-
Regular full price ($60/£50) if I am dying to play it, which only happens for one or two releases a year.
Probably will pay full price for Pokemon Sword this fall.
-
If nintendo ever does decide to lower digital prices by a sizable chunk. It could have a bad impact on their profits since a ton of the causal crowd their biggest market just needs to play the game wether it;s digital or physical it does not make a difference. your just giving free money away.
Way less physical copies would be sold since pretty much all go for digital making the physical copies either expensive or closer to limited run. doesn't sound like a good thing to me. or maybe because it is a triple A title with tons of sales there won't even be a physical copy since majority goes digital anyway. and no way that nintendo would allow a small company like limited run games to produce physical copies of a mario or zelda game wich would be horrible since spending 100+$ on a physical copy doesnt seem like a fun time when it is in their hands and miss out.
I've read that Nintendo keep the download prices high because otherwise vendors might have trouble moving their physical copies since again casual crows just needs to play the game cheapest options win or comfort wich the download only gives. If download only prices are lowered you get comfort and the best price. physical copies need to be shipped out or you need to go to a store it's quite a hassle for most.
-
tropical freeze was released on wii u. it's only understandable that they wanted a 2nd chance for their hard work and charge near 60$ on switch. the wii u failed badly I can see why they wanted to see them sales on switch. also considering that it has 2 million sales compared to the wii u 2 million plenty of new people bought it. double the amount after all not that many people bought a wii u that game could have easily come out on switch only.
it seemss to me that many wii u owners are complaining about ports and having almost no exclusives left from a business perspective this was the correct thing to do.
I don't know, I've heard so much from former Wii U owners who bought a Switch talking about re-buying all of the Wii U re-releases, and clammoring on about wanting the remaining exclusives ported over just so they can buy it again and get rid of their Wii U. Probably the majority of these sales come from second time buyers. They're double dipping in typical Nintendo fashion as they know their fan base will keep buying repackaged products. To be fair, everyone is doing that nowadays as everyone is out of ideas, out of recourses, and afraid to take risks.
The wii u was lackluster console aside from smash bros and mario kart 8. there where some other good titles as chronicles x and them zelda 3d hd's where nice but it had the most lacluster mario 3d game in the entire series even if it was better advertised it would not have done well also not even a unique zelda game. botw does not count imo not to mention that the wii u version lacks stuff.
Lackluster? I think not. Forget third party riffraff, Nintendo's own publishing put out a very strong line-up of games for that console, even if there were a few repackaged titles. Wii U doesn't have quantity, but it has quality. Proving once again, you don't need horsepower to make great games. I would never in a million years, consider re-buying the same content on Switch as what I already have on a perfectly fine console.
how do discs not decrease prices of games? looking at xbox one and ps4.
Titles like dragon quest XI and many other ps4 games drop in price kinda fast. few of the non indi games stay above 30$ usually in the 20's or lower.
That's at a retail level. The publisher has already been paid. The MSRP is $60 because the store pays like $50 - $55 per unit, leaving room for a tiny retail profit margin. If the game doesn't sell or has little potential to sell at that price, the store marks it down and takes a loss, or tries to break even on the product. It's a problem, and wonder any store wants to invest in these games at all.
besides why complain about the 60$ price tag while for pretty much all new released games it is a bit or allot more. 20+ or way more $ in dlc or worse micro trans actions wich even some nintendo games have atm. few games have no dlc anymore. the best case is like 20ish $ for them bigger titles. your going to be lucky if a triple aaa game is complete for just 60$
That's why I just accept the launch edition of a game for what it is. I'd never pay for the additional content, unless it's already included with complete package release in a physical form.
-
Quote by sword dude
The wii u was lackluster console aside from smash bros and mario kart 8. there where some other good titles as chronicles x and them zelda 3d hd's where nice but it had the most lacluster mario 3d game in the entire series even if it was better advertised it would not have done well also not even a unique zelda game. botw does not count imo not to mention that the wii u version lacks stuff.
Lackluster? I think not. Forget third party riffraff, Nintendo's own publishing put out a very strong line-up of games for that console, even if there were a few repackaged titles. Wii U doesn't have quantity, but it has quality. Proving once again, you don't need horsepower to make great games. I would never in a million years, consider re-buying the same content on Switch as what I already have on a perfectly fine console.
let me explain myself with the wii u being a lackluster console
Wii U
- Nintendo land was by far not as iconic as wii sports
- does not have a a single unique main zelda game. BOTW is in my opinion the unique zelda for the switch not the wii u wich was inferior ofcourse since it has less specs not to mention the wii u was dead when the switch came out since botw was the release game for that console.
instead we got 2 remakes of windwaker and twilight princess in wich you cannot even use a gamecube controller ::) the map on the wii u pad for windwaker was nice but otherwise kinda horrible that we could not even use a gamecube controller.
- Xenoblade chronicles X was good but the music was horrible the story was meh and the characters where forgettable. xenoblade chronicles was way better with memorable characters great music and a good story wich xenoblade X did not have.
- Wii u had the most lackluster 3d mario in mario 3d world. That was quite the quality loss. any mario 3d game is supposed to be excellent but i disagree mario 3d world was just good it was more of a 2d mario. mario 3d world does not deserve to be in the main 3d mario game series. Also what where they thinking with them cat suits it doesnt't look cool did they really think that kids would love them cat suits :o. the multiplayers is the only good thing but the sacrifice was to much.
- ruined the fire emblem franchise with the abomination of fire emblem tokyo mirage being a persona esk game. and let's be honest new fire emblem games have that persona school vibe on the switch now aswell :-\
- kirby rainbow curse as the only kirby game being very mediocre
- mario bros U was lackluster. the wii had the excuse with increased grapics from the ds release and actually bringing quite some new stuff to the table but in the wii u version there was almost nothing new and just more of the same.
- starfox zero was mediocre
- very small library mostly filled with trash. there are only a handfull of hidden 3rd party good games such as fast racing neo wich isnt that good.
- Series such as mario tennis ultra and mario party 10 wich followed in mario party 9 shoes being quite bad games.
The positives
yoshi wooly world
mario kart 8 having better grapics but the gameplay is less fun than mario kart wii thanks to making the game more family friendly. most lackluster rainbow road in the series aside from the 2d mario karts.
smash 4 being a different entry a different game experience than smash ultimate in terms of game mechanics.
mario maker
pokken tournament
splatoon not my stuff but it was for many a reason to buy a wii u
pikmin 3
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wii
- has a unique zelda game zelda skyward sword wich imo had the best characters in the zelda series. It's not the best zelda game but it's a unique one.
- Not 1 but 2 main mario 3d games in galaxy 1 and 2. considered by many to be the best mario 3d games both being quite different and each having stuff wich the other games did not have. not one being inferior that's quite an accomplishment imo.
- Xenoblade chronicles wich was the rpg to play at the time not to mention 2 other excellent rpg's pandora's tower and the last story
- the final good classic fire emblem game in the series radiant dawn
- 2 excellent main kirby games in kirby's adventure and kirby epic yarn
- mario kart wii the most competitive skillbased mario kart. so many advanced movement options offroad etc that have been removed in mario kart 8 (deluxe).
