DaBickSta asks, It seems kinda like new PGC staff

members pop up out of nowhere. Could you possibly tell us about some of your new guys and

when they joined?

Adam Says: We're grown in

Minnesota. At a gestation of 6 months, poor Billy is one tired pup. Because of course,

Billy carries us that entire time...

But once we pop out, man oh man are we ready to go. We LIVE online. Breathing Nintendo.

We're everywhere.

Heh.

I actually started talking with Billy about helping him out with some video work, because

I couldn't donate money. Figured I could at least give him some time for the years of PGC

enjoyment I had over the years.

It's as simple as that. Just wanted to help, got to know Billy and pretty soon: VOILA. PGC

Staffer. Giddy-up.

WindyMan Says: I could introduce myself better if

this mailbag was updated daily, but...

Daniel Says: Well, not sure if I'm still

considered a new guy anymore, but I joined back in January.

Basically my story is pretty close to Adam's. I was a long-time reader of the site and

started helping out however I could. Then before I knew it, everyone - especially Rick -

was wanting to put me on staff.

Nathan Says: I used to work for another gaming

site that recently closed down due to financial reasons. I had been a pretty regular

reader of the site, and ended up meeting Billy at our local Cube Club before launch. Got

to chatting with him, talked for a while, and shee-bang, I'm staff.

Max Says: It does seem like staffers pop out of

nowhere. PGC staff come & go, and Billy is always out on the prowl for “secret

weapons” and when he finds someone of PGC quality, you can bet Louie’s catnip

that we’ll snap ‘em up lickity split! We’ve had many talented individuals

grace our ranks over the years, and we’re hoping this new batch will do us proud. If

not, they’ll be tortured by Louie and then FIRED!

Billy Says: It's all about cheap booze and

strippers. I mean no. We're not hiring. Please, DO NOT send me e-mails to

see if we're hiring.

Mordos Kull asks, What ever happened to the game called Rebirth? Was it just some tech

demo?

Daniel Says: Exactly. It was presented by

mix-core, a company that has also done animations for some Japanese commercials. The staff

there is not presently suited for full game development, although they may be contracted

again for certain FMV or cinema scenes. Rebirth itself was simply a demo showing some of

GameCube's advanced features like volumetric fog, but an in-game world that detailed has

yet to be realized.

Jonathan Says: The confusion surrounding Rebirth

is actually quite understandable. Most of the "tech demos" Nintendo showed at

Spaceworld 2000 really did end up as real games: Luigi's Mansion, WaveRace: Blue Storm,

Rogue Leader, etc. Unfortunately, Rebirth was just FMV right from the start, meant to give

some idea of what GameCube could pull off graphically. Mix-Core isn't even a game

developer, just an animation studio. What made the "loss" even more painful is

that Rebirth was so startlingly original, and we all hoped it would blossom into a new,

very innovative and creative game. Alas, that was not meant to be.

Max Says: Rebirth was truly beautiful and could have made for an interesting game.

I mean, what adventures could this tree go on once it came to life? Moreover, as pretty as

the forest looked, who would care? It wasn’t a game but it was arguably one of the

more stunning demos of Spaceworld 2000. Rebirth did show off the powerful graphic

potential of the GameCube however, so maybe someday we’ll see a game with such

realistic nature effects.

JessManca asks, How much of profits from rental games do the developers get? Are rental

games or retail games more profitable for game developers?

Rize Says: When game rentals started (in the NES

era I believe), the proprietors of rental stores were going to toy stores and just buying

games out right. Nintendo wasn't getting anything back then. They still have to pay full

price for games, but I'm not sure where they get them from now (or whether or not Nintendo

gets any money from rentals). I don't even know how movie rentals work. Perhaps someone

else can provide a real answer to this question.

