Post by: XIXChamp on November 11, 2003, 12:17:20 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 11, 2003, 12:22:37 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 11, 2003, 12:25:22 PM
Post by: The Omen on November 11, 2003, 12:25:23 PM
Post by: savanna03 on November 11, 2003, 12:28:13 PM
for me, i think the decision made by NINTENDO to sell off RARE is a good move. it takes for them a long time to make a game and the game has a potential to bomb because of the play mechanics... if its a hit, its okay but they are playing with time and too much time cost money and thats a risk that no company would rather take.
Post by: Rhoq on November 11, 2003, 12:41:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Would you think Nintendo would want Rare back after seeing Grabbed by the Ghoulies?
I think it's hilarious that in the Grabbed By The Ghoulies commercial the voice-over at the end says "From Rare: The makers of Donkey Kong Country"
Post by: XIXChamp on November 11, 2003, 12:57:38 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on November 11, 2003, 01:03:41 PM
Rare would have to do something extremely bad for Microsoft to just dump them.
Post by: XIXChamp on November 11, 2003, 01:28:45 PM
But imagine that Nintendo and Rare are on the same page i'm just saying nintendo doesnt sell when Microsoft first wanted to buy and then they do they could be doing that so microsoft sell them back for less.....(Hey it could Happen)
Post by: AERO on November 11, 2003, 01:54:08 PM
Post by: Berny on November 11, 2003, 02:10:47 PM
Post by: Rhoq on November 11, 2003, 02:46:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: XIXChamp
does anyone now where i can see that commercial?
I see it all of the time on SpikeTV and Comedy Central.
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 11, 2003, 02:49:56 PM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on November 11, 2003, 03:29:24 PM
Post by: Aussie Ben PGC on November 11, 2003, 10:27:42 PM
Oh well.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 12, 2003, 02:30:08 AM
Post by: vudu on November 12, 2003, 04:45:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
No. Mostly because most of the Rare team we remember is now at Free Radical among others. Plus, i'm sure PD0 will sell a lot(for Xbox2) based on name recognition alone. Nintendo doesn't need Rareware when they have Silicon Knights and Retro, who are both becoming great developers in their own right.
correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't perfect dark have less than stellar sales?
Post by: Ymeegod on November 12, 2003, 04:56:44 AM
And it's quite funny how people write off Rare for one title but dont' when capcom, sega or even nintendo releases a average game.
Post by: Bloodworth on November 12, 2003, 05:34:14 AM
Post by: Jdub03 on November 12, 2003, 06:06:34 AM
Post by: The Omen on November 12, 2003, 06:20:13 AM
Quote
And it's quite funny how people write off Rare for one title but dont' when capcom, sega or even nintendo releases a average game.
Well you tell me, when was their last above average game? In 2000(albeit flawed)? If Sega or Capcom hadn't released a good game in almost 4 years, people would think less of them as well.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 12, 2003, 06:27:45 AM
Is Microsoft legally allowed to reference Donkey Kong in their commercials without Nintendo's permission?
Judging by Rare's pre-Nintendo games (Battletoads, various crappy Acclaim published games) and post-Nintendo games (Grunty's Revenge, Grabbed by the Ghoulies) it seems like Rare is only a videogame powerhouse when they're teaming up with Nintendo. I've noticed that they became more known for endless collectathons as they became a bigger name and had more independence from Nintendo. Their SNES and early N64 games for instance didn't have these problems.
It's worth it for MS to continue with them for another reason besides the amount of money they spent. Although SFA is a pretty poor last effort Rare was a pretty big asset for Nintendo and I'm sure can still make great games by collaborating with them. Therefore if MS has Rare not only do they have a popular developer that probably can still crank out a good game but they also have robbed a competitor of one of their top assets. As long as MS owns them Nintendo and Rare can't make a Gamecube killer app together and that is an advantage for the Xbox.
Post by: Ymeegod on November 12, 2003, 07:24:29 AM
And sega has countless POS games during the last two years, and capcom's PNO3 or DC3 speak for themselves.
SFA score was an 8.0 ish which isn't that bad, sure it's not steller but it's well above average.
Post by: Rich on November 12, 2003, 09:39:44 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 12, 2003, 10:30:38 AM
I'm still a huge Rare fan- I've loved nearly all of their games, regardless of time periods. That doesn't mean I don't think Nintendo's decision to drop them was without reason, though, and that doesn't mean I'm interested in every Rare title that's coming out for the XBox. PD0 intriuges me, but I'd pass on Grabbed by the Ghoulies even if it was a Gamecube game.
Ymeegod: Compared those average/POS games to the wealth of great games those companies make- the good vastly outweighs the bad. Compare that to Rare, who takes forever to make any game, much less a good one.
Post by: Ymeegod on November 13, 2003, 02:44:17 AM
Or what about not being able to target legs? Hell Vagrant Story did and that was 3-4 years old by the time ED hit the shelves.
SFA suffered alot because Rare tonned down the combat--making it just a simple button smash system. Also would have been nice to play as Krystal a bit more
.Post by: The Omen on November 13, 2003, 08:08:55 AM
Quote
Actually, both rare titles recieved an 7.3/AVG on gamerankings.com which is the same as freaking Billy Hatcher which some of you played.
But Hatcher isnt Segas first or 2nd game in the last 4 years is it? Sega have released many tons more games in the same period. And surely youre not comparing Capcom to Rare, or are you? You take one Capcom release, when they've had several since the GCs launch, and compare that to 2 Rare games in the last 4 years? I'd take Capcom vs Rare any day. I personally would take Super monkey ball 1 and 2 from Sega over SFA and GBTG.
Post by: jasonditz on November 14, 2003, 12:04:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ymeegod
And it's quite funny how people write off Rare for one title but dont' when capcom, sega or even nintendo releases a average game.
A lot of it is because Rare releases so few titles. When you get a soso title like PN03 from Capcom its easy to forgive, because almost immediately thereafter we get blessed with Viewtiful Joe. When you get a shaky rare title, that's literally the only product they have on the shelves for the whole year sometimes.
Besides which, most of the talent that produced Rare's great N64 titles had moved on elsewhere to work on things like Timesplitters. People might write off Nintendo too if they lost Shiggy and whatnot.
But then, when's the last time Nintendo released anything 1st party that was an "average game"?
Post by: BoboThePenguin on November 14, 2003, 12:19:47 PM
Quote
But then, when's the last time Nintendo released anything 1st party that was an "average game"?
Many people, that I do not agree with, say SMS was an "average" game.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 14, 2003, 12:39:23 PM
Luigi's Mansion. Decent title that's good for a rental but not a classic by any means. Definitely NOT the killer app Gamecube launch title that Nintendo pretended it was. If Yoshi's Story didn't exist Luigi would easily be EAD's worst game (though that's not much of an insult). I think the same guy was the director for both games. Obviously that guy has a problem with game length and replayability.
SMS is not an average game. Other companies WISH they could make something that good.
Post by: Oldskool on November 14, 2003, 12:44:46 PM
Post by: kennyb27 on November 14, 2003, 01:08:11 PM