- wii sports was a revolution for many bringing in even casual people to consoles
- big library with quite some hidden gems
- smash bros brawl is the most realistic looking smash game and it had the best music out of the whole series. also the only smash game with decent single player content subspace and boss rush. no other smash game came close in these regards.
The WIIU was super lackluster compared to wii and obviously since almost everything is ported to switch wich aside from ports has actually many good games also way less impressive than the switch.
there are very few games even when you ignore ports wich made the wii u a very good console. the switch fixed the probems that the wii u has aside from gettin the ports. having atm 2 but getting 3 unique zelda games having an excellent 3d mario game once again, a good mario party a good mario tennis. a main kirby game tons of hidden gems of 3rd parties etc etc. there is a reason why the wii u was a failed console the library was small and the quality for a ton of games was lacking.
There are imo four things every good nintendo console should have if were looking at the bare bones big titles wich hold the system together.
a good mario kart wich the wii u has
a good smash game wich the wii u has
however not a single new zelda game
and a very subpar mario 3d game
The wii u fails in 2 departments wich is pretty bad but than again it was a failed console with a bit less time.
-
- does not have a a single unique main zelda game. BOTW is in my opinion the unique zelda for the switch not the wii u wich was inferior ofcourse since it has less specs not to mention the wii u was dead when the switch came out since botw was the release game for that console.
instead we got 2 remakes of windwaker and twilight princess in wich you cannot even use a gamecube controller ::) the map on the wii u pad for windwaker was nice but otherwise kinda horrible that we could not even use a gamecube controller.
I strongly disagree with this logic. Especially since "Zelda Wii U" was in development for the Wii U before Nintendo even realized they would retire Wii U and launch a successor console. The game was in development for several years and originally had Wii U game pad features planned that were removed from the game. It so happened that development didn't finish up until around the same time they would launch the Switch.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2014/06/10/e3-2014-the-legend-of-zelda-for-wii-u-first-details
To reach the conclusion that there was no proper Zelda entry on the Wii U, that's just incorrect. BoTW was a Wii U title, the Switch version came to fruition because of it. Not unlike the way Twilight Princess came to fruition on the Wii because the game was already in development for GameCube. The existence of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe doesn't mean there was no unique Mario Kart title on Wii U. What it means, is that Nintendo has been too comfy with that cash flow, resting on their laurels to actually develop a new Mario Kart entry for the Switch 3 years in. Also, Nintendo "enhancing" any of the games they later ported over to Switch, doesn't make the Wii U lackluster as a console. At least not any more than any remastered edition game, makes the original game lackluster.
- Wii u had the most lackluster 3d mario in mario 3d world. That was quite the quality loss. any mario 3d game is supposed to be excellent but i disagree mario 3d world was just good it was more of a 2d mario. mario 3d world does not deserve to be in the main 3d mario game series. Also what where they thinking with them cat suits it doesnt't look cool did they really think that kids would love them cat suits :o. the multiplayers is the only good thing but the sacrifice was to much.
I think there is validity in saying it's a weak game, but many people actually raved over it. Opinion is divided on the game. I personally don't think it was so hot, but my opinion on Odyssey is not much better. I wasn't too thrilled with that one, either. Again, opinion is kinda divided on whether the entire series is basically reached a new low standard in quality compared to the classic titles. That doesn't really surprise me, Miyamoto doesn't produce them anymore.
- kirby rainbow curse as the only kirby game being very mediocre
I won't concede this point, but just wanted to point out that Canvas Curse for DS is basically the same idea. Despite some of the mixed opinion on the game, critically it averaged pretty high according to Metacritic.
- mario bros U was lackluster. the wii had the excuse with increased grapics from the ds release and actually bringing quite some new stuff to the table but in the wii u version there was almost nothing new and just more of the same.
So more of a good thing, but this time actually in HD equals a bad thing? I'm not with you on that one. From a technical standpoint, if you want to talk graphics NSMBU is the best one in the series.
- very small library mostly filled with trash. there are only a handfull of hidden 3rd party good games such as fast racing neo wich isnt that good.
Mostly filled with trash? Strongly disagree. The Wii U library is small, only 150+ games. It has some of the smallest ratio of quality to shovelware of any console. Compare it to the Wii with literally hundreds of shovelware titles and low quality made games, and Switch now slowly but surely accumulating more of them as the system becomes more profitable and therefor appealing in the eyes of shovelware peddlers. You can dislike the games it has to offer, but to dispute the amount of quality to cash-grab junk offered on the platform, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.
- Series such as mario tennis ultra and mario party 10 wich followed in mario party 9 shoes being quite bad games.
Mario Party? Again, another series that reached a new low quite a long time ago and continues to flounder with Super Mario Party from much of what I've heard on the game.
It's not my argument that Wii U is Nintendo's best console ever, it's just that Wii U was not lackluster on Nintendo's part - they put plenty of effort behind it. But it's definitely my contention that Wii U cannot be made lackluster simply because Nintendo chooses to repackage all of the games onto Switch. That's some wonky logic. I already have all of those games, I will not be re-buying those same games again just because they added some features or levels. There's plenty of unique titles on Switch after all.
-
I'm not convincing anyone to rebuy titles on the switch since they are basicly the same but slightly touched up and some extra features. Nintendo put these ports out for people who never played the game. If older collectors who owned them wii u titles decide to double dip that's their choice. Many people that I know did not double dip It's kinda hard to estimate how many people who bought the switch ports actually owned the wii u copies.
Besides my arguments where based on the wii u if we would ignore the switch ports and even than it is lackluster. some games in my arguments have switch ports after all but but they are created on wii u first.
In comparison to the other Nintendo consoles, wii u is at the very bottom. unless we ofcourse want to count virtual boy aswell than sure I agree wii u not at the bottom.
also to name on example of a switch port having value for both parties mario kart 8 deluxe at 60$. in the wii u era you had to buy all the dlc wich includes 16 tracks and some characters in the switch port everything is included. there where 2 dlc packs for mario kart 8
a normal mario kart games has 32 tracks. mario kart 8 if you bought all dlc had 48.
That alone does not make it to bad of a port for 60$ considering the amount of content you get extra since otherwise you had to buy 2 dlc packs in the wii u version. not to mention A decent entire battle mode added. dlc almost added 50% game in mario kart 8 kinda crazy.
Kinda good value for a port in the case of mario kart 8 deluxe. for most ports this is obviously not the case but mario kart they where kinda generous considering the total price of the older game including dlc and no less other features.
most people would have rather had a new mario kart but that's one of the lesser ports for double dipping. otherwise most ports are meant for people who never played them and are perfectly acceptable than.
- kirby rainbow curse as the only kirby game being very mediocre
I won't concede this point, but just wanted to point out that Canvas Curse for DS is basically the same idea. Despite some of the mixed opinion on the game, critically it averaged pretty high according to Metacritic.
