Post by: Jonnyboy117 on December 24, 2003, 06:53:07 AM
As of this writing, the Nintendo GameCube has been on the market for about two years in Japan and North America, and a few months less than that in Europe. Since it seems fairly certain that the next generation of consoles will be launched in 2005, when GameCube will be four years old, this seems like a good intermediate point to look back at how the system has performed so far in its life cycle.
I’ve looked at several topics pertaining to a console’s performance and given a letter grade to each one. Note that these grades are based on the American system of educational scoring, where A means "Excellent", B is "Good", C is "Average", D is "Poor", and F is "Failing". On with the progress report.
System Sales: B-
GameCube seemed to launch with great sales, then it lagged for a long time, and now it is quickly improving with the recent price cuts around the world. Though the two companies may argue over exact numbers (which constantly fluctuate anyway), the truth is that GameCube and Xbox are very close in this regard, with PS2 way
out in the lead. Nintendo has had to fight very hard to sell as many systems as it has against strong competition, but Microsoft has struggled and strived as well. System sales are currently good enough to ensure that some third-party support will continue through the system’s lifetime, which the N64 could not claim. The
installed base isn’t large enough to make up for some of the system’s other faults though. If the current momentum can be maintained through strong marketing and game releases, GameCube has a fair chance of outselling Xbox in the end, though it will probably still be close.
Exclusive Games: B
Every gamer has his or her own favorite system for exclusive titles, but I’m going to try being objective here. I think GameCube has as many great exclusives as Xbox and even PS2 do. The only difference is that most of GameCube’s exclusive titles are published by Nintendo and rated E for Everyone. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but it does affect other aspect’s of the system’s performance. The only problem I have with
GameCube’s exclusive lineup is that many of Nintendo’s franchise updates, while fun to play, are not much different from previous games. It’s totally forgivable in a game like Majora’s Mask, which was developed on the same system and same engine as Ocarina of Time. But when games like Mario Kart: Double Dash and 1080:
Avalanche are basically graphical upgrades with a couple of new modes added to games that came out six or seven years ago, I have a bit of a problem. There’s nothing wrong with these games per se, but releasing this kind of sequel is something Nintendo promised it would not do on GameCube, and that promise has been repeatedly broken. If franchise sequels don’t start charting more new territory, fans will eventually get fed up and stop buying. Yeah, I love Super Mario Sunshine and gave it a glowing review, because I think it deserves it. But I also think a genuinely new, radically different, revolutionary Mario platformer is past due. Nintendo sets expectations high, and they have to deliver.
Third-party Support: C
Better than on N64, but still not very good. How many times do I have to read a press release for some new game and how it’s coming to PS2, Xbox, and PC? Then there are the games that only come to GameCube six months after the other versions are released, and the publisher is so disappointed with its sales. Sony set a very clear model of how to lure and maintain third-party support, and Nintendo has only learned part of that great example. GameCube has great support from some companies, like Capcom and Ubi Soft, but other publishers are publicly mocking the system or despairing at the awful sales of third-party software on GameCube. It’s anyone’s guess as to why the EA Sports titles are still consistently released on Nintendo’s
console; Sega wised up long ago and pulled the plug on GameCube versions of their sports games. I didn’t blame them then, and I wouldn’t blame them now. With brisk system sales after the latest price cut, Nintendo has an opportunity to go earn new third-party support and bring back those who have left the flock, but I’m not holding my breath.
Sports Games: D
Having most of the EA Sports lineup doesn’t make your system a good choice for fans of sports games. Let’s face it, a huge portion of casual gamers buy sports games almost exclusively. When I go visit my friends and they want to play video games, they don’t mean Zelda. They’re oogling over this year’s newest NCAA Basketball or Madden NFL game. Though some of us hardcore gamers could care less for those games, you can’t win or even compete in the console wars without a strong sports lineup. There’s nothing wrong with EA’s GameCube titles, and in fact they are very comparable with the PS2 and Xbox versions...except in sales. Nobody plays these games on GameCube, seriously. I know it, you know it, Nintendo knows it, and EA definitely knows it.
Consumers know that you can’t buy Sega Sports games for GameCube, and they know that Nintendo doesn’t have its own sports lineup, so they naturally assume that the system must not be good for sports games. They are totally right, not because the system can’t technically handle sports titles, but because Nintendo doesn’t care about sports. Until the company embraces sports, it can’t embrace casual gamers, and it won’t win back any of its old dominance.
Technical Prowess: A
With its relatively slow processor and strange RAM architecture, not to mention the lower price point at launch, many people expected GameCube to be underpowered right off the bat. Such fears have been destroyed time and time again by the surprising power of Gekko and Flipper. Xbox may be slightly more powerful, but the difference is slight and rarely capitalized on by developers. Games like Metroid Prime and the upcoming Resident Evil 4 truly show off what the GameCube can do.
Connectivity: F
Connectivity is a total failure at this point in GameCube’s life. There is exactly one online game on the market. LAN modes are plainly or poorly implemented, and are just now arriving when other systems have had the feature for nearly a decade. The only title making decent use of the GameCube-to-GBA link is a free mini-game that Nintendo had to develop itself and give to another company. It’s really, really pitiful. Whether you look at connecting the two systems as a replacement for online features (as Nintendo has often presented it) or a stand-alone feature, it’s no less a dumb gimmick than the e-Reader in the current selection of compatible games. It looks like 2004 may bring more legitimacy to the feature, but Nintendo has been incredibly slow to make GBA connectivity anything more than a neat symbol on the back of the game box.
Public Image: D
"GameCube is a kid’s system. Nintendo isn’t even making a new system, they’re just going to make games from now on." As ignorant as these comments are, I hear them all the time from non-gamers. There’s no doubt that GameCube is respected and supported by hardcore gamers like me, but Sony has proven that the real potential of gaming lies in attracting casual gamers, people who only care about crap like Enter the Matrix. The average
PS2 owner has never heard of Viewtiful Joe and probably wouldn’t want to play it even if you showed it to him. These are the people who control the industry. Nintendo has done a horrible job of reaching out to them and showing them the appeal of GameCube. Stereotypes are created and actively fostered by Sony and
Microsoft, which is smart business for them. Meanwhile, Nintendo has done very little to show the world that GameCube is, in fact, a perfectly good system for adults, and that the company is very much intent on staying in the hardware business forever. There’s a difference between making flashy commercials and creating a
positive public image. Nintendo has improved greatly in its advertising, but there’s more to marketing than just flooding TV screens and electronics stores with your logo. Sony and Microsoft have a very firm grasp on word of mouth, and Nintendo clearly does not.
