The famicom wasn’t unique and the console didn’t save the industry. What saved it was Nintendo’s stringent eye for quality assurance and not letting any random developer make games for the system. The system itself is just a video game console with newer hardware than it’s predecessors.
The Switch isn’t unique, either. It’s a culmination of other ideas that were unique prior to it being put into one unit. It didn’t do anything new in and of itself. It’s a Gameboy mixed with a WiiU.
The NDS isn’t very unique either. It’s a gameboy with a touch screen. The 3DS was more unique while also not being new, just using a gimmick piece of tech that, by most accounts, wasn’t very widely used by players because it was headache inducing. Touch screens and glasses free 3D screens were already things in other hardware, just not used for game systems.
I see you left out the Virtual Boy, which actually was unique for the time. Too bad it sucked.
Their idea of uniqueness in hardware is just novelty and gimmicks, and has only been a success once. With the Wii and its motion control systems.
Your definition of “unique” seems to BE that it’s a crappy gimmick nobody liked and hence the console failed. A bit putting the cart in front of the horse, isn’t it?
I question your definition of unique when you list the Famicom as being unique. What about it was actually unique other than it’s physical appearance?
I’m just calling it out the way Nintendo has defined it in the past. When they say unique, it has always entailed some hit or miss gimmicks outside of 3 things that were truly one of a kind for the time.
I also never claimed all those systems were bad. But their gimmicks weren’t what made many of them good, and they possibly could have been better if the focus was on power and performance over said gimmicks. The WiiU simply didn’t need to exist.
The famicom wasn’t unique and the console didn’t save the industry. What saved it was Nintendo’s stringent eye for quality assurance and not letting any random developer make games for the system. The system itself is just a video game console with newer hardware than it’s predecessors.
The Switch isn’t unique, either. It’s a culmination of other ideas that were unique prior to it being put into one unit. It didn’t do anything new in and of itself. It’s a Gameboy mixed with a WiiU.
The NDS isn’t very unique either. It’s a gameboy with a touch screen. The 3DS was more unique while also not being new, just using a gimmick piece of tech that, by most accounts, wasn’t very widely used by players because it was headache inducing. Touch screens and glasses free 3D screens were already things in other hardware, just not used for game systems.
I see you left out the Virtual Boy, which actually was unique for the time. Too bad it sucked.
Their idea of uniqueness in hardware is just novelty and gimmicks, and has only been a success once. With the Wii and its motion control systems.
Your definition of “unique” seems to BE that it’s a crappy gimmick nobody liked and hence the console failed. A bit putting the cart in front of the horse, isn’t it?
I question your definition of unique when you list the Famicom as being unique. What about it was actually unique other than it’s physical appearance?
I’m just calling it out the way Nintendo has defined it in the past. When they say unique, it has always entailed some hit or miss gimmicks outside of 3 things that were truly one of a kind for the time.
I also never claimed all those systems were bad. But their gimmicks weren’t what made many of them good, and they possibly could have been better if the focus was on power and performance over said gimmicks. The WiiU simply didn’t need to exist.