- very small library mostly filled with trash. there are only a handfull of hidden 3rd party good games such as fast racing neo wich isnt that good.
Mostly filled with trash? Strongly disagree. The Wii U library is small, only 150+ games. It has some of the smallest ratio of quality to shovelware of any console. Compare it to the Wii with literally hundreds of shovelware titles and low quality made games, and Switch now slowly but surely accumulating more of them as the system becomes more profitable and therefor appealing in the eyes of shovelware peddlers. You can dislike the games it has to offer, but to dispute the amount of quality to cash-grab junk offered on the platform, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.
kirby canvas curse is more of a side game while most consoles have a full on kirby game. kirby's epic yarn and kriby's adventure where two main games in different styles on the wii. that's quite a downgrade for this series on the wii u. also on the ds that title was more of a side mini game compared to kirby squeek attack and kirby super star wich where the main meat and potatoes. Kirby canvas curse on ds was more of a tech demo to show of what the ds can do in terms of touch screen
it might have the better ratio than wii and like pretty much every other nintendo console but if the good hidden gems of 3rd parties are more or less than a dozen let alone having very excellent hidden gems in term of titles it's kinda hard to defend it. wii had quite the amount. that's my only point obviously it is easy to get a good ratio with such a small library but imo trash titles can be ignored and where looking at good stuff there is not much on wii u quite a small list.
what's an excellent 3rd party hidden gem on wii u name me one
devils third, fast racing neo wonderfull 101. those are not excellent hidden gems they are good but nothing like some of the games released on other nintendo consoles not to mention so much less good 3rd party titles.
-
I'm not convincing anyone to rebuy titles on the switch since they are basicly the same but slightly touched up and some extra features. Nintendo put these ports out for people who never played the game. If older collectors who owned them wii u titles decide to double dip that's their choice. Many people that I know did not double dip It's kinda hard to estimate how many people who bought the switch ports actually owned the wii u copies.
If Reddit's Wii U sub is any indication of what the GP thinks, tons of people are selling off their Wii U systems and games in favor of re-buying them on Switch. I'm not convinced that all that many Nintendo die hards actually skipped out on the Wii U. I think that largely everybody else did - including the GP, casuals, and many non-Nintendo hardcores.
In comparison to the other Nintendo consoles, wii u is at the very bottom. unless we ofcourse want to count virtual boy aswell than sure I agree wii u not at the bottom.
Surely the Wii U is better than Virtual Boy, and the entire line of Game Boy systems. I think there's a case to be made that it's better than GameCube as well, as I'm a Nintendo fan but not a much of a GameCube fan. Many people you could ask would place it above the divisive N64, although I personally wouldn't. Still, ranking lower on the scale of Nintendo consoles is not necessarily a bad thing as the majority of them have been innovative, unique, and well supported.
also to name on example of a switch port having value for both parties mario kart 8 deluxe at 60$. in the wii u era you had to buy all the dlc wich includes 16 tracks and some characters in the switch port everything is included. there where 2 dlc packs for mario kart 8
I'm simply not of the mindset that I need additional content added to a game. That's all fluff and fan service to me.
it might have the better ratio than wii and like pretty much every other nintendo console but if the good hidden gems of 3rd parties are more or less than a dozen let alone having very excellent hidden gems in term of titles it's kinda hard to defend it. wii had quite the amount. that's my only point obviously it is easy to get a good ratio with such a small library but imo trash titles can be ignored and where looking at good stuff there is not much on wii u quite a small list.
what's an excellent 3rd party hidden gem on wii u name me one
devils third, fast racing neo wonderfull 101. those are not excellent hidden gems they are good but nothing like some of the games released on other nintendo consoles not to mention so much less good 3rd party titles.
I've never really heard of a console being knocked for the lack of under the radar titles present. Of course there will not be a high quantity being only 150+ in total. How hidden could they be?
If you consider those to be hidden, then there is also Tank Tank Tank, Shantea 1/2 Genie Hero, Giana Sisters Twisted Dreams, Legend of Kay Anniversary and the recently de-platformed online DuckTales Remastered.
-
In comparison to the other Nintendo consoles, wii u is at the very bottom. unless we ofcourse want to count virtual boy aswell than sure I agree wii u not at the bottom.
Surely the Wii U is better than Virtual Boy, and the entire line of Game Boy systems. I think there's a case to be made that it's better than GameCube as well, as I'm a Nintendo fan but not a much of a GameCube fan. Many people you could ask would place it above the divisive N64, although I personally wouldn't. Still, ranking lower on the scale of Nintendo consoles is not necessarily a bad thing as the majority of them have been innovative, unique, and well supported.
Gameplay wise sure gameboy(color) aint that great. sure as hell doesn't beat the gba though
But better than the N64 or gamecube line now that's a bit far fetched in my opinion
N64 had revolutionary titles for it's time mario 64 ocarina of time starfox 64 I'm not going to explain those. sure new people will put wii u above n64 because they dont like the grapics but such people usually don;t care that much about older games so kinda an unfair comparison.
Gamecube has some of the more memorable titles it wasn't lacking in any of it's first party games unlike wii u wich even struggles at that department.
Windwaker and especially twilight princess are some of the best 3d zelda games arguably better than botw if you like more story and especially epic boss battles wich really where a dissapointment in breath of the wild. also mario sunshine was excellent 3d mario title unlike a certain wii u 3d mario
Gamecube is the era with the best mario sports games in especially mario smash football and power tennis one wich sadly never returned even on switch
also with titles such as smash bros melee and mario kart double dash and tons of excellent hidden gems. saying that the wii u is better than the cube that's ridiculous there is not a single thing that is better on the wii u aside from the grapics and online play .
Gamecube has excellent first and 3rd party titles arguably some of the best in nintendo's history in certain departments. everyone has their opinion but boy your sure love that wii u damm. I don;t see it as far as wii u titles go it doesn't come close let alone being actually better than the cube's library.
Quote sword dude
- Wii u had the most lackluster 3d mario in mario 3d world. That was quite the quality loss. any mario 3d game is supposed to be excellent but i disagree mario 3d world was just good it was more of a 2d mario. mario 3d world does not deserve to be in the main 3d mario game series. Also what where they thinking with them cat suits it doesnt't look cool did they really think that kids would love them cat suits :o. the multiplayers is the only good thing but the sacrifice was to much.
I think there is validity in saying it's a weak game, but many people actually raved over it. Opinion is divided on the game. I personally don't think it was so hot, but my opinion on Odyssey is not much better. I wasn't too thrilled with that one, either. Again, opinion is kinda divided on whether the entire series is basically reached a new low standard in quality compared to the classic titles. That doesn't really surprise me, Miyamoto doesn't produce them anymore.
Miyamoto actually had a ton of influence in mario odyssey so that ain't true he also worked on that title. I am however suprised that he also worked on mario 3d world on wii u I guess some years are better than others.
Not to mention good games will always have haters especially very well sold games. I'm not saying it's the best 3d mario game it's a few spots below that but it's kinda harsh to say that this isn't at least an excellent game.