Overall: C
Nintendo fans awaited GameCube as a chance for the company to fight back into the mainstream of gaming. That has obviously not happened. I still love playing on my GameCube, and there are tons of upcoming games that I’m looking forward to, and I think the system’s exclusive lineup is as good or better than those offered
by PS2 and Xbox. However, many of Nintendo’s promises have not been fulfilled. It doesn’t compete in terms of third-party support. GBA connectivity hasn’t materialized, much less revolutionized. GameCube is most definitely not the coolest system to own. It’s not remotely popular with casual gamers. The general theme for Nintendo so far this generation has been, "We’re learning, but not very fast." It seems like whenever Nintendo fixes one problem left from the N64 era, a new one pops up. Four years ago, I was sick of hearing that things would be
better in the next generation. I’m still sick of hearing it, and I’m finding it harder and harder to believe. There’s no doubt that GameCube is a big improvement over the N64. But the strides Nintendo has made have not been nearly enough to catch up with Sony, and they are just barely keeping up with Microsoft. Some of GameCube’s problems could be remedied in the current generation, like better marketing and some improvement in
third-party support. Connectivity could still be salvaged from its current laughable state. It’s not even too late for GameCube to become a viable online platform. The question is whether Nintendo can become mobile enough to act on these issues and make real changes. Otherwise, Nintendo fans will be left hoping that the next system will be the revolutionary system that GameCube was supposed to be.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on December 24, 2003, 06:59:03 AM
Post by: nolimit19 on December 24, 2003, 07:12:12 AM
Post by: Rob91883 on December 24, 2003, 08:10:43 AM
I think Nintendo shouldn't put their recourses on some sports Franchises; that would take alot of R&D time away from other innovative games. Nintendo needs to tell the the Average gamer that this system is "cool", that way the average game would want to buy the espn 2k3 game on gamecube instead of ps2, but I think its already to late for the Gamecube in that respect. I'm also sick hearing about how Nintendo will do better in the Next-generation wars, but its all poppy cock if Nintendo doesn't change their philosophy about videogames. They have a tendency to look outside the box, and for innovative content and they should never stop. Implementing this on hardware is also good, Nintendo didn't offer DVD support or a hard drive wich meant the system didnt sell at a loss. I also find myself in a duality because Nintendo should also put some features the Average game would want.(DVD play support, MP3, e.t.c.). Nintendo can work with Panasonic if they wanted to make NES-5 that plays games and has many features for the average gamer. Another can be made for the person who just wants to play games. They can also use MP3 player support for a new innovative game> OUTSIDE THE BOX
Nintendo needed to change drasticaly from the N64 days, but they only changed a little. If Nintendo changes drastically this time something is going to happen, but if Nintendo doesn't do much dont expect miracles.
But lets not forget that Nintendo is making a profit, and they are doing a lot of things right.
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 24, 2003, 08:15:26 AM
Nope.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 24, 2003, 08:31:05 AM
"The only problem I have with GameCube’s exclusive lineup is that many of Nintendo’s franchise updates, while fun to play, are not much different from previous games."
I really agree with that statement. Back in the day every game Nintendo made had a reason to exist. If it was a sequel it had some new feature that justified it's existence. You don't see that with some of the Cube lineup. Wave Race: Blue Storm, 1080 Avalanche and Mario Golf are all what I would consider games that didn't have to be made. They really don't add anything to the original N64 versions. Don't even get me started on Mario Party. These are money sequels. They're the kind of cash-in cookie cutter sequels I expect from companies like EA instead of Nintendo. Sure they're still good but did the Cube lineup really need them? Mario Kart Double Dash often gets lumped into this pile but I think that's unfair since the two character thing really does add a cool co-opertive theme into the game. I think the lack of online play (ie: something that would justify the existence of MANY Cube multiplayer games if included) is what made people think of it as cookie cutter.
I think Nintendo is confused about what fans want from their games. Most Nintendo fans love the innovative gameplay that Nintendo provides. We want sequels but only if they give us something new. We don't just want another Mario Party because we liked the first one. In my opinion there are only two franchises the Nintendo HAS to continue and that's Mario and Zelda. For everything else if they can't give us something fresh then give us something different.
"Meanwhile, Nintendo has done very little to show the world that GameCube is, in fact, a perfectly good system for adults"
The Gamecube ironically enough has a LOT of games that target adults. In fact I would say that Nintendo's first party games are the only major "kiddy" games on the console. All the second party titles are games like Metroid Prime and Eternal Darkness. The major third party games are stuff like Soul Calibur II and Resident Evil. I personally blame NOA's marketing department completely for the continued "kiddy" stereotype. EAD is the ONLY Nintendo developer I can think of that is really cranking out the "kiddy" games. The rest of the lineup is quite appealing to adults. Nintendo does offer a good selection of games for adults they just don't TELL anyone about it.
I'm basically repeating stuff Jonny already said but I think it's worth emphasizing.
Post by: Inkwell on December 24, 2003, 10:00:00 AM
Quote
I think Nintendo shouldn't put their recourses on some sports Franchises; that would take alot of R&D time away from other innovative games.
Honestly what has Nintendo really done that has been innovative this time around? Connectivity? Its already has been done an Nintendo efforts fall extremely short in justifying why they should even consider still using this gimmicky approach. Unless you think connectivity is what everyone is craving to get thier hand on. Now on to the E-reader...pointless, but somehow its suppose to be innovative ( I guess it is because it comes from Nintendo). Where was the actual "research" in this item, it just seems like they developed them for no actual use but can brag about how the have it an others don't. Oh...the games...can you tell me where is the innovation in Zelda, Mario Kart, Mario Sunshine, and so on. Like someone has mentioned once before about Nintendo sequels (if you want to call them that) they seem to border mere rehashes. Nintendo does it way too often, Im suprise we haven't notice it sooner...really what game on the GC that has felt like it actually deserve to have 2 or whatever number beside its name. R&D at Nintendo seem to be lacking, they are not making innovative games, but they are making fun games and that what I believe that what thier all about. Just my opinion though.
