The Nintendo Difference in making Handhelds, a philosophical significance.

#1adamsmithsonPosted 8/28/2011 4:47:11 PM
This thread may be a bit abstract so bear with me. I'm just going to put out a theory and see what everyone thinks. Again: I'm not claiming this is a fact.

Let me ask you a question: Is the only difference between a console and a handheld system whether you can take it on the road with you? Of course, because it is smaller, it is a weaker system. But, as technology progresses, the handheld will eventually resemble a console system. Is a handheld just a weak portable console? Or is it trying to be a different gaming experience altogether.

I think Nintendo doesn't look at handhelds as portable consoles but as something different altogether

- Maybe it started out from the fact that handhelds were weaker, but handhelds went back to a more Retro style of gaming. On the GBC we saw a lot of NES games. On the GBA we saw a lot of SNES games. On the DS we saw a mix of high-end SNES and low end 3d games. Altogether, though, most importantly the style was more orientated around the impulse based, fun pick and go gaming. Gameplay was very often simplified and focused on core gameplay and fun. The convoluted elements were filtered out and the basic, simple "fun" was left in. So point number 1 is that handhelds were more oriented to get players attention with easy pick up fun gaming. Even the 3DS looks like it will be somewhat following this proven format, never abandoning simple sidescrolling platformers and making simple, fun experiences that fit to a smaller screen. An example would be Super Mario Land 3D, which doesn't try to copy Super Mario 64, Sunshine, or Galaxy, but crafts an experience that retains the simplicity of early sidescrolling Mario games (particularly Mario 3) while adding elements of the console Mario games that make sense on the 3DS.

- Point number 2 is that because the system rested in your hands, Nintendo looked how to alter and innovate in that specific realm. So, they came up with touch controls and two screens. Whereas the Wii focused on motion controls and Wii U has a separate screen from the TV, those are gameplay innovations that are appropriate to a console experience, where the TV screen is separate from the controller. Nintendo sees how a handheld can be a different experience than a console- and not just because it's portable. Once again, the 3DS utilizes the proximity of the handheld to your eyes to allow 3D without glasses.


Contrast this with the Vita which Sony seems to be trying to convince everyone that it is basically a console system which fits in your hands. They are trying to make every big console franchise have a handheld iteration. Whether it's God of War, Uncharted, or Resistance, they are trying to "duplicate" the PS3 experience on the PS Vita. Its here that the two manufacturers collide in thinking on how to making a mass market handheld gaming device. Sony is trying to apply what it has learned works for home consoles onto the psp, which didn't fully appeal to mass market and still continuing this format with psp vita. These reasons lead me to believe that the psp vita will be taking the same missed footsteps that would lead to not be a fully mass market handhled game console for everyone. Like the ds was and the new 3ds is attempting to replicate.

In my opinion, if I wanted to play a PS3 game, I'd rather do it the right way on the big screen. A handheld experience is associated in my brain with a warm and fuzzy feeling because I'm used to playing an entirely different experience, like Pokemon Black and White, curled up on my bed while relaxing. They just feel different to me, and I like them both separately. I see how some people may like portable console experiences, but to me they aren't the same. What's your opinion on this?
#2hunter2254Posted 8/28/2011 4:55:27 PM
Right because OoT, star fox, mario, and mario kart are totally not just portable rehashes of console games. Are you ****ing kidding me OP?
#3DentenshiPosted 8/28/2011 4:56:19 PM
That brought a tear to my eye, TC. T_T
---
People who lean on logic and philosophy and rational exposition end by starving the best part of the mind.
GT:Dentenshi PSN:wolfkeeper
#4ORANGE666Posted 8/28/2011 5:04:22 PM(edited)
You've mentioned first party games, but not the ones that Sony pushed the most on PSP.

Locoroco and Patapon. Two games that each had 3 games in their respective series on the PSP. They are both built for handheld experiences.

The reason why games like Uncharted and Resistance are being pushed for the Vita is because those are 2 games aimed at American audiences. The PSP did poorly the last few years in America and Sony needs games that Americans will buy.
#5adamsmithson(Topic Creator)Posted 8/28/2011 5:06:51 PM
hunter2254 posted...
Right because OoT, star fox, mario, and mario kart are totally not just portable rehashes of console games. Are you ****ing kidding me OP?

But they're retro games, so their game mechanics are much more retro and thus more simplified compared to modern games. This makes the games you mentioned, Oot zelda, mario kart, star fox (latter two are arcade games, don't know why theres an issue) are much more adaptable to the portable experience within the gaming environment today. Games on a portable system like god of war uncharted, modern day console experiences are just not suitable for the handhled gaming experience that pick up and fun style isn't there with the vita.
#6adamsmithson(Topic Creator)Posted 8/28/2011 5:09:28 PM
ORANGE666 posted...
You've mentioned first party games, but not the ones that Sony pushed the most on PSP.

Locoroco and Patapon. Two games that each had 3 games in their respective series on the PSP. They are both built for handheld experiences.

The reason why games like Uncharted and Resistance are being pushed for the Vita is because those are 2 games aimed at American audiences. The PSP did poorly the last few years in America and Sony needs games that Americans will buy.


the quality im sure you would agree when compared to the nintendo line up of first party games, its no match. I know I would much rather play the nintendo first party games on a handheld. The quality difference and fun experience on those, sony games like 'patapon' couldn't hold a candle to nintendo.
#7hunter2254Posted 8/28/2011 5:11:36 PM
You're full of ****. Zelda is no more a "pick and play game" than god of war. LBP and modnation are no more "console" experiences than mario or mario kart. And uncharted was more fun than any recent nintendo game. I'd take that over anything 3DS offers. Same with gravity daze judging by the gameplay videos.
#8cheeseyrox2Posted 8/28/2011 5:12:19 PM
hunter2254 posted...
Right because OoT, star fox, mario, and mario kart are totally not just portable rehashes of console games. Are you ****ing kidding me OP?

In Mario's case, SM3DL is philosophically different than say, Mario Galaxy.

The levels are very short, and don't have that sense of scope as some of those levels had.

The game is meant to be played in short bursts: just pick up your 3DS, play a level or two for ten minutes, then put it down and do something else. Pick up and play is best done in a handheld, and that is the fundamental philosophical difference between SM3DL and every other 3D Mario title.
---
If I were stuck on an island with Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Modern Warfare 2, I would play Super Mario Galaxy 2 first. People who agree: 232
#9simondakingPosted 8/28/2011 5:14:30 PM
I think, therefore I am.
---
3DS: 1934 - 0847 - 7915
#10psoesmPosted 8/28/2011 5:15:20 PM
/sigh

*walks out*
---
Come join us at the 261 social board:
http://freeblago.forumotion.com/