Old Nintendo

FRIENDLY REMINDER
IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE DAMAGE SPRITE TUNIC YOU WERE A FAGGOT
DOUBLE DAMAGE
NO IFRAMES

He is right tho, they may have made several good games but they were always shit.

Are you talking about pokemon? Because that was to get people to play together, not buy two copies

I don't think Nintendo's particularly bad, but they are as good/bad now as they ever were. They were directly responsible for console games getting casualized back in the early 90's.

also gamefreak=/=nintendo,

Hyrule Warriors is actually breddy good tbh.

and chainchomp dog

That's a very shitty excuse, you could have people playing together with one version like any other game, specially because pokemon is more battle oriented than trading.
Also don't forget

True, but Pokemon==Nintendo, in other words, they have the final word on whatever happens to it, or do you think that go was made by gamefreak?

That's still one of, if not the, most baffling things of the modern age.

Nigger what? Sony brought in the mainstream with their Playstation shit and filled the industry with dudebros that love Tekken and fucking Gran Turismo like they're the epitome of their respective genres.

Video games were sold as toys. For children.

Nintendo stopped being good when they gave up on arcades.

Donkey Kong Jr. is literally GOAT.

When the SNES came out, Nintendo wanted games to have more 'manageable' difficulty, and they used the stupid "Seal of Quality" shit to enforce it. That's why Super Castlevania IV is piss easy, it's why the DKC games almost play themselves, it's why Super Ghouls'n'Ghosts is the only game in the series a normal person can hope to beat. It's the same reason they censored MK, and the same reason they invented Wii Sports later on; they want to be "family friendly".

What Sony did was invent the concept of buying sales with marketting. FF7 is still one of the most expensive video games ever made (IIRC, only Modern Warfare 2 and GTAV have spent more money than FF7), and most of that money was spent on advertising. Which proved conclusively that you can make any pile of shit a beloved classic if you throw enough money around, hence the current AAA market.

The Seal of Quality was introduced to build confidence of the brick and mortar stores that stocked games. It told them that games with that seal have a quality that will assure they're sold.

Do you have ANY idea of the level of shit the market was suffocating under? It was like modern shovelware but for 70 dollars a pop.

The seal of quality was around from the beginning of the NES days, and was not meant to signal difficulty but rather as an attempt to try and restore consumers' faith in the industry following the crash.

Yeah, that's how it started. Then a few years passed, and they started abusing it. Like how everything goes.

The move towards "manageable" difficulty had more to do with Developers moving away from the arcade mindset.

Arcades had arbitrary difficulty designed to eat quarters. Contentwise, most tended to have something like two to four hours of content. This carried over the NES. Games like Castlevania or Legend of Zelda can be beaten in two hours by someone who knows what they're doing.

By the SNES era, developers were replacing sheer, repetitive difficulty with actual content. Donkey Kong Country, for example, is piss easy but still clocks in at six hours.

Lolno. Good arcade games were designed for you to master them so that you could beat them in one run on a single credit (1cc).

This is true, however previous games expected more out of the players. Casualization or mass appeal through dumbing down came later.

It's hilarious that children of the 80s and 90s had things more complicated and hardcore aimed at them than adults today.

Not necessarily. Gauntlet was designed that way, at first, but later releases tweaked it so you had to die at least once to beat the game.

Hell, look at Battletoads- a lot of the memorization sequences are there purely to eat your quarters.

The original Battletoads was never an arcade game. The Battletoads arcade game came out much later.

Arcadey games on the NES were designed to be hard just like arcade games, because not only was it a way to get quarters in arcades but it was a desired difficulty by those who respected playing.

The ease in difficulty came later as many forms of degeneracy took hold. Such as Game Genie, game guides, and ultimately the internet. All of these rotted out the core of community and self reliance that had been the identity of gaming in the 80s and early 90s.

You don't remember just asking around at the playground for advice and tricks, huh.

The point is that NES development tended towards the arcade model and only changed after gaining more experience with console markets and getting comfortable with a market where the game is paid for up front instead of in increments.

...

Are you retarded? Where was that in anything that you quoted? What part of "core of community" did you not understand? Playing with friends and helping each other is "core of community" and is not degenerate. Degeneracy is reading a hand holding guide or cheat codes. Game degeneracy is a real idea you moron. You are probably too triggered by Holla Forums's usage to even understand.

No the natural evolution of gaming tended towards more market appeal involving the lowest common denominator who all embraced degenerate playing behavior and bought games that were not too difficult.

Well actually it was both the trend of casuals coming into the market as well as NIntendo marketing directly to casuals with games like Mario which they made easier and easier with each iteration (not counting SMB2 which was the only one to get harder in the entire series.)

You also shouldn't be triggered by me not covering every aspect of this history as that is not my intention. I'm just pointing out what lead to the change and that it was not originally that way. Gamers did tend to favor more difficulty, even what was considered degenerate gamers for that time were still people used to far more difficulty than children today.