Oh...the topic. I basically agree with it except for lthe 3rd-party support ( should recieve a D-) and the Public Image (F sound about right).
Post by: Selochin on December 24, 2003, 10:01:27 AM
Post by: bubba23 on December 24, 2003, 10:09:10 AM
Post by: nellyp on December 24, 2003, 10:23:18 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 24, 2003, 10:39:18 AM
And seriously guys, shut up with this online crap- it's not profitable, get over it. Just because YOU and your nerd friends like it doesn't mean everybody else does. I'm sick and tired of people hounding on Nintendo for not immediatley pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into setting up an extensive online plan. Jesus
Post by: Ocarina Blue on December 24, 2003, 10:52:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Selochin
If Nintendo would just focus on American gaming preferences instead of Japenese, it would control much more of the market.
Only the U.S.A. market. Japan is a larger market than the U.S.A. when it comes to games. Going for Japan, especially when you have all your best developers based there, and suited to the market's preference is a perfectly valid strategy.
Post by: Moonwatcher on December 24, 2003, 11:06:29 AM
Post by: NWR_Lindy on December 24, 2003, 11:18:24 AM
Nintendo has yet to figure out that they need to do everything their competitors do and then some. If your competitor has a checkbox in their ad, you'd better have a checkbox to match it. Brain surgery it ain't. Nintendo is the only company that can beat Nintendo, and for the past eight years they've been doing a hell of a job.
silks
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 24, 2003, 11:31:39 AM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on December 24, 2003, 11:35:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ocarina Blue
Only the U.S.A. market. Japan is a larger market than the U.S.A. when it comes to games. Going for Japan, especially when you have all your best developers based there, and suited to the market's preference is a perfectly valid strategy.
No, the N.A. market is larger in both sales and profit. Japan was eclipsed back in the 90s. There may be more games released in Japan, I'm not sure, but there aren't more games purchased there. Japan has had a poor economy for a long time, and it eventually started to seriously hurt the gaming industry there. People just can't afford as many games.
Post by: dus on December 24, 2003, 12:04:18 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 24, 2003, 12:12:33 PM
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 24, 2003, 12:53:51 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 24, 2003, 01:00:37 PM
Post by: Cuseguy385 on December 24, 2003, 01:25:09 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 24, 2003, 01:30:49 PM
As for sports that's pretty easy to cover. All Nintendo has to do is buy some developer and turn them into Nintendo Sports. They then make four games (football, baseball, basketball & hockey) and go from there with annual updates. If they just bought some company to do it for them then they don't have to worry about "wasting" their other developers. They already have the NBA Courtside general design to go with and could probably use Retro's existing code for that football title so the work has already been started. They also have the Seattle Mariners franchise to use.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 24, 2003, 01:59:49 PM
Cuseguy, think for yourself.
Post by: Nazgul on December 24, 2003, 02:14:57 PM
Thats how they should enter it Mouse_Clicker, a safe and effective way. Microsofts online system has two problems, it runs on broadband, and it costs money. More people are willing to buy a game with free online capability then to go off and buy a game with online capabilty, but an installation, and not only that, but they have to have broadband, AND pay for it. We're talking 60 bucks a month to play Mech Assault.
This in my opinion is the best way for Nintendo to enter into the Online Gaming world, and it should blow the competition away.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 24, 2003, 02:31:23 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on December 24, 2003, 03:30:16 PM
It's an editorial. Editorials are supposed to sum up the author's OPINIONS about something, and use supporting FACTS to back them up. Jonny seems to think that the GameCube is a pretty mediocre console. Fine, he would fit in nicely over at IGNCube, but that's his opinion. Jonny also seems to have backed up a few of his opinions with falsities or more opinion. Well... isn't that interesting. Jonny, are you sure this wasn't supposed to be included with your resume to IGNCube?
System Sales seemed pretty decently written, but then again, it's kinda hard to screw that up isn't it? GameCube sells this much, Xbox sells that much, Sony sells even more. Can't really say that I liked his choice of wording, but it's his opinion.
Exclusive Games. Before I begin with this section, I would really like to point everyone towards this article, which was written by Billy after he went to an Xbox Live demo. I think it was really this article that endeared me so much to PGC. At one point in the article, Billy mentions that he asked the Xbox fans who were so excited about their "mature" games what their top 5 games were, and nobody knew what to say after Halo. This is in stark contrast to Jonny, who mentions that most of Nintendo's exclusives are rated "E", and most are published by Nintendo. Yep. He certainly nailed that one. Games published by Nintendo don't see other systems, and are often rated E. Except of course for SSBM (T), Metroid Prime (T), Eternal Darkness (M), Resident Evil (M), Baten Kaitos (RP), Tales of Symphonia (RP), Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles (RP), Rogue Squadron (T), Viewtiful Joe (T), and others which are not rated E or published by Nintendo.
Also related to this topic, Jonny mentioned that he doesn't think Nintendo's new games are innovative at all, and backs it up by saying: But when games like Mario Kart: Double Dash and 1080: Avalanche are basically graphical upgrades with a couple of new modes added to games that came out six or seven years ago... and that's really all that he has to back him up. In response, I will say that I find Nintendo's new games such as Mario Sunshine, Zelda: Wind Waker, and Mario Kart to be HUGE paradigm shifts in the franchises, not to mention games such as Pikmin or Luigi's Mansion, which are entirely new. And bingo. I have supplied as much evidence to back myself up as Jonny. But I care not to stoop to that quality of writing, so I am going to continue by explaining some things.
Mario Sunshine. Mario games have always been pretty evolutionary. The jump from Super Mario Bros 3 to Super Mario World was pretty small. The graphics improved, but the layout of the game, and the gameplay remained the same. Yet I am willing to bet that nobody here had a problem with Super Mario World. The same goes for Super Mario Sunshine, but I would say that it's much more. The gameplay changed dramatically with the addition of the watergun from Mario 64, requiring new skills to be developed, and opening the door to new level layouts. The very atmosphere of the game changed with the addition of some REAL character interactions between Mario, Bowser, and the supporting cast, which is a first outside of the Mario RPG series. As a result, the setting of the game changed to be more "real" in nature. The way I see it, Super Mario Sunshine is the second biggest jump in the franchise. (First being the jump from Super Mario World 2 -> Mario 64 of course).
