Post by: NWR_Lindy on May 14, 2003, 06:20:59 AM
Am I missing something here? Am I the only one that sees GCN-GBA connectivity as a gimmick that nobody will care about in the long run?
silks
Post by: John Squire on May 14, 2003, 06:59:57 AM
Post by: DRJ on May 14, 2003, 08:10:47 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 14, 2003, 08:45:10 AM
Post by: Dethroned Emperor on May 14, 2003, 08:54:26 AM
Post by: Nephilim on May 14, 2003, 08:57:16 AM
I bet ya there will be secrets that u need to unlock using a GBA like Zelda:WW
which annoys me, I guess iv gotta keep looking for a cheap gba in a news paper still
Post by: Mingesium on May 14, 2003, 09:13:11 AM
Post by: NWR_Lindy on May 14, 2003, 09:46:09 AM
And having a game that strictly requires a GBA to play it is retarded. I mean, if I happened to have a Gamecube and GBA I might buy the link cable just for kicks, but if I only have a GBA I'm not going to buy a Gamecube just to play that lame Pac-Man game (or even Crystal Chronicles for that matter...if I really wanted a Final Fantasy game I'd buy a PS2 and play any of the 10 FF games that have been released on that platform).
But what do I know, right? I'm just the target gamer that Nintendo is trying to attract.
silks
Post by: Ian Sane on May 14, 2003, 10:01:43 AM
One thing I don't like is that Nintendo is associating the connectivity with multiplayer. Now I think the idea of a Zelda game where you when you go underground the cave is on the GBA is really cool. However when I have to have FOUR people with FOUR GBAs playing as well the game instantly switches from a must-have title to a novelty title that the average person isn't going to have the hardware to play. Plus when a game becomes dependant on multiplayer it starts to become a glorified mini-game. There's a reason why The Four Swords came with A Link to the Past. It's not an advanced enough title to justify being it's own game. However as a mini-game it works fine. Now with this GBA connectivity stuff Nintendo is expecting us to buy mini-games that have huge hardware requirements. Not only that but they're pushing these overly-expensive glorified mini-games as some of the big titles for the year.
Another thing that bugs me is that these GBA/GC title don't even need the connectivity requirements. Seriously what is the point of making the Four Swords a connectivity title? Why not just make a four player Zelda game? That would be great and with four controllers being the only requirement it would sell huge. And why does Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles need to use GBAs? If the game is a CO-OP title then having "secret stats" and stuff doesn't make any sense anyway. It's like Nintendo is making games solely for the purpose of having titles that use the GBA connectivity instead of just making great games and adding connectivity if it's appropriate. There's a difference between making a game and saying "wouldn't it be cool to add this GBA connectivity feature?" and sitting down and making a game with the feature in mind. The hardware should be dependant on the idea, the idea shouldn't revolve around the hardware.
Plus when you really think about it all of these great GBA/GC ideas that require a seperate screen would work perfectly ONLINE.
Post by: Grey Ninja on May 14, 2003, 10:04:45 AM
Post by: Zeth on May 14, 2003, 10:05:12 AM
Post by: Mingesium on May 14, 2003, 10:46:46 AM
Final Fantasy doesn't require the GBA to play it. You can use 4 controllers, but you would want the GBA to see what items you want to switch. You can't press start and switch items in a co-op game.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on May 14, 2003, 10:53:25 AM
Grey Ninja: I don't mean to bash Nintendo, but man they're disappointing me lately. Actually, they've been disappointing me for years, to the point where I don't expect much more from their consoles than the 10 franchises they rehash every generation.
silks
Post by: Hostile Creation on May 14, 2003, 12:02:53 PM
Post by: Zeth on May 15, 2003, 05:38:06 AM
Quote
They're going for innovation, not money.
You are funny
Post by: NWR_Lindy on May 15, 2003, 11:50:07 AM
And where's the innovation lately?
Another Zelda game
Another Mario Kart game
Another Metroid Prime game
Another Mario Golf game
Another F-Zero game
Another StarFox game
Another Mario game
Another Pokemon game
I wouldn't call that "innovation", "evolution" maybe but not innovation. I mean, it's not like they're incorporating wildly new play styles into any of these games, they're just improving what was already there. Now Animal Crossing, that was innovative. But when i think innovation I think of stuff like Hideo Kojima's game "Boktai", in which a built-in solar panel uses sunlight to affect gameplay. That's innovation to me. Stuff that nobody has ever thought of before.
As for LAN play, X-Box had the ability to do that right out of the gate. Nintendo is playing catch-up on that one. So no innovation there either.
Heck man, all I want Nintendo to do is break out of their predictable mold for once, do something aggressive.