One of the best selling 3d mario games ever and it brought a ton of people to proffesional speedrunning thanks to the suddle hints in game if i had to guess i can't say the same for mario 3d world. sure there are people that find it fun but mario 3d world did not give epic moments wich mario 3d games usually give when you play them.
-
What are you smoking, the gameboy line is far better than the Wii U.
-
Games have actually gotten cheaper over the years
money is worth way less than it was back than not to mention that there where games especially rpg's with save memory wich costed close or over 100$. wich is even more $ by today standard inflation. money had more value back than.
The only exceptions to modern games being more expensive than back in the day are expensive dlc or lootboxes wich would increase the price well over 100 sometimes over 200$. but most games for 60 retail occasionally with the small 25$ or less dlc are cheaper than back in the day no questions asked.
To get back on topic: I'd like to quote what was said here earlier by @sworddude
I can agree that with modern technology make's it even cheaper to produce all consoles and games both today are now way way cheaper to produce now then back in the day.
Computer chips and even disc based and cartridges are a hell of a lot cheaper now to make than back in the 1970's 1980's 1990's and so on.
my point is why are games the same price or similar to the price we paid for our old games when they were released? Even without production costs? and why the hell, are the consoles not built to hold more games? It's all a gimmick. For you to spend more money on multiple modern consoles in order to keep games now.
But I could care less about modern games. Because I'll never play them in this lifetime, I don't care really I got tons games to play anyway. But I'm just saying for you guys part. and, for the fact that some of you don't even have access to retro video game like Australian collectors.
From what I heard in Australia, retro game prices there are a hell of a lot more there then in Europe and Japan and in the United States :-\
My main complaint, is how many games that can't fit on one console. To me it makes the PS4 seem like a PlayStation 1 with a 1mb memory card. And An Xbox One into an original Xbox with a primitive early 2000's vary expensive back then hard drive
Game are bigger today and have way better graphics but realistic graphics were just fine on the Xbox360 and PlayStation 3 in my opinion
-
far fetched but do you think they no longer make games due to metals or electric radiation found in the earth and the pile up of discs and cartridges in city landfills?
maybe it has something to do with toxic waste pilling up in land fills? I don't know why game companies don't pruduce games anymore or like they used to other then to be greedy/ and again some factory workers in Japan or China are out a job or will be
I hope they will get support to feed their families
-
my point is why are games the same price or similar to the price we paid for our old games when they were released? Even without production costs?
Like sworddude said, if you account for inflation games are cheaper than they’ve ever been. They were $50-60 in the 90s which is equivalent to over $100 today.
and why the hell, are the consoles not built to hold more games? It's all a gimmick. For you to spend more money on multiple modern consoles in order to keep games now.
[...]
My main complaint, is how many games that can't fit on one console. To me it makes the PS4 seem like a PlayStation 1 with a 1mb memory card. And An Xbox One into an original Xbox with a primitive early 2000's vary expensive back then hard drive
You don’t have to buy another console. External HDDs are a thing and they are relative inexpensive. I got an 8TB I use for my media for just over $100. No, it’s not ideal to need to expand the space, but it is not prohibitively costly.
far fetched but do you think they no longer make games due to metals or electric radiation found in the earth and the pile up of discs and cartridges in city landfills?
maybe it has something to do with toxic waste pilling up in land fills? I don't know why game companies don't pruduce games anymore or like they used to other then to be greedy/ and again some factory workers in Japan or China are out a job or will be
I hope they will get support to feed their families
No I do not. It’s cheaper to not produce discs, so indie studios are incentivized to not to physical releases to save money - and are the one case where I’m generally ok with buying digital. AAA studios have found out that they can charge the same thing for a product that costs less. Why would they not do that? It has nothing to do with whatever you are going on about.
But I could care less about modern games. Because I'll never play them in this lifetime, I don't care really I got tons games to play anyway. But I'm just saying for you guys part. and,
Then why make a thread about it? If one of the people who play these games are concerned, we will bring it up.
-
What are you smoking, the gameboy line is far better than the Wii U.
I never cared much for trying to play video games on a gloried calculator screen, especially considering how crummy they looked compared to their 8-bit home console counterparts. In fact, I always found in completely unplayable. The Sega Game Gear, Atari Lynx, even the Neo Geo Pocket and Bandai Wonderswan were leagues ahead Game Boy, Color, and Advance. At least SP was finally backlit. I'm smoking facts. I pity the fool who'd choose a Game Boy over a Wii U. You gonna choose a Virtua Boy over PSVR?
-
What are you smoking, the gameboy line is far better than the Wii U.
I never cared much for trying to play video games on a gloried calculator screen, especially considering how crummy they looked compared to their 8-bit home console counterparts. In fact, I always found in completely unplayable. The Sega Game Gear, Atari Lynx, even the Neo Geo Pocket and Bandai Wonderswan were leagues ahead Game Boy, Color, and Advance. At least SP was finally backlit. I'm smoking facts. I pity the fool who'd choose a Game Boy over a Wii U. You gonna choose a Virtua Boy over PSVR?
Those crappy handheld consoles better than GBA you can't be serious :o
have you ever played neo geo pocket or wonderswan because those consoles where way less than the GBA advance it's not even a contest. better than gameboy color and gameboy classic for sure but the GBA was an inferior snes slightly worse but not by that much not to mention some things are better on gba than the snes. neo geo pocket and wonderswan do not come close to being as a snes. Gamegear did by far not even come close to the genesis/megadrive and you could clearly see the limitations even in it's best very late released games. besides you could play gameboy to gameboy advance games on a tv screen wich especially with gba is the way to go. if you would play any other old handheld console on the big screen it clearly is a handheld game and it's mediocre except when you do it with gba in wich it is excellent and in some cases better than snes.
and atari lynx? that system's library is absolute trash you can't even take that handheld seriously compared to the others.
Have you ever played the metroid games such as zero mission or metroid fusion on gba some consider those better than snes's super metroid not to mention that grapicly it's not much less than snes and by some considered better kinda hard to say that the gba was less than all those other handheld consoles while in reality it's a hell lot better no contest. Fire emblem games where more impressive looking on gba than the super famicom games. series such as advance wars the castlevania games. a very nice port of super mario world
there are tons of impressive games on the GBA. and when played on the big screen it's a console experience aside from being portable. you clearly know very little about handheld games if you put such handheld consoles as being miles ahead of the GBA console.
your smoking some real hardcore stuff if your telling me an atari lynx is miles ahead of the GBA and saying that these are true facts while in reality that console in terms of gameplay is allot worse than even the gameboy classic.
As far as back lit goes they sold equipment to give light while playing them handheld games. there is a reason why they did not introduce back lit since outside options are wat cheaper than making consoles backlit. The battery life of an atary lynx was horrible you needed to spend a ton of money on batteries not to mention that the retail price of the console was very expensive aswell thanks to these features. it was a wise decision to only introduce backlit way later on if it really was a problem there where additional accesoires wich where way cheaper for light solutions not to mention nice battery life.
if backlit really was an issue nintendo actually had the best solution compared to making an expensive handheld console. super gameboy on the snes in wich you could play them gameboy classic gameboy color games on your tv wich btw also give gameboy classic games color images wich also happens when you play them on a GBA.