Zelda: Wind Waker. Take a look at Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask. Now look at Wind Waker. The power of the GameCube allows for much more creativity in graphical design, and the cel-shaded Wind Waker engine allows the graphical style to return to how it was on the SNES. I suppose you could call that a step backward, but I call it a step forward. (My opinion remember?) What really set Wind Waker apart though was the world it was set in, and the style with which it was told. I was honestly SHOCKED when I found out that Wind Waker had some real character development, and an honest to goodness story. I have always played Zelda games for the gameplay alone, but Wind Waker added a story to it that was surprisingly deep, and didn't seem put there merely as a reason to finish the game. The controls and gameplay remained intact from Ocarina of Time (just like moving from NES to SNES, or Ocarina of Time to Starfox Adventures), but the whole style of the game changed. The main map was completely different, offering players a chance to sail the great sea... and to experience many wonderous sights in the process. I mean, you just can't deny that Wind Waker played completely differently than Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask. I am not a person prone to crying, going many years without a tear. But Wind Waker got a couple out of me, where no other Zelda game ever did. What does that say?
Mario Kart Double Dash!!. The mechanics of the racing have changed. A completely new strategy needs to be in place to drift around corners, you can no longer recover from banana peels, and it's MUCH harder to defend against weaponry such as red shells, as you may no longer drag things behind. Those 3 facts come into play all the time, making the game that much different to play. But there's more. They have placed 2 people on each cart. It didn't seem like much at first. Until you consider two things. There is a new strategy involved in picking characters, as each one will have certain special weapons that may be rare, but can be very deadly, and each character you choose must fit into the cart you want. BUT, there's an all new mode that is pretty much a game seller in itself. You and a partner can now play cooperatively, with one person driving, and the other shooting. I have a friend who bought the game and a GameCube for this reason alone. Mario Kart has always been a pretty multiplayer oriented game, and there just simply aren't many coop games out there. Mario Kart put itself down as one of the best.
The fact of the matter seems to be that the new Nintendo games are far more innovative than previous incarnations. They have already gone 3D. Does Jonny want 4D now? Be realistic.
Third-party Support. Jonny made mention of games that only see release on PS2 and Xbox, developers publicly bashing Nintendo, and Sony's clear model to gain 3rd party support. I will say 3 things about that.
1) The only developers that I know of that are publicly bashing Nintendo are Midway and Acclaim, who it's pretty much agreed on, make the world's crappiest games. Is this supposed to be a bad thing for 3rd party support? Do you remember the world famous developer who bashed Nintendo at the beginning of the N64 era when they jumped ship for Sony? Don't I seem to recall a public apology, and demotion of several executives before they were given rights to develop on Nintendo consoles again?
2) Nintendo has a clear model to gain 3rd parties too. It's not as unscrupulous as Microsoft's strategy to buy 3rd parties, and it's not like Sony's clear model to gain 3rd party support by... what was that again? Oh yeah. Own the biggest marketshare. It only involves things like building up strong relations with Square, Konami, Capcom, Namco, Sega, and a few others. Work on some of their franchises, let them work on some Nintendo ones. Publish some of their games. No biggies.
3) Name 5 good 3rd party games that only came out on PS2 and Xbox. Hell, name 2. I can't think of one.
Last comment on this topic is this fine quote: It’s anyone’s guess as to why the EA Sports titles are still consistently released on Nintendo’s console; Sega wised up long ago and pulled the plug on GameCube versions of their sports games. I didn’t blame them then, and I wouldn’t blame them now. Yep. Jonny is the owner of the most currently respected Nintendo news site, yet he is suggesting that it was a good idea to drop GameCube support, and keep Xbox support, even though Sega games sell like crap on Xbox. Way to go. If you ever want a job at IGNCube Jonny, let me know, and I will rally up a petition to get you there. That being said, I could care less about sports games. I am only going to even move to the next section because he said something that really bothered me.
Sports Games are something that Nintendo has never really paid any attention to. You are correct on that. They supply Sports Games, but not in a realistic nature. But the fact is that EA doesn't like Xbox, and since people DO buy their games for GameCube, it's worth their while to port them over. But face facts here. EA pretty much killed Sega in the sports department last time around. I doubt that anyone really cares if Sega sports are on GameCube or not, as chances are they after the EA Sports games.
As far as Technical Prowess goes, that was pretty much a no-brainer, yet strangely, even though Jonny runs a Nintendo site, he got it wrong. I shouldn't have been surprised by that point. But I still was. With its relatively slow processor and strange RAM architecture... Strange and slow relative to what? If you are talking about that Athlon 64 with the Radeon 9800, then yes, it's going to be very strange and very slow. But this is a console. The processor is more than a match for the Xbox, and is definately on fighting terms with the PS2. If it's clock speed that you are talking about, that's really truly pathetic. By that sort of logic, the Athlon 1.53 GHz in my computer should be outperformed by the Pentium 4 1.8GHz right? Or maybe the Apple G4 with a 485MHz processor should be overpowered by the Celeron running at 733MHz? Luckily for the real world, both of those things are hideously inaccurate.
For Connectivity, in a recent survey, the Japanese people said that the thing they would like to see most on the PSP is connectivity with the PS3. Don't you think that speaks volumes about GameCube's GBA/GCN connectivity? As far as online support goes, Xbox Live! currently has the biggest selection of online games. 5% of Xbox users have Xbox Live, blowing away the other consoles, and showing great support for online games on consoles. GameCube's single online game is about to get an exclusive sequel as well, so I don't think that PSO is as bad as Jonny makes out. Perhaps there was something to his earlier argument about the GameCube needing NEW games. It's just that Sega was too busy with their Dreamcast ports until recently... The thing is that online console games HAVE NOT hit mainstream yet. It's not a matter of them being profitable or not. It's a matter of demand. There just is none. In the meantime, Nintendo seems content to supply LAN games in the form of Mario Kart and 1080. Who am I to argue?
Public Image, I must admit is something that Jonny hit the nail right on the head about. If anything, I would give the GameCube an F. As ignorant as these comments are, I hear them all the time from non-gamers... I have to hear things much alike them from gamers and editorial writers. Consider yourself lucky. There’s no doubt that GameCube is respected and supported by hardcore gamers like me Really? That aside, I think the rest of this paragraph was pretty much on the money. Sony and Microsoft do rely on stereotyping. Sony and Microsoft do what Nintendoesn't right?