Jonathan Says: I think now Blockbuster, Movie Gallery, Hollywood Video, etc. buy

their games directly from the publishers, or at least from the distributors. So the

publishers and developers get the same cut as they would if someone bought it at EB. They

do not get money every time the game is rented out. Sound like kind of a bad deal for the

game companies? Nintendo thought so in the late 80s, and they tried to sue Blockbuster and

have game rentals banned in America like they are in Japan. Nintendo lost that battle and

eventually embraced the rental system, even teaming up with Blockbuster for Pokemon Snap

and other promotions. When you think about it, Nintendo is the last company that should

worry about rentals. People usually rent games they're not sure about, and then they may

buy the game outright if it's good. Since Nintendo tends to publish such high-quality

games, many people who rent their games will end up buying them too, and most other people

know about Nintendo enough to just buy the games in the first place. Rentals are mainly

detrimental to smaller publishers who publish mediocre games, particularly ones that can

be completed in just a few days. People will rent those and never even intend to purchase.

But if it becomes a popular rental, at least the rental stores may order some more copies

and the publisher will still come out okay.

Max Says: Well, rental chains (such as Blockbuster

Video) pay pretty close to the retail price for the games, but then make the money back

after 10 rentals. Then, after a game has rented a bunch, the video store can sell the game

pre-played. Profit wise, I’d guess it’s about the same for developers.

Obviously, the developer gets no money if a game is sold used, but there’s also the

chance that someone who rents a game will then buy it so I guess it works out.

The video game industry in North America isn’t too concerned with game rentals these

days. This isn’t true everywhere though; the other day, Bakudan informed me that it

is illegal to rent games in Japan!

Geekboy asks, Where, in your humble opinion, is the GBA/GCN equation going? We all LOVE

the idea of more interaction between the two platforms, but we disagree on Nintendo's

grand plan. Is the GBA supposed to sell more GameCubes? Vice versa? Will there be games

that mean you HAVE to have both platforms? Will we see the GBA as an eventual GameCube

peripheral? What about the concept of GCN games where as you profess you can you

"unlock" mini games that are downloaded to a blank cart (to be sold by Nintendo,

of course) in the GBA? I know it would be doable, but would Nintendo ever consider such a

course?

Rick Says: Common misconceptions

... Neither machine is supposed to "sell" the other. The two are supposed to be

symbiotic, supporting each other. No game is going to force you to have the other. The

Game Boy Advance is not going to be a GameCube peripheral ... it stands on it's own

merits. It's just smart business to create something that the competition can't, and a

link between portable and home gaming is SMART.

As for downloading to a blank cart, you don't need to. You can download to the GBA without

a cart present (Sonic 2 can do this), and you can put the unit into a "sleep"

mode that uses barely any battery power for when you're not playing it.

Jonathan Says: The only announced game (there may

be others by E3) that may REQUIRE the link-up is the GameCube version of Kirby's Tilt

& Tumble 2, since the GBA is necessary to supply the tilting control input. Will

Nintendo ever sell a blank GBA cartridge for downloading games onto? I'd say not likely,

just because such a device could probably easily be modded for piracy. NCL had something

like that for Game Boy Color in Japan, but those games could only be downloaded for a fee

at convenience stores. I assume you're suggesting that Nintendo let us download games from

a GameCube disc or the Internet onto our blank GBA cart...probably not going to happen.

Daniel Says: I think it's a really great idea, but

so far Kirby is the only game that looks to be making any decent use of it. There are a

lot of things that could be done as far as gaining new characters, unlocking stages, and

the like, but nothing like that has been done yet. Besides Sega (who basically just used

the GBA as a VMU), third parties haven't really latched on to the idea yet. Hopefully

we'll hear more at E3.

Max Says: I think that there’s a lot of

untapped potential between the connection and we can expect more applications in the

future. The announcement of GBA-GC Final Fantasy games being linked is certainly exciting

and opens up several realms of possibilities for the RPG genre. Miyamoto has implied that

gamers will see several interesting uses of the two systems connecting, even hinting that

Metroid and Zelda may utilize it. It’s been slow to start (according to Nintendo, its

GBA-GC link cable hit stores around April 15th) but I think we’ll be seeing some cool

things here soon. I doubt there will be any games that require the link-up, but I expect

there will be games that will make gamers want to take advantage of the console-handheld

hookup.

Brad Asks, Do any of you know of any competition for Nintendo GameCube this coming

summer and fall? I am seeing some of the greatest games for the future of Nintendo, and a

rare selection for Sony and Microsoft's consoles. Do you think this strong line up will

boost GameCube's reputation as a console? And do you think will it be the end of a long

draught of games?