-
Those crappy handheld consoles better than GBA you can't be serious :o
Let's start by just comparing the "top ten" games of Neo Geo Pocket Color to Advance.
NGP - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnWrvKrDweY
Advance - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CaJkcny7e8
That is not what I call a next-gen difference in graphics and presentation of the games. The graphical presentation of most GBA games is somewhere between sufficient and just plain ugly. The more detail they try to implement, the uglier the game usually looks. NGPC games are a bit more basic looking yes, but everything is clean and vibrant/colorful. Like FF Tactics, that's a perfect example of GBA ugliness. Blurry, overly detailed character models that don't mesh well with the background graphics, which by the way are super pixelated and blurry because again, highly detailed sprites in a super low resolution look like crap. It looks hideous, and a lot of GBA games look like that. Not so with NGP games, where everything is crisp and colorful with less detailed sprites but much more pleasing to the eyes.
Have you looked at Wonderswan Color games? The sprites and backgrounds are every bit as detailed as GBA. It has a very similar graphical style to GBA, and again released two years prior. It has a diverse line-up of equally hideous abominations. Square, Sega, Pokemon knock-offs, it's got it all if that's your bag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb7mZBPOp20&t=600s
Gamegear did by far not even come close to the genesis/megadrive and you could clearly see the limitations even in it's best very late released games. besides you could play gameboy to gameboy advance games on a tv screen wich especially with gba is the way to go. if you would play any other old handheld console on the big screen it clearly is a handheld game and it's mediocre except when you do it with gba in wich it is excellent and in some cases better than snes.
That's because Game Gear is basically Master System hardware crammed into a handheld, of course it's not a Genesis. Master System is nothing to sneeze at, it's a solid 8-bit console and frankly I'd take that classic 8-bit style over GBA any day, because again the presentation and colors are simply cleaner looking, and it has lots of good old fashion side-scrolling action games which I'll take over a bunch of a slow paced isometric games trying to be modern and quasi-3D. Despite only being Master System hardware, Sega managed to crank out some pretty sharp looking games on the Game Gear, some of which do look closer to 16-bit than 8-bit.
and atari lynx? that system's library is absolute trash you can't even take that handheld seriously compared to the others.
How about Ninja Gaiden, Double Dragon, California Games, Stun Runner, Batman Returns? Yeah the titles aren't fantastic but what's sad is some of the games look strikingly similar and in some cases better than GBA, and arguably could have never been done on SNES and we're talking about a handheld released in 1989! That alone is very impressive.
Have you ever played the metroid games such as zero mission or metroid fusion on gba some consider those better than snes's super metroid not to mention that grapicly it's not much less than snes and by some considered better kinda hard to say that the gba was less than all those other handheld consoles while in reality it's a hell lot better no contest. Fire emblem games where more impressive looking on gba than the super famicom games. series such as advance wars the castlevania games. a very nice port of super mario world
I've not played those, but I can tell you Mario Kart Super Circuit is a disgrace. I cannot believe that was all the Advance could muster. Ugly, slow, and crappy. I'd take Super Mario Kart any day. Sonic Drift 2 on the Game Gear is a better game.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NZMkE1bsxwI
your smoking some real hardcore stuff if your telling me an atari lynx is miles ahead of the GBA and saying that these are true facts while in reality that console in terms of gameplay is allot worse than even the gameboy classic.
I don’t have a ton of experience playing Lynx but some of the games look damn good for a handheld.
It's just that GBA should be a far more "advanced" experience to those older handheld systems, and it's simply not. It took Nintendo 12 years to reach a competitive level of quality in the handheld market with the Advance, and even then, I'd take other older hardware and older style games over what it offers. The GBA is just not for me, I'm not impressed with it, I have no nostalgia for it (even though I had an SP), and I think all of the good titles Nintendo put on it where done a disservice. Game Boy was a cheap-o handheld series aimed largely at younger kids. It wasn’t a serious gaming device and no iteration of it was worthwhile in my view.
if backlit really was an issue nintendo actually had the best solution compared to making an expensive handheld console. super gameboy on the snes in wich you could play them gameboy classic gameboy color games on your tv wich btw also give gameboy classic games color images wich also happens when you play them on a GBA.
I will give Nintendo props for having mercy and understanding that if you really wanted to play these games, then you needed to see them on a screen that wasn't cheap garbage. Thank god for that, but it's supposed to be a handheld! The hardware should have just been good to start with! Sorry, but GBA is at the bottom of my list of handhelds for many of the reasons mentioned above. This leads me back to my original point - it’s insulting to compare a cheap and cruddy handheld to the Wii U, let alone say it’s overall better.
-
Let's start by just comparing the "top ten" games of Neo Geo Pocket Color to Advance.
NGP - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnWrvKrDweY
Advance - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CaJkcny7e8
That is not what I call a next-gen difference in graphics and presentation of the games. The graphical presentation of most GBA games is somewhere between sufficient and just plain ugly. The more detail they try to implement, the uglier the game usually looks. NGPC games are a bit more basic looking yes, but everything is clean and vibrant/colorful. Like FF Tactics, that's a perfect example of GBA ugliness. Blurry, overly detailed character models that don't mesh well with the background graphics, which by the way are super pixelated and blurry because again, highly detailed sprites in a super low resolution look like crap. It looks hideous, and a lot of GBA games look like that. Not so with NGP games, where everything is crisp and colorful with less detailed sprites but much more pleasing to the eyes.
Have you looked at Wonderswan Color games? The sprites and backgrounds are every bit as detailed as GBA. It has a very similar graphical style to GBA, and again released two years prior. It has a diverse line-up of equally hideous abominations. Square, Sega, Pokemon knock-offs, it's got it all if that's your bag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb7mZBPOp20&t=600s
That's because Game Gear is basically Master System hardware crammed into a handheld, of course it's not a Genesis. Master System is nothing to sneeze at, it's a solid 8-bit console and frankly I'd take that classic 8-bit style over GBA any day, because again the presentation and colors are simply cleaner looking, and it has lots of good old fashion side-scrolling action games which I'll take over a bunch of a slow paced isometric games trying to be modern and quasi-3D. Despite only being Master System hardware, Sega managed to crank out some pretty sharp looking games on the Game Gear, some of which do look closer to 16-bit than 8-bit.
i agree super mario kart on gba is garbage but I don't even like the snes version of the mario kart series or if I'm totally honest any 2d kart racing game period.
the first playable mario karts for me are mario kart 64 and ds. 2d and 3d mario kart are just different kinds of games.
that being said neo geo pocket I have played my fair of those games and they are very basic also the music and sounds are way worse than on 8 bit home consoles. sound is quite a bit of the game experience and that's not great on all other handheld consoles except from gba. and some of the gameboy classic tracks. i could say the same for game gear btw but that console is a bit worse than neo geo pocket (color).