Overall. Nintendo fans awaited GameCube as a chance for the company to fight back into the mainstream of gaming. That has obviously not happened. You are right about one thing. Nintendo has not YET won back the mainstream gamer. But I awaited the GameCube as a console that I would love to play, not as something to watch other people play. I am simply overjoyed with my GameCube, personally. I just can't seem to run out of games to buy for it, which was a very different story on N64. I love my GameCube even more than my SNES to be honest.
It’s not remotely popular with casual gamers... Most of the people I know who went out and bought an Xbox early in the war now come to me and admit that they were wrong, but won't sell their Xbox because they can't get much for it. My friends who have came over and played on the GameCube are now buying them. The whole "kiddie" thing that Nintendo is stuck in isn't really a problem with people my age. People I know usually have kids, and even if they don't personally like Mario or Sonic games, they can still buy them for their kids, because I assure you, kids under 10 and over 20 LOVE Mario Sunshine.
Anyway, the bottom line is that I think this article is even worse than some of the crap I had to stomach on IGN.
Things around PGC haven't been good since Billy left. All the zest and fire of PGC left with Billy. Soon after he left, the servers went down, and took MONTHS to fix. I understand that Rick is a busy person, but that's just not even remotely excusable for someone who has some real dedication for the site. Couple that with the fact that we scarcely see him anymore, and it's even worse, as the forums have been taken over by complete morons. Bloodworth is the only good moderator that we have left, but is somewhat reduced in ability by his kindness. I would have been banned fourfold already if he was Rick, and saw the posts I made. I wouldn't have made them if he had been Rick and banned the people who made them or locked the threads. It works out I guess, and I still have high respect for Bloodworth, but the rest of the staff... no. Not after this.
I stayed here no matter how long it took to load the forums. I always felt that PGC would return the favor to its readers by providing world class content again when the servers came back up. But I found a bunch of articles that were mainly pulled from other sites when PGC finally did come back up. Now there's this. I might as well be reading IGN. The writing is of better quality, and at least the news comes quicker, as it's updated weekly at least.
Jonny, you might think I am over-reacting. But think of this. I was here after Billy left. I was here all through the DoS attacks that PGC had, and seemed unable to fix. I was here through the months afterward. I have been here for the week that your database queries have gone offline and you seem unwilling to fix. I remained to see the forums overrun with one line posts with no content, and a million pointless threads that don't get locked, such as "spam in response to the post above", and "respond to this post with more spam".
My faith in PGC is now gone.
Post by: Bartman3010 on December 24, 2003, 03:31:52 PM
I dont know, someone might know more on this.
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 24, 2003, 03:49:21 PM
Post by: CrazyWindmill on December 24, 2003, 03:55:58 PM
Johnny's, although ticketed as a GameCube reflection and review, is in actuality about how Nintendo isn't like Sony/Microsoft (Which he equates to success), and what they need to do to become more like Sony/Microsoft (which he equates to being more successful). Mouse_clicker's is about how Nintendo isn't Sony/Microsoft, but is Nintendo.
Maybe it's just me but I'm HAPPY with not getting sport game remakes every year. Johnny, it's kinda funny that you shoot down Nintendo for making GCN "updates" to N64 classics but then claim they should re-release the same 4 sports games every year so they get more sales.
I'm leaving the online thing alone- The only currently successful online plan is that of the PC which is ENTIRELY different from the consoles. I personally think X Box live and the PS2 online plans are total failures- and I'm glad Nintendo didn't throw it's money down that drain. Maybe it will be successful soon, but it sure as hell isn't now and I, as a punk kid still in high school, don't feel that I have the place to tell Nintendo what to do about it.
And I'll depart on this note- You don't need to be the dominant company to be a good one.
Post by: dreven on December 24, 2003, 04:11:30 PM
F**k Nintendo, screw them with a big Yoshi d**k! If nintendo had made the N64 a cdrom based system, we would not be bitching about any of this! Sony would be the one that was being laughed at right now and Microsoft wouldn't even have a console! I love nintendo, I have bought every one of their consoles since the original NES, and I have ate it up and I loved it up until I bought my Nintendo64. After Square announced they were leaving Nintendo thats when everything started falling apart. Who can remember the good old days, when this chat (if it had been possible then) would have been about Sega Sucking and Nintendo kicking butt. It is truly a shame Nintendo don't have a PR department that knows what they are doing. If they did the Big N would be doing better then they are now. Sports games I suppose are a must, and maybe online gaming is the way of the future, at least as far as some of you Broadband having mothers are concerned, but the fact is online gaming is not going to catch on until quckly and alot of people aren't going to like buying a game and then having to pay to play it. Final Fantasy XI for instance, once people beat the game 90% of the people will stop playing and therfore stop paying If you buy an online game for your PC you are not going to have to pay to have access to the servers. Console makers as a whole need to learn a little bit about unification. Online games should be sold for all 3 systems, all 3 systems should have access to the same networks. These networks should be FREE! If the cost of operating these networks is not covered by a percentage of the purchase price of the game then these networks are not warranted, and are doomed to fail anyway. All games excluding 1st and 2nd party titles should be released for all consoles. To hell with having to own 3 systems to play every game you want to play. All games could be developed for all sytems and released simultaneously on all sytems. There is no way that there would be a loss by selling a game on the gamecube if both other systems had the game. I want Nintendo to succeed, I want Microsoft and Bill Gates to burn in hell. As far as Sony, all I want her to be is another Sega. Nintendo tends to market to a crowd of slightly higher intelligence then most (even if that is a 5 year old) I mean honestly baseball is baseball is baseball, football is football is football. I do not see how anyone can say that Zelda is a rehash of Zelda when in most of these sports games, they are the same every friggin release other then updated rosters. If being like everybody else is what Nintendo has to do to stay afloat then I suppose Nintendo could/should say screw everyone else we're outta here.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on December 24, 2003, 04:49:30 PM
Quote
mouse clicker saids:
And seriously guys, shut up with this online crap- it's not profitable, get over it.
Wait, hold on there, how many doods are on XBox live? 500,000? Multiplied by 50 bucks a year, that's a fair return, and has the added bonus of being a selling point for lots of certain games. I bought a couple XBox games that I could have gotten on PS2 or GC (or even already HAD in the case of CVS2) just because they were supported by LIVE. It moves games off the shelves, and I think it'd be worth looking into. Of course, I don't know how much MS Spent setting up and marketing LIVE, though. If anybody has numbers, (not assumptions) that'd be interestin'.