Rize Says: Well, I know Devil May Cry 2 is supposed to be coming this

fall. That's something for PS2. That's about the only high profile title by a reputable

developer that I can think of off the top of my head. The rest are only titles that Xbox

and PS2 fans are hoping will be good (random 3rd party titles that look "cool").

I find this strategy very unreliable (as opposed to the quality of Nintendo's first and

second party games which is very reliable). I'm sure I'm missing a thing or two. There are

of course games like Time Splitters 2 and Turok Evolution, but those are coming to all

platforms. I assume you mean exclusives or non GameCube titles.

Adam Says: The only reason we know about

Nintendo's killer Fall lineup is because they used to be killer launch titles (LOL). But

after E3 we'll certainly see some must haves on both Xbox and PS2 scrapin' for the

consumer buck. They have tricks up their sleeve too ya know...

Jonathan Says: Adam has a very good point. We already know about most of Nintendo's

huge games because they've been delayed so many times. If you can count on anything for

PS2, it's that a TON of games will be announced for it at E3, and a few of them are bound

to be excellent. As for Xbox...we'll just have to see if Microsoft's campaign to lure

developers has worked. With disappointing worldwide sales though, MS has an uphill battle

for the rest of this year.

Max Says: Yeah, there’s no doubt that PS2

will have lots of titles at E3 and Microsoft has allegedly some big announcements too.

Lemme tell you, focusing on one company’s systems in the way that we do make it hard

to keep track of everything going on. That said, it doesn’t take much energy to see

that there are lots of games being developed for all systems.

Along with Devil May Cry 2, Sega’s making a new Shinobi for PS2 and Tecmo is bringing

back its Rygar franchise (yay!) on PS2. Maybe someday those titles will appear on Cube,

but for now it looks like they’re on PS2 first. The huge X-Box exclusive I’ve

heard so far is Toe Jam & Earl 3. There’s bound to be other games unveiled at E3

for X-Box, but that’s the biggest I’ve heard… Regardless, if Nintendo can

pull of Mario, Zelda, Metroid and Star Fox Adventures (let alone non-established games

like Animal Crossing & Eternal Darkness) this year, the competition is going to have

to be working overtime to keep up.

Snuff the Rooster asks, Now, as everyone knows, E3 is the pinnacle of the gaming

industry, and all three console makers are going to try and make the biggest splash they

can. As a Nintendo fan, I would like for the Big N to steal the show this year as well.

But I think Nintendo maybe letting too many cats out of the bag, especially with all the

announcements of late. For example, if they kept the Square/Yamauchi deal till E3, it

would have blown the roof off.

Do you think these headlines, along with a few other's along the way (Capcom announced

Glass Rose, a second Super Monkey Ball in the works, etc.) would have more impact for

Nintendo at E3, when everyone is expecting the world from the three? I know Nintendo

really doesn't have control over when Take Two and Capcom announce things, but they could

request they hold off the news. How much will Nintendo have left when the show starts in

LA? I don't think playably Mario's and Starfox's are going to do the trick this year.

Mike H. Says: I was surprised as well with

Nintendo's orgy of announcements a few weeks back. It's really totally unlike Nintendo. As

gaming fan, Nintendo has gotten me excited, but I am positive that for all the great news

they have trickled down to us, the very best is being held back for E3. In fact, we know

it.

It doesn't hurt the whole big surprise factor for me, it just gets me jazzed up all the

more to try out these wares. Sure, they could have held some of these announcements off

and made a even bigger explosion, but we'll still get to see the fruits of these

announcements for the first time as well.

Sony and MS haven't been saying much either. They're either pulling a Nintendo by keeping

it close to their chests, or they don't have announcements of the same caliber.

Rize Says: I like to be optimistic. Imagine that

all of the surprises you've gotten so far are nothing compared to what you will get at E3.

Perhaps these early ones were given now because they would be over shadowed by the other

stuff you'll learn about at E3.

Yeah, that's it!

Adam Says: Final Fantasy X1 with online support

would be one helluva E3 announcement wouldn't it? As it stands now we're not really

getting Final Fantasy back, we're getting some spinoff anime series. I think many people

see it this way, and until TEH BIG GUN comes out on the Cube, the merger seems bigger for

Square (ahem-GBA) than for Nintendo.