Also how is the gba worse while having very decent ports of a link to the past snes, super mario world yosi's island also them advance wars, metroid fire emblem kirby , megaman & bass megaman zero 1 to 4 and castlevania all excellent looking games and a quite a bit more sonic advance 1 to 3 are way better than the sonic game on neo geo pocket.
metal slug advance on gba is way better than metal slug 1 and 2 on neo geo pocket 2nd mission one of the best looking neo geo pocket games how is that not a small difference. the grapical difference between gba and neo geo pocket is huge not to mention the superb music and sound effects on gba especially compared to even the wonderswan color there is no comparison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPlCC58sRZw
metal slug advance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-jJs_ikerE
Even wonderswan color the sounds are way less advanced comparable to early mostly worse gba sound effects and music it's very mediocre in terms of sounds. and grapic wise it's only compared with the medium low end stuff not the above average high end wich have way better grapics. also only 90 games wich are mostly very subpar don;t make me laugh that this is comparable to gba you have to be joking. what a trash console that is. game gear and neo geo pocket are way better options than wonderswan color after looking at the full library of that console.
sure wonderswan looks better than gba's trash filler title grapics but is it truly an accomplishment to beat sombody's trash while even the top titles seem very mediocre and have horrible sounds.
I will not deny that there are a ton of bad looking gba games especially the filler titles in most cases look horrible but all systems have bad stuff that look as bad as pre generation consoles and a ton of them that's not a good excuse that happens with every retro console.
Everyone can have their opinion obviously. gba is not my favourite system but in terms of handhelds there is a ton less interesting stuff to play on handheld systems that are not gba. also unless your speaking fluent japanese a ton of those games are unplayable while doing so for a very mediocre system
GBA has excellent rpg's action games shoot em ups and them snes esq mascot games wich look very comparable. the other systems don't come close in terms of gameplay aside from way lesser quality sounds music and grapics.
in terms of zelda, kirby metroid and mario. I agree with super mario kart but otherwise the mascot games alone make the gba already a ton more interesting than the other handheld consoles
That's because Game Gear is basically Master System hardware crammed into a handheld, of course it's not a Genesis. Master System is nothing to sneeze at, it's a solid 8-bit console and frankly I'd take that classic 8-bit style over GBA any day, because again the presentation and colors are simply cleaner looking, and it has lots of good old fashion side-scrolling action games which I'll take over a bunch of a slow paced isometric games trying to be modern and quasi-3D. Despite only being Master System hardware, Sega managed to crank out some pretty sharp looking games on the Game Gear, some of which do look closer to 16-bit than 8-bit.
i disagree it should be a master system but the quality is a ton less. more like a poor mans master system even though the game gear has 4000 colours vs the master system wich has 64. Game gear games look allot worse than master system games and let's not forget the music and sound effects you can basicly write those of on game gear. obviously worse than master system
Game gear is an inferior master system logical since it's a handheld but i can't agree that it is basicly a master system.
let's look at power strike II on game gear vs master system
master system
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk1yqYfbTQs
game gear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cZs0-8zepk
I dare you to play some neo geo pocket or game gear games or if your bold atari lynx ;D and compare them to the likes of the snes ports of a link to the past mario world contra final fantasy III or games like metroid zero mission/fusion mario & luigi superstar saga gunstar heroes or any other great gba games
Let's see what you enjoy more even titles likes shinobi on game gear stand no chance against gba and they look really bad on game gear btw. if game gear truly had master system grapics it actually could have looked pretty decent.
also if you don't like the gba grapical style no worries gba got you covered
mario bros, castlevania zelda zelda II metroid 1 mighty final fight all have very nice ports of the nes games on gba.
there is almost no genre that the gba does not cover
we have run & gun we have plenty of action platfomers to many rpg's snes ports of the iconic snes classics shoot em ups puzzle games etc. everything that other handheld consoles have the gba has and more I see nothing what i would rather play on them older consoles aside from the games being different. if we would look at genre's alone I'd rather pick one of those games on gba than on any older handheld console wich already have less enjoyable experience thanks to the lack of good music and sound effects.
and atari lynx? that system's library is absolute trash you can't even take that handheld seriously compared to the others.
How about Ninja Gaiden, Double Dragon, California Games, Stun Runner, Batman Returns? Yeah the titles aren't fantastic but what's sad is some of the games look strikingly similar and in some cases better than GBA, and arguably could have never been done on SNES and we're talking about a handheld released in 1989! That alone is very impressive.
I pity the fool who would rather play double dragon on a atari lynx than double dragon advance on gba
if you'd rather play double dragon on atari lynx than double dragon advance be my guest.
atary lynx is imo a way worse console than gameboy classic just try and play some games. colors are fun and all but in reality it's a very poor console in my experience. gameplay wise it is a downgrade compared to gameboy classic let alone gba.
if your still saying that other handhelds are better than gba your basicly saying neo geo pocket, game gear and wonderswan are better than a snes console. the grapical difference of the snes ports or other games that could have been on snes aren't to big and gameplay wise they are pretty much the same in for example a link to the past final fantasy III not to mention gba's unique games zelda four swords and minish cap that could have easily been snes games
-
Also how is the gba worse while having very decent ports of a link to the past snes, super mario world yosi's island also them advance wars, metroid fire emblem kirby , megaman & bass megaman zero 1 to 4 and castlevania all excellent looking games and a quite a bit more sonic advance 1 to 3 are way better than the sonic game on neo geo pocket.
If you want to talk about systems that lack proper unique entries, where was Mario's GBA game? Probably better that it doesn't exist. They knew it would suck. Just like the Super Mario Land games. How many Sonic games were on Game Gear? Five, if you don't count the master system ports, and yes they were MS ports. Not all were great, but better than any exclusive Mario title for any Game Boy.
Link to The Past? Yoshi's Island? Why play those on a crummy GBA when you can play them on SNES?
(https://i.imgflip.com/2/wczz.jpg)
also only 90 games wich are mostly very subpar don;t make me laugh that this is comparable to gba you have to be joking. what a trash console that is. game gear and neo geo pocket are way better options than wonderswan color after looking at the full library of that console.
I'm not even trying to say Wonderswan is good, in case you didn't notice I called the games abominations. I don't think any of it looks that good, but point being neither does GBA.
GBA has excellent rpg's action games shoot em ups and them snes esq mascot games wich look very comparable. the other systems don't come close in terms of gameplay aside from way lesser quality sounds music and grapics.
Sound maybe, but I doubt you'll convince me that there's anything I'm truly missing out on with GBA.
in terms of zelda, kirby metroid and mario. I agree with super mario kart but otherwise the mascot games alone make the gba already a ton more interesting than the other handheld console.