As for practicing for the next system, that's some pretty expensive practice.
silks
Post by: GoHuskers on May 15, 2003, 12:41:33 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on May 15, 2003, 03:19:25 PM
As for LAN, that's not an Xbox original. I think computers have had that for a while. In that case, Nintendo was being innovative, it was trying to make the game more fun. You may not have realized it yet, but video games are for fun. Really, I'm not lying. And believe it or not, innovation is not the key source of fun.
Well, that's just my take on it. I don't want to sound like a blind, Nintendo fanboy. I just want to make a point. I too buy games based on how innovative and interesting they seem, but that's only a factor. I don't think you should chase that factor and pretend it's the most important aspect of a game. As a factor, however, I've found that Nintendo is the most innovative video game company ever to exist, now and then.
No, I don't think it's a selling point, but you must admit it appears to be innovative
Post by: manunited4eva22 on May 15, 2003, 03:29:54 PM
Post by: Smadte on May 15, 2003, 03:49:20 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on May 15, 2003, 03:55:40 PM
Well perhaps not so harsh, because I'm not too interested in them either, but that's a rather petty reason.
Post by: Smadte on May 15, 2003, 04:54:01 PM
Quote
Why, because of the graphics? Just wondering, but don't get the impression that I give a damn about your opinion.
Quote
~~"Those of us that can laugh at ourselves will never cease to be amused."~~
Post by: Hostile Creation on May 15, 2003, 05:08:08 PM
Post by: Smadte on May 15, 2003, 06:18:00 PM
Post by: SatansNemesis on May 15, 2003, 06:18:01 PM
Post by: Cap on May 15, 2003, 06:26:07 PM
Post by: WesDawg on May 15, 2003, 06:32:25 PM
Post by: SatansNemesis on May 15, 2003, 06:47:06 PM
Post by: NWR_Lindy on May 16, 2003, 08:38:14 AM
Sure computers have had online gaming for a while. Thing is, we're not talking about computers here. We're talking about consoles. For consoles, online gaming is a new frontier, so to me that's innovative. Instead of being on that cutting edge, Nintendo is shying away from it.
You do have a point though, for me to say those games aren't innovative is totally off-base. They're definitely innovative within the contexts of their respective series and genres. And I can't say that Nintendo as a company isn't innovative - they have tried all sorts of new stuff, like the Virtual Boy, 64DD and GBA-GCN connectivity, even if they fell flat on their face because of it.
Still, I'd like Nintendo to embrace the mainstream a little more. They have to realize that it's OK to copy somebody else's idea and then do it better - that's what Sony did, that's what Microsoft did. Nintendo should take the best that Sony and Microsoft have to offer (in both games and hardware), match that, and then one-up it. They haven't done that, with hardware at least, since the SNES.
silks
Post by: DRJ on May 16, 2003, 10:24:57 AM
Quote
Still, I'd like Nintendo to embrace the mainstream a little more. They have to realize that it's OK to copy somebody else's idea and then do it better - that's what Sony did, that's what Microsoft did
What exactly has M$ copied and made better? They are losing money better than Sony or Nintendo, but I wouldnt brag about that.
Post by: Ninja X on May 16, 2003, 11:04:09 AM
It works both ways for Nintendo.
Number one, it will not be a system seller. The features incorporated with connectivity are not system-seller type options, like playing the original Metroid.
However, with games like Final Fantasy that are huge in Japan, it might convince GBA owners who are fans of the series to buy a GCN. And many FF fans own a GBA. Do not forget the Pokemon game for GCN that will probably have connectivity features.
And this is Nintendo's try at offering a feature Sony and Microsoft cannot offer. And they are doing exactly that.
I still admit, it is quite naive of Nintendo to think of connectivity as a system-seller when most people do not give a damn and go no playing Halo, Grand Theft Auto, or Pokemon.
Post by: T-Tiger on May 16, 2003, 03:35:05 PM
Post by: Cap on May 16, 2003, 04:01:48 PM
Post by: Matt on May 16, 2003, 05:55:42 PM
It is a major reason to get GCN/GBA.
Connectivity between the two is great.
Many gamers care; Nintendo cares.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on May 17, 2003, 08:35:18 AM
No.
Yes.
No.
No; Yes.
silks
Post by: olimar on May 17, 2003, 11:49:38 AM
I don't think it is replacing online play.
I think we may see online play from nintendo in the future. It seems every time they talk about it it becomes more of a posibility so i think they are working on something and hopefully they will do it right.
About packing the gba player in with the gcn i wonder if that will be only for the black gamecubes unless they decided to make purple Gba Players(hopefully they did).