Quote
Cowboy Bebop saids:
My computer's been on-line for 10 years now. The PC industry has some how managed to pull a profit in those ten years.
I heard PCs have the internet! IS THIS TRUE??? WOW
Quote
grey ninja sez:
In response, I will say that I find Nintendo's new games such as Mario Sunshine, Zelda: Wind Waker, and Mario Kart to be HUGE paradigm shifts in the franchises
I actually agree with tha ninja here, except I think the point that Jonny should have made is that while they are largely new games, they're still old franchises, and will seem as such to some target audience member who hasn't bought a GC yet.
Quote
2) Nintendo has a clear model to gain 3rd parties too. It's not as unscrupulous as Microsoft's strategy to buy 3rd parties, and it's not like Sony's clear model to gain 3rd party support by... what was that again? Oh yeah. Own the biggest marketshare. It only involves things like building up strong relations with Square, Konami, Capcom, Namco, Sega, and a few others. Work on some of their franchises, let them work on some Nintendo ones. Publish some of their games. No biggies.
Well, this article is an appraisal of how they've done so far, and not what they're just getting around to past F-Zero. You're also right here, but it's not really relevant to the GC's market share so far. (Oh, but it WILL be, I'm sure)
Quote
3) Name 5 good 3rd party games that only came out on PS2 and Xbox. Hell, name 2. I can't think of one.
Don't be crazy, man, the PS2 has a MOUNTAIN of good 3rd party games, although I suppose it's hidden behind the other mountain of crappy 3rd party games. I bought and love these: all of the Bemani games, Contra, Disgaea, Frequency, the GTAs, Guilty Gears
, and Virtua Fighter 4. Xbox, yeah, however, does mostly suck in the 3rd party realm. Usually, though, if I have the choice of getting a 3rd party game on any system, I snag the XBox one, as it doesn't have crappy PS2 graphics and often supports LIVE. (CVS2eo, Midway Arcade Treasures) That's all relative to the game, though - I'd say, like, R: Racing Evolution and SC2 are best on GameCube.Quote
I remained to see the forums overrun with one line posts with no content
http://www.planetgamecube.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=3&threadid=7370
http://www.planetgamecube.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=3&threadid=7371
FIRST POST I WIN!!11/
God seriously if you hate the site so much anymore, why are you still here? Quoted for lol:
Quote
Now I am seriously considering leaving because of the lack of moderation.
Quote
I will likely leave soon anyway
Quote
Now I am sick and f-cking tired of this whole thing, and just wish that someone would just get it over with and ban me.
Quote
I was prepared to walk away for good.
Quote
I am sure that one day within the next 6 months at most, I just won't come back. I've done it before, and I am sure I will do it again.
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 24, 2003, 04:54:04 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on December 24, 2003, 05:00:28 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on December 24, 2003, 05:05:14 PM
Quote
Don't be crazy, man, the PS2 has a MOUNTAIN of good 3rd party games, although I suppose it's hidden behind the other mountain of crappy 3rd party games. I bought and love these: all of the Bemani games, Contra, Disgaea, Frequency, the GTAs, Guilty Gears , and Virtua Fighter 4. Xbox, yeah, however, does mostly suck in the 3rd party realm. Usually, though, if I have the choice of getting a 3rd party game on any system, I snag the XBox one, as it doesn't have crappy PS2 graphics and often supports LIVE. (CVS2eo, Midway Arcade Treasures) That's all relative to the game, though - I'd say, like, R: Racing Evolution and SC2 are best on GameCube.
I think you missed something there. let me rephrase that.
SELECT title FROM current_games g, platforms p WHERE quality > 0 AND p.game_id = g.game_id AND p.console = 'PS2' AND p.console = 'Xbox';
In other words, game is available on BOTH Xbox and PS2, but not for GameCube, and it's genuinely worth playing. Of the games you mentioned, the only one available on both is the GTA games, which I frankly don't care for, but I will give it to you. Yay. A port comes to Xbox a year later. Anyway, you have one left to find. Good luck.
Post by: Link_Gaiden on December 24, 2003, 05:05:59 PM
So many people use computers for the past 5 years or so since the 'dot com' boom and all new computers have all the online gaming hardware provided in the box. The internet connection is mainly purchased for networking (e.g. surf the internet), but can be used for online gaming at NO EXTRA COST other than the game itself.
For consoles, the modem and internet service is extra and many people are not willing to put so much investment into it.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 24, 2003, 05:07:52 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on December 24, 2003, 05:16:05 PM
Er, yeah, sorry ninja duder, I read that wrong. I'll take MGS2 Substance and MVC2, then.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on December 24, 2003, 05:19:38 PM
Post by: uwvark on December 24, 2003, 05:42:48 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 24, 2003, 06:24:07 PM
Post by: DrZoidberg on December 24, 2003, 08:11:20 PM
no threat to leave this time grey ninja?
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on December 24, 2003, 08:30:08 PM
mouse_clicker, I haven't read your editorial yet, but I will do so when I get the chance. I will say that my assessment of connectivity deals with several issues, only one of which is online. I don't necessarily blame Nintendo for staying out of the online games business themselves; my problem is that they have made absolutely no effort to encourage other companies to bring online games to the system. Yes, there is a modem and BBA, which was hard to even find in stores before November. Big deal. If Nintendo doesn't let developers know that GameCube CAN go online, and doesn't tell these developers HOW to do it, then it's not going to happen. Let us assume that coding an online mode for GameCube is no harder than for PS2, which is probably true. Then why are multiplatform games like Tony Hawk's Underground online on PS2 and not on GameCube? The hardware is there, the coding is not a problem...but the market is perceived to not be there, so Activision won't spend the effort. That is Nintendo's fault and no one else's. The same goes for all of EA's games, which are online on PS2 and could easily be so on GameCube, yet are not. Realize that Sony and Nintendo have practically the same online strategy, except that Sony has made it clear that it cares about online gaming (even though very few of its own games have online modes), while Nintendo has not. Whether these features are profitable or not, and whether gamers ever even use them, having them on the system and game boxes increases public interest and boost public image, and Nintendo could use a lot of that.