So interesting I've never felt the need to buy a single game for it in 15 years! Okay, I picked up ONE game. Lady Syia, and I don't even know if it's any good. Doesn't look very good.
i disagree it should be a master system but the quality is a ton less. more like a poor mans master system even though the game gear has 4000 colours vs the master system wich has 64. Game gear games look allot worse than master system games and let's not forget the music and sound effects you can basicly write those of on game gear. obviously worse than master system
Game gear is an inferior master system logical since it's a handheld but i can't agree that it is basicly a master system.
let's look at power strike II on game gear vs master system
This is literally not true. The Game Gear was designed to be a portable Master System "The console contains an 8-bit 3.5MHz Zilog Z80 chip for a central processing unit,[14] the same as the Master System. Its screen is 3.2 square inches in size and is able to display up to 32 colors at a time from a total palette of 4096 colors,[4] at a display resolution of 160 × 144 pixels." - Wikipedia with sources. The Game Gear also had a cart converter base where you can plug your Master System games into your Game Gear and play them.
master system
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk1yqYfbTQs
game gear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cZs0-8zepk
So.... which one are you saying is the worse game again? Because I'm thinking the GG version has a slight edge graphics wise despite smaller screen res, and MS version has a slight edge on the sound. Definitely no night and day difference here.
Let's see what you enjoy more even titles likes shinobi on game gear stand no chance against gba and they look really bad on game gear btw. if game gear truly had master system grapics it actually could have looked pretty decent.
You might check your eyes, because Game Gear is very very similar to Master System, because it was built with very similar specs.
atary lynx is imo a way worse console than gameboy classic just try and play some games. colors are fun and all but in reality it's a very poor console in my experience. gameplay wise it is a downgrade compared to gameboy classic let alone gba.
Again, I'm only saying the Lynx was an impressive handheld for it's time and could do things no other handheld could for many years. The GBA was not impressive given it was friggin' 2001 by then. Atari Lynx was was more advanced than GB classic and even though the games are janky, I'd much rather play those than pretty much any Game Boy. Then again I'd rather gouge my eyes out than play GB classic.
Much rather play this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apeFud7tCmI
Than this on a calculator's screen - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF1C0xZxBOw
-
I'm absolutely convinced now that you find those handhelds to be better than snes in your opinion. obviously gba has lower res sounds in most cases also music than on snes but it's a handheld plenty of people say that the gba is basicly a snes console and many of the good games are snes like games.
also you clearly have a biased opinion if you find the super mario land games to be trash. tons of people find those games excellent.
tons of master system ports on game gear took quite a hit on game gear these are facts your delusional if you say that majority of game gear games look better than on the original master system. true there are some impressive genesis demakes of say dynamite headdy ristar gunstar heroes but gameplay wise and especially in sound it's nothing to write home about.
lower res is lesser grapics. obviously some sprites are bigger than on master system since it was designed for a small screen but it doesnt look as good as the master system version. I can't see how you find the game gear version of power strike II better looking grapic wise but o well who needs glasses i guess.
why would people get gba ports of said games and play them on a gba player for pretty much having snes games. for saving money perhaps especially if your going cib or in some cases even lose carts are a ton cheaper? or perhaps for playing a different kirby metroid or zelda game in the series wich look very simular to snes games. Look at a ton of rpg's on gba vs snes prices or say r - type III third lightning
besides aren't sonic 1 and 2 on sonic gear games poor ports of master system games with slight alterations. ::)
also unique games you say ports don't count. well you can pretty much throw a ton of atari lynx games away wich you mentioned than since all games are better on nes. a very sizable chunk of game gear games are also gone if you would say ports are gone.
I'm done just stay in your delusion that other handheld consoles are way better than gba wich basicly has snes games and in some cases arguably better looking with better sounds such as metal slug advance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-jJs_ikerE
also why would anyone pick lady sia as their first gba game i pity that fool. I have that game aswell It's a decent game but it's not great in comparison to the actually good gba games. just stick with your love for the wii U I never intented to stop you. you probably picked it up for cheap or free as far as lady sia goes i cant imagine anyone going out of their way getting especially lady sia as their first gba game even if the game is fairly cheap in the first place.
The wii u did it's job it was good for smash and mario kart 8 and a few other sides games but it is easily the most forgetattble nintendo console
mario kart 8 had the worst battle mode of all mario kart games using actual race tracks as stages :o
a zelda game when the system was dead wich was the laucnh title for switch
a 3d mario game wich looks like a 2d mario game wich ad cat suits for even bowser :o
the sides games let's not talk about that on wii u. during it's life time people where complaining that the wii u had so few games the entire time. there is a reason why everyhing will get ports and why nintendo wants to hide their failure that was the wii u.
It's just that GBA should be a far more "advanced" experience to those older handheld systems, and it's simply not. It took Nintendo 12 years to reach a competitive level of quality in the handheld market with the Advance, and even then, I'd take other older hardware and older style games over what it offers. The GBA is just not for me, I'm not impressed with it, I have no nostalgia for it (even though I had an SP), and I think all of the good titles Nintendo put on it where done a disservice. Game Boy was a cheap-o handheld series aimed largely at younger kids. It wasn’t a serious gaming device and no iteration of it was worthwhile in my view.
That's kinda funny actually. nintendo always had competitive lvl's of prices gameboy was 90 gameboy color 70 and advance at 99. i can't imagine what the games would look like if we would have had comparable prices such as game gear or atai lynx but low prices give bigger sales.
game gear was 150$ atari lynx was 189 $. only neo geo pocket had a competive lvl of price but isnt that much older than gba and has comparable grapics to the best gameboy color games
in terms of actual quality all these handheld consoles have crappy libraries in comparison and in terms of durability o boy.
Tons of game gear games have malfunctions with sound or the screen. dead pixels etc. same goes for atari lynx they where poorly made even though there prices where high. only neo geo pocket seems to have the same durability as nintendo's handheld consoles if you find a functioning console in the wild for those two your pretty lucky these days even unused copies could have malfunctions as far as these consoles go. for nintendo consoles these upgrades are optional not a must and most folks stick with the vanilla withouth any fancy modern upgrades.
even if a nintendo handheld console is super beat up in a ton of times it still works perfectly. in terms of actual quality the other hand held consoles sucked even though there msrp's where way higher. They are unplayable to many people who like to play handheld games. people spend 50 to 100+ extra on mods modern upgrades $ to get a reliable console to play those games on in terms of atari lynx or especially the game gear even if the console was fully functional in the first place that's the kind of thrust people have in those consoles since they do break down pretty fast at some point. lack of quality in my opinion.
I'm very suprised that you still have interest snes games considering that you find other handheld games to be better in terms of gameplay and visuals but hey to each their own.
-
just stick with your love for the wii U I never intented to stop you. you probably picked it up for cheap or free
That's kinda funny actually. nintendo always had competitive lvl's of prices gameboy was 90 gameboy color 70 and advance at 99. i can't imagine what the games would look like if we would have had comparable prices such as game gear or atai lynx but low prices give bigger sales.
game gear was 150$ atari lynx was 189 $. only neo geo pocket had a competive lvl of price but isnt that much older than gba and has comparable grapics to the best gameboy color games
in terms of actual quality all these handheld consoles have crappy libraries in comparison and in terms of durability o boy.