Mario 65 (it is looking "somewhat" better) and Celda will steal the show for

Nintendo this year. Period.

Jonathan Says: I'd guess that the Square

announcement was made for shareholder reasons at the time. And I don't think it's really

going to be expanded at E3...not from what Square USA told me, anyway. But Nintendo will

definitely have some surprise game announcements, and we'll see some kickass third-party

games too. Keep in mind that a lot of people don't really even know anything about

Resident Evil Zero, and that's supposed to be Capcom's biggest game at the show. There's a

difference between what will surprise us hardcore fans and what will surprise the industry

as a whole, and especially mainstream gamers.

WindyMan Says: Well, Nintendo has dropped a few

bombs already, but then again, it always has a handful of surprises up its sleeve.

Call me crazy, but maybe all these recent huge newsmakers that have been flying around in

the past few months are just drops in the bucket compared to the splash Nintendo is

planning on making this year. There's lots of potential for it, that's for sure.

Max Says: I think people getting to play Mario,

Zelda, Metroid and more complete versions of Star Fox Adventures & Eternal Darkness

will create a huge buzz all its own. I’m sure there will be a few surprises, but along

with that probably lots more third party and Triforce stuff. Last year’s E3, Nintendo

stole the show because no one was expecting the noise Nintendo brought. This year,

Nintendo isn’t keeping completely quiet before the show, but that doesn’t mean

they’re not holding anything back…

Dragona Says: There is allus seomthing

bigger. Heheheheh...

Brian asks, Which game (on any system) has the

best bosses? What makes a good boss to you? And what is the best boss ever? I personally

like any Castlevania game for Bosses. A good boss needs to have a little bit of thinking

and a lot of action. The best boss ever was the 2nd Bowser in Mario 64.

Jonathan Says: I think a good boss should be

difficult enough that you have to try at least three times before beating him (without the

help of a strategy guide). But he shouldn't be so hard that you get stuck there and never

finish the game. Obviously that's difficult to balance since every player has a different

skill level, but some games seem to pull off that balance much better than others. A good

boss should also be multi-faceted...most Mega Man bosses are examples of those with the

right level of challenge but an utter lack of variety. Each one has exactly one weakness,

and if you can find it (in the MM example, there are only eight weapons to try before you

find the right one...), you win. A good boss either has multiple patterns/forms which you

must learn and exploit or no overall weaknesses, meaning you just have to play very well

in general to beat him. I'm trying to think of a game that has all this, but I just can't.

Many games have a single boss that fits these criteria and then several more that are just

crappy or mediocre.

Aussie Ben Says: I like bosses that aren't your

average "three-hits-and-you're-out" boss. For example, Migen and Son in Mischief

Makers - you could beat the crap out of Migen Jr. as much as you liked, but after a while,

his father would teleport and heal him. Rare's had some pretty nice (and tough) bosses

too. DKC2's K. Rool was incredibly tough for me. And in JFG, I hated those Mantis-like

bosses jumping around in Eschebone. (Well, pretty much all of JFG's bosses were

deliciously devious.)

And then there's the infamous operatic Chucky Poo.

The coolest thing ever though, is playing Ocarina of Time for the first time ever, walking

into a huge dark chamber at 1 am with two giant stereo speakers blaring, and hearing eerie

silence. And then an incredibly huge parasite drops from the ceiling to destroy you.

I think what makes a good boss is when the developer pulls all the stops to try and trick

you or distract you. The more you die on a boss, the more frustrated you'll get. And then

they'll be doing their job. :-)

TYP Says: I'm partial to Kirby bosses myself.

Kirby's Adventure, Kirby's Dreamland 3 and Kirby Super Star all have classic bosses. KSS

has one in particular that is hilarious! And the choice of special power only adds to the

battles. Boss Battle medleys have always been a high point in Kirby games, from Kirby's

Adventure to Kirby 64.

Other games with notable bosses include Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (Robotnik's finest hour) and

DKC2. For those more interested in style than gameplay, Wario Land 2 and higher must be

mentioned. Of course, there are plenty of other games with excellent bosses--those are

only a handful. I just hope I can add some GameCube games to the list soon.

Adam Says: Honestly, I'm friggin' SICK of the

whole "BOSS" thing.