Grey Ninja, I thank you for the thorough response. I hope to reply later with an equally thorough response; however, let me say for now that I am most definitely not interested in working for IGNcube or any other website, ever. I am in school to be an aerospace engineer and have zero interest in ever doing this for a living. It is a hobby that I take very seriously and do my best to contribute to in an honest and helpful manner. I don't ever write an editorial expecting that everyone will agree with me, but I would hope that you could retort without the personal insults and hurtful insinuations. I do my job out of love for Nintendo and for Nintendo fans.
And, I might add that Billy has read my editorial and thinks I went too easy on GameCube, but otherwise he agreed with many of my points.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 24, 2003, 08:49:53 PM
I do agree that Nintendo hasn't done a good job, or really any job in letting developers know that online is a possibility- I was really coming down on the people who think Nintendo themselves should invest millions in an online structure, when they can get let 3rd parties make their own online structures for their own game. However, even if Nintendo DID promote online games to 3rd parties as much as Sony did, I still don't think 3rd parties would follow up, and for two reasons. Firstly, they don't care enough about the Gamecube to give it much 3rd party support period, which makes online features almost out of the question. That's a major issue I deal with in my editorial, that while some of the fault for 3rd parties' apathy regarding the Gamecube is Nintendo's negligence, most of it lies within the 3rd parties themselves. The second reason is, even if 3rd parties DID support the Gamecube with online capable games, I doubt many of us would be interested in it enough to play. Many Gamecube owners simply aren't into online gaming, and that may be why Nintendo hasn't supported it, or maybe vice versa, we've conditioned ourselves not to put much stock into online because Nintendo hasn't pushed it. Either way, I percieve the market for online games on the Gamecube to be even smaller than online games on the XBox and PS2.
Also, Billy works at Game Informer now- let's not be putting much thought into his decisions.
Only kidding, of course, I love the man. 
Post by: Kyosho on December 24, 2003, 10:18:36 PM
Quote
3rd parties DID support the Gamecube with online capable games, I doubt many of us would be interested in it enough to play
I think it depends what kind of game was being marketed as well as the ease of user interface. You market the right type of game and make it easy to connect, then I am sure it will appeal to many and be a success. But personally, I would only play Cube games online if 1) user interface is easy and 2) free. I already have a PC that does most if not all the online gaming that I need.
P.S. Mouse Clicker, remember that article I wrote about EverQuest? Curt Schilling (ex. Arizona DBacks pitcher) plays that. Shows how widespread an online game can become
Post by: Arbok on December 24, 2003, 11:07:37 PM
A pet peeve of mine are the people who continue to site this as the reason GCN is "behind." I can assume they develop this assumption beacuse:
A. They are online already, posting on a Nintendo forum, and would be likely to use online play
B. They talk to other people in the same boat, already online willing to play, and develop the assumption that this is the majority and what Nintendo needs to be "#1"
Call me crazy, but I feel Nintendo needs the average gamer. Not sure if anyone has been in a college dorm lately, but these are the people Nintendo needs to reach. The ones who only have GTA, racing games, and numerous sports games. These are also the people who hardly play their system but for maybe 1-2 hours a week. These are NOT the type of people who would be interested in online play unless it came ready to use, out of the box, without additional charges or any set up.
Post by: marsbarrow on December 24, 2003, 11:25:42 PM
"...
In addition, the Xbox continues to lose money. Lots of it.
According to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Microsoft's Home & Entertainment division, where Xbox resides, lost $190 million in the fiscal quarter ended March 31, nearly twice the $97 million lost during the same period in 2002.
To stanch the bleeding and close the gap with Sony, Microsoft unveiled a slew of highly anticipated game titles, an enhanced version of Xbox Live and a brand new digital media component called the Music Mixer at the Electronic Entertainment Expo, or E3, in mid-May.
..."
Post by: edgeblade69 on December 25, 2003, 03:48:41 AM
I do agree with some of the the 3rd party comments. 3rd parties port over their games from their original developments on PS2 and then said 3rd parties wonder why their games don't sell. Well as has been stated, GCN is the least mainstream of the 3 consoles. The initial owners of said system were Nintendo developed game fans at the heart. That is, they were ones who played and loved Nintendo games mostly. Hence, initial 3rd party games probably didn't sell as well as some companies may have liked. A lot of 3rd party games don't sell well on GCN because they're poor ports of shoddy PS2 code. Unless a developer gives a crap (see Ubi-Soft, etc.), then they are not going to bother to cater the title to each console. And then developers wonder why latest installement of sports franchise with 1 new feature ($50) over last year's installment ($5) doesn't sell. Well people are not going to buy games that don't have all the features that the same game has on PS2 or XBox. Especially when said games come out weeks, months, or even years after the initial releases. Personally, I'd like Nintendo to be better respected. Especially since they single handedly saved the video game industry. Unfortunately today's mainstream gamer doesn't seem to remember what happened before Nintendo. I admit, I didn't get into video games until we got our NES in either 85 or 86 (I was 3 or 4 then). But I am aware of the near crash of the video game industry. But unfortunately that doesn't equate into sales 20-some years later.
I also disagree with the marketing comments. I agree that Nintendo needs to do a better job, but just the other day I saw a PS2 commercial. Wanna know how much game footage I saw in it? None. Funny, I thought Nintendo got criticized for doing this. Now Sony does it and wanna bet they get heralded for it? Of course...they're Sony, the market-leader, so anything they do must be the right and correct and best way of doing things.
Anyways, I think that's enough for now. Hopefully I made some good/insightful points.
Post by: nolimit19 on December 25, 2003, 04:00:33 AM
Post by: dus on December 25, 2003, 04:21:20 AM
Post by: dus on December 25, 2003, 04:33:18 AM
Wake up, mc! It is profitable for Microsoft to have Xbox Live- and if it isn't, than doesn't that mean that they will go that extra mile (and extra dollar) to please their subscribers? Sorry, kid. This is when the true fans of Nintendo (the ones worrying about them Ie. Me, Jonny, Nc) and the extreme fanboys (Hostile Creation, Mario) are divided.If this makes you lose your faith in PGC, too bad- they're right.
Post by: Lurch on December 25, 2003, 05:39:29 AM
I like looking at the console wars from a global perspective. Anyone who says "Pepsi is better than Coke" (from a business standpoint) just proved themselves as an ignorant fool who only focuses on North America.