Gaming will never return to the way it was as long as it is a large market, it will only get worse.

Streamlining is a buzzword to sell casualization. You don't streamline gameplay by making it easier to win. You streamline it by making it easier to play. Name one game that streamlined in that sense.

Dragon Quest.

Which one and what was streamlined? DW2 was more difficult than DW1 (and in fact is notoriously imbalanced), but no major streamlining of "playing" happened for the first three sequels at least. Adding gameplay and adding new mechanics isn't streamlining. What are you pointing out? Not having to choose "stairs" from the menu? Sure, but then you have to count all the things added to the other sequels that bog down gameplay more. Such as having multiple party members to acquire, to equip, to manage in a battle, etc. etc.

DW1 is by far the easiest to PLAY, but not the easiest in difficulty.

Any better examples?

I meant taking Wizardy/ Ultima and putting it into Dragon Quest. Its the prime example of streamlining. Go back to reddit.

Also my point was that "streamlining" is a buzzword used to sell casualization. Dragon Quest never used "streamlining" to sell a sequel and never used it as an excuse for casualization. Context is important in this instance.

Taking two different games and making a third game out of their various ideas is not fucking streamlining.

Are you fucking retarded?
Putting a keyboard based rpg and simplifying it into a two button console nes rpg is streamlining 101, this is pretty notable in software development. Go back to school.

...

Pokemon Gold and Silver.

They did not do that. Dragon Quest is not a port of Ultima and Ultima and Wizardry play COMPLETELY differently. Wizardry didn't have an overworld for one thing.

What they did do was take some ideas from Ultima and Wizardry and built a completely different game with much more limited gameplay, different combat, limited combat options (compared to Wizardry at least), limited NPC intereaction (compared to Ultima), etc. etc.

That's not streamlining. That's building a far more LIMITED game out of ideas from two superior titles, and yes those two are superior to Dragon Quest in every way (except graphics/sound)

Again adding MORE shit to the gameplay isn't streamlining. Red/Blue are far more streamlined than any other entry in the game, and none of them are difficult because they have always been made for braindead children.

SMT 1 to SMT 2, moving the automap from three menu clicks in to the select button.

Just one, autists can handle that.

I manage…

What the everliving fuck are you talking about? Gold and Silver streamlined Pokemon in all sorts of areas:
And so on and so forth.

Again in the sense of "streamlining" being used to defend casualization.

Balanced out with what? A lot more shit added in bogging the core game down. You can't count streamlining old things when you've bogged the whole system down with new things.

Truly, you are a master baiter, user, you really had me going there.

What the fuck are you even talking about. The lead directors of Dragon Quest straight up said when they were starting the series how can we take the complex nature of Wizardy and Ultima and make it more streamlined for console players. Are you off your fucking meds, holy shit.

That got a chuckle out of me.

Let's agree that first-party Nintendo is pretty awful and they were only good for their first couple consoles because they had a monopoly on a bunch of third-party Japanese developers.

Once Sega fucked them with the Genesis and Sony with the PSX though? They lost all their spaghetti and never recovered since then.

You're just being a faggot now breh

Why do you keep posting Keanu pictures everywhere you nigger I know it's you

sega always kicked their asses, especially in arcades

Are you retarded?

Only they didn't fucking succeed in "taking the complex nature of Wizardry and Ultima". They took the basic ideas of those two games, put them together with mush simpler game options and content. That's not streamlining, that is delivering less content.

The game is also a completely different series having dropped elements from Ultima and Wizardry that it could not use. Wizardry's class and party system were dropped. So how is it "streamlining" Wizardry when it has a completely different system?

This is what you are not getting. Dragon Quest wasn't a streamlined version of Ultima or Wizardry and it can't be a streamlined version of both of them because they are nothing alike in any aspect except for having the basic trappings of RPGs such as stats, equipment, leveling, and the like. They operate very differently. Ultima has an overworld, Wizardry does not. Ultima has NPCs to interact with. Wizardry has no NPCs outside of the town's stores. Wizardry has up to six party members comprised of a variation of races and classes to pick from. Ultima has a fixed class system. Wizardry has spell level based magic charges for casting. Ultima has prepared spells via reagents.

Dragon Quest doesn't have either Ultima or Wizardry's magic system, having far fewer spells, using an MP system, having no classes or races to pick from, having far fewer dungeon areas to explore, having far fewer enemies or variations of them (all being 1v1 fights), etc. etc. etc.

They got the inspiration for Dragon Quest from those games, but that isn't the same as creating a streamlined version of either of them let alone fucking two completely different RPGs being "streamlined" simultaneously. You might as well claim that Zelda 2 streamlined Dragon Quest, Ultima, and Wizardry (all at the same time) by being an action RPG with barely any menu inputs (and yes I know Zelda 2 wasn't the first.)

While I don't disagree, I still find some of their earlier arcade games charming.