Find the weakness, hit the weakness a few times...win. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Hopefully Mario Sunshine spins a new web of intrigue for bosses... I doubt it though.

Rize Says: Where to begin... first of all, I want

to say that 3D games overall have been disappointing to me on the boss front. Especially

in first person shooters. I think FPSs are made for soldier to soldier (or alien) type

combat, and having large boss characters has never really worked for me. Perfect Dark's

boss was ok, but still not very good in my opinion. The best bosses that I've ever seen in

a 3D game were in Zelda OoT and MM (Devil May Cry and the Metal Gear Solid series as

well). Pikmin and Super Smash Bros. Melee had some interesting bosses, but I don't think

anything compares to the extravagant bosses that used to inhabit the 2D worlds of days

past (and present on GBA).

Now the 2D days had some truly great bosses. The entire Castlevania, Mega Man X and Ninja

Gaiden series had excellent bosses. The Zelda games had excellent bosses. The list goes on

and on. I think bosses are just easier to do properly in 2D games.

Zelda and DMC were able to pull off good bosses in 3D thanks to "Z" targeting

(and DMC's equivalent). Metal Gear had largely 2D movement (with it's overhead camera)

even though it was in a 3D world. For a good boss fight, your character needs lots of

capability so that you can address the bosses attacks in a number of ways. The boss

shouldn't have any series weakness. The fight should be one of strategy and reflex not the

exploitation of weaknesses. Bosses that can destroy you in one (or nearly one) hit are a

bad idea. It's best to have a slightly drawn out fight where you can get hit a lot and

you're almost dead at the end of the fight. The idea is for you and the boss to be

slightly better than you when you first meet him (so that you have to fight it a few times

before you can beat it). Of course, when you replay the game, the bosses will probably be

easy.

Mike S. Says: To me a good boss is hard to beat,

but not impossible. I think some of the best bosses are in RPGs. For example, Magus in

Chrono Trigger was awesome (I don't want to spoil anything for those who haven't played

the game, but those of you who have know what I'm talking about).

As for non-RPG bosses, The 2D games of yesteryear have the best. In particular I'm talking

about the Mega Man X series. That series has some of the best bosses EVER. The final boss

in MMX took me forever to beat. Oddly enough though, the final boss in MMX2 was quite a

bit easier (though still a challenge).

Today's bosses can sometimes be push-overs. For example when I got to the final boss in

Luigi's Mansion, it was the FIRST time I died in the entire game. That was because I

didn't know the pattern. Once I learned it, finishing that game was a breeze (I won with

an E rating, something I fixed on my second play through when I got an A).

Daniel Says: I think that to have a truly great

boss, it has to be challenging even if you know what to do. I really liked some of the

bosses in the Zelda Oracle games. It would take a while to figure them out and then when

you got a few hits in, the pattern would change and you'd have to figure it out all over

again. I was yanking my hair out on some of them, but I think that's the way it should be.

I think too, that good bosses should have an overpowering sense of awe. There's nothing

like the feeling you get when you first see Kraid rise from the depths and then tear

through the ceiling in Super Metroid.

Max Says: I think the bosses in the Zelda games

(any really) have offered epic battles, challenging and rewarding. Some of Pikmin’s

bosses were really interesting; especially the final one. However, the best bosses

I’ve come up against can be found in Treasure’s Sin & Punishment (import,

N64). For one thing, there are SO GOSH DARN MANY BOSSES! Every other second, KA-BOOM,

another boss appears and it’s time to fight. These bosses range from mutant octopi to

giant space-weapon station… And that’s just two. There’s even a boss fight

that is awfully similar to the first boss in the original Contra—which is followed by

a swarm of Ruffians and a giant crab boss. Oi. Some bosses aren’t so tough; others

are nightmares and will kill you repeatedly. Each increasing difficulty level adds a new

boss or two and makes the existing ones tougher. Yeah, Mega Man and Castlevania are

classics have some great bosses with lots of personality, but Sin & Punishment

practically makes an art of the boss battle.

Oh, I just remembered… My #1 all time most-hated-boss is probably Mother Brain in the

first Metroid. No matter how many times I made it her, I couldn’t defeat her. The

shame in failing to eliminate her evil from the galaxy endured for years… At least

until I evened the score in Super Metroid.