Tons of game gear games have malfunctions with sound or the screen. dead pixels etc. same goes for atari lynx they where poorly made even though there prices where high. only neo geo pocket seems to have the same durability as nintendo's handheld consoles if you find a functioning console in the wild for those two your pretty lucky these days even unused copies could have malfunctions as far as these consoles go. for nintendo consoles these upgrades are optional not a must and most folks stick with the vanilla withouth any fancy modern upgrades.
even if a nintendo handheld console is super beat up in a ton of times it still works perfectly. in terms of actual quality the other hand held consoles sucked even though there msrp's where way higher. They are unplayable to many people who like to play handheld games. people spend 50 to 100+ extra on mods modern upgrades $ to get a reliable console to play those games on in terms of atari lynx or especially the game gear even if the console was fully functional in the first place that's the kind of thrust people have in those consoles since they do break down pretty fast at some point. lack of quality in my opinion.
I'm very suprised that you still have interest snes games considering that you find other handheld games to be better in terms of gameplay and visuals but hey to each their own.
My point exactly, Nintendo sold cruddy portable hardware that cost less to produce, and it always showed. But, the 7 year old little Timmys of the world didn't know any better. They didn't know Nintendo was ripping them off, it was just meant to keep them quiet in the back seat of a car. It was was a cheap enough "toy" as most people thought.
Yeah dead caps happen, and it causes issues with a lot of other handhelds because eventually all caps will die. I can replace the caps myself, I've done it, and it brings everything back to life and good to go for another 30 years. I'd be surprised if there's any caps inside of a GameBoy. I think that thing runs mostly off of ants and broken dreams. Again, rather play nothing than play one of those. I'd rather play a Game Gear that you can barely see or hear. I'd rather play a Tiger Electronics wrist watch game.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of GBA. I've played more than Lady Syia and still not impressed. I've not felt compelled to even bother collecting games for it or any Game Boy system. It's just sub-par and so unappealing. I'd rather play an SNES. I'd rather play the infinitely better DS, Nintendo's first handheld worth playing and ironically probably the best handheld ever. If I'm going to play something Game Boy, it's going to be on the TV player.
We've had the discussion about SNES. I think you know my thoughts on that. But when it comes to SNES games, I'd rather play them on SNES for sure. It's kind of cheap to count those as killer apps for a handheld, especially since they couldn't possibly be better than the originals.
-
We've had the discussion about SNES. I think you know my thoughts on that. But when it comes to SNES games, I'd rather play them on SNES for sure. It's kind of cheap to count those as killer apps for a handheld, especially since they couldn't possibly be better than the originals.
actually there are quite some people that say that a link to the past on gba is the way to go the definitive version of a link to the past it has quality of life changes it has an extra end game dungeon and some other extra's so it's not exactly the same.
snes has slightly better grapics, sound and ofcourse a slightly bigger screen since it's a home console game but gba has the extra stuff
among zelda fans there quite some people who are not choosing the snes version as the no1 way to play the game.
so in a way it's kinda hard to say if the snes version is truly the best version to play at least as far as the general consensus goes
also in terms of for example mario bros 3 the gba version tons of stuff added and for many the way to go as another example of a port being arguable superior. i could obviously mention more examples but you get what i mean.
Just saying that your comment ain't necessarily true
-
Hey guys? Can we roll the handheld debate off to another thread? It's an interesting subject, but it's decidedly off-topic for discussing pricing of digital games.
Getting back on track- I think the advent of boutique publishers doing small print runs of digital indies is having an interesting effect on what I, at least, deem worthy of spending money on. I'm not a big fan of digital, so since the beginning of this year I can only think of 5 titles I bought & downloaded- Wandersong, Gris, Donut County, Sayonara Wild Hearts, & Untitled Goose Game. Of those, 4 are getting small print releases, and as big as Goose Game's gotten, I fully expect it to go physical within a year.
This is making it all the more impossible for me to get past my $20 paywall, because now I practically expect the games I'm interested in to get a physical release- meaning I now must assume I'll be paying another $20-30 for the game down the road to get that physical copy. If a game doesn't grab me shortly after release, I'm not likely to buy it at all becuase I'm waiting for that physical announcement- something that's actually paid off on multiple occasions (Hellblade: Sensua's Sacrifice, Freedom Planet, & Transistor all come to mind). It's an interesting thing to witness- of my last gen digital choices, only Child of Light & the Journey collection made the jump- for this go-round almost everything's ended up on some sort of physical release.
-
Hey guys? Can we roll the handheld debate off to another thread? It's an interesting subject, but it's decidedly off-topic for discussing pricing of digital games.
Getting back on track- I think the advent of boutique publishers doing small print runs of digital indies is having an interesting effect on what I, at least, deem worthy of spending money on. I'm not a big fan of digital, so since the beginning of this year I can only think of 5 titles I bought & downloaded- Wandersong, Gris, Donut County, Sayonara Wild Hearts, & Untitled Goose Game. Of those, 4 are getting small print releases, and as big as Goose Game's gotten, I fully expect it to go physical within a year.
This is making it all the more impossible for me to get past my $20 paywall, because now I practically expect the games I'm interested in to get a physical release- meaning I now must assume I'll be paying another $20-30 for the game down the road to get that physical copy. If a game doesn't grab me shortly after release, I'm not likely to buy it at all becuase I'm waiting for that physical announcement- something that's actually paid off on multiple occasions (Hellblade: Sensua's Sacrifice, Freedom Planet, & Transistor all come to mind). It's an interesting thing to witness- of my last gen digital choices, only Child of Light & the Journey collection made the jump- for this go-round almost everything's ended up on some sort of physical release.
I've gone through this same thing. I ended up having to double-dip on games like Sonic Mania and Wonder Boy: The Dragon's Trap, while other times patience paid off with games like Shovel Knight, Hollow Knight, Snipperclips, Golf Story, Mega Man 9 & 10 and Unravel.
I never bought Cuphead because even before it was announced, I was fairly certain they would ship a physical version someday. Now I'm just waiting for Marble it Up to perhaps get a physical version someday.
-
Hey guys? Can we roll the handheld debate off to another thread? It's an interesting subject, but it's decidedly off-topic for discussing pricing of digital games.
I've said my piece. lol
-
The most I would pay for a digital game is $5, quite frankly. Maybe I'd be willing to shell out a couple more bucks if there are some perks included with it, like soundtracks and such, but that’s pushing it. I’m a shameless cheapskate.
The most I would pay for physical is somewhere arund $20 being the cheapest and $60 being the ultimate price for something I'm quite interested in, pretty much the standard for any release. A collector’s edition has to really, really, REALLY entice me to even consider buying it. However, spending hundreds for these types of releases is definitely not an option for me.
Like I said, though, I’m a cheapskate, and with my never-ending backlog, I tend to get games once their hype has died down and I can find them for cheap new or used. Case and point, I was planning on getting a PS4 in order to play Kingdom Hearts III during its week of release, and the day I went to Walmart to get both, I didn’t. I just stood there in front of the glass pane staring at the console, saying in my head that I can wait.