If you go to any country outside of North America, especially smaller ones like Belize, you can see that most people don't even know what Pepsi is. On the worldwide scale, the Coca Cola corp is making 10X the money Pepsi is.
Consoles are much the same in this regard... Just not to the same world-dominating extent. GLOBALLY, nintendo is doing quite well. GLOBALLY, sales of the GC are pretty close to the PS2 (well, closer than the North American results).
I don't have figures so I'll let you draw your own conclusions; I had to bring it up though.
As for this nice little argument about whether online play would work or not -
"Online play is not profitable." - Nintendo of Canada.
Well, there's the proof right there. Sure, X-Box has 500,000 subscribers - but how many of them have paid for a year's worth of services? I know for a fact that Microsoft has not released any actual Sales figures on the Live system, and the "500,000" quote is from before the payment scheme had even been set up.
It is also a fact that Sony and Microsoft are losing money hand-over-fist on the online systems. Yes, it may boost sales - but if that made it profitable, they wouldn't be losing money, would they? It HELPS, but it isn't enough. Yes, it would be super-nice if Nintendo had a limitless supply of money and they could throw in an online feature, and yes I love playing online, but I'm not about to ask nintendo to set up an on-line system at their expense so I could half-play it. (what is online play without a keyboard?)
But.. if nintendo did make an online system for this console, and as a result made a loss over the next four years, it would make me even MORE sad to see Nintendo give up the race. As long as nintendo is making a profit, they'll make games. As long as nintendo makes a profit, they'll make new consoles. As long as nintendo makes a profit, they are proving that their business model works, and we'll see more of it in the future. If PS2 and XBOX were making money, then your online-defending claims do have a point.
As for the blizzard's free online system - well hell yeah! I can buy a broadband adapter and go out right now. But even the DEVELOPERS of GC games know it isn't profitable, because the DEVELOPERS aren't setting up any free online services. It would be really easy to include it in 3rd party titles, wouldn't it? just port over some net code. But they know it's a waste of time. they don't even bother.
So here we are, the developers don't make online games, the producer doesn't make online games, and at the end of the day, the USER doesn't even PLAY online games!
Us internet users are always skewed a bit in vision to see the drawbacks of an online system. Here's a quick fact. only 30% of internet users in north america have broadband. How many PC internet games say "requires broadband?"
I'm on the verge of pulling a mouse_clicker and saying "drop it."
Post by: Wesisapie on December 25, 2003, 05:46:52 AM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on December 25, 2003, 06:03:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Lurch
Consoles are much the same in this regard... Just not to the same world-dominating extent. GLOBALLY, nintendo is doing quite well. GLOBALLY, sales of the GC are pretty close to the PS2 (well, closer than the North American results).
Sorry, but this statement is completely wrong. Globally, around 15 million GameCubes have been sold (I'm doing a rough estimate trying to account for the post-price-cut surge), while over 60 million PS2s have been sold. Nintendo is doing better than Microsoft on the global scale, because of the Japanese market, but Sony is way out ahead of both of them in every market (in terms of installed base, I mean).
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 25, 2003, 06:03:41 AM
Post by: Deguello on December 25, 2003, 07:02:03 AM
Much to my dismay, I found that most of Sega's servers for both their multiplayer and just regular online stuff (like SA downloads and such) have been totally shutdown. I'll even regale you a tale of an online game called Outtrigger for the DC. When I got it, early 2k2, I decided to go online and see if I could join a game. Sadly, I believe I was the ONLY person in the U.S. that had their copy of Outtrigger online. And for a game designed as an online multiplayer game, that pretty much meant the game is dead. I hear tell of some Gamespy servers, but I'll be arsed to use theirs. Say what you want about Pacman Vs., or Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles. I will be able to play them 20 years from now. You may not be able to say the same thing about Mechassault, or Project Gotham Raching 2, or My Street, or any other game designed solely to be played online. I think that is also why the DC is somehow left out when talking about the "online revolution" (despite pioneering most of it). It holds the dirty rotten truth no one wants to consider.
I find the tendancy for people online to look at the gaming world through broadband-colored glasses. As a 56k man myself, I find most online ventures to be totally and utterly fruitless. You may ask me to compare connectivity to online stuff, and I say that it is no contest. Connectivity whips the bejeesus out of the useless Online features of Live! and Ps2 Online, because I can actually use it. If I were to give a grade to Connectivity vs. Online it would only be A, because not matter how pitiful or crappy connectivity is, the online features of Live and Ps2 Online would be F's, since I cannot use them, and I grade on a curve.
That said, I cannot fathom how people think connectivity in bad from a business standpoint. The market is extremely lopsided. Anybody can do connectivity. Only Broadband users can use Live and for the most part PS2 Online can use it. And last I heard, only so many people had Broadband. Not even half. Barely a quarter.
Now, if you may say that Connectivity is not your cup of tea, well that's ok. But it may also be true that online is not my cup of tea, or even worse, I may not get to decide, by being forbidden from using it in the first place.
Oh, btw, a "sucks to be you" comment would be in very poor taste.
Post by: dus on December 25, 2003, 07:56:06 AM
Dear MC,
Since I have joined the forums, I have not enjoyed myself since your juvenile and immature concepts and ideas about violence on GCN. And you know what? YOU are presumptuous, annoying, and, moreover, a little insane. And this is not what I would expect from a Nintendo fan. You expect Nintendo to uphold morals and maturity, yet you use curse words and insults in your very own posts? Hmmm.... Delusional? I think not, MC. Get a life and grow up.
Sincerely,
Dus
Post by: NWR_Lindy on December 25, 2003, 09:19:40 AM
Why do you think there's so much chatter about Nintendo becoming a software-only company? It's because Microsoft and Sony cater to the needs of both the 18-to-34 casual gamer (sports games, Grand Theft Auto, HALO) and the early-adopter hardcore (network play and games like SOCOM and Everquest). Nintendo doesn't currently cater to either - they cater to Nintendophiles and little kids. Not saying that that's bad, but they don't have to produce a game console to do that. They could easily do that by just producing software. But I digress.
Nintendo really needs to get into the online game, if only to be able to say "Sony and Microsoft do that? Oh yeah, we do that too...look at our online lineup" They need more than one game that seriously supports online play. Instead of pushing this half-assed LAN garbage that Mario Kart: Double Dash has, put some serious online capability in there and make it the Gamecube online killer app. While you're at it, put Pokemon online too. You may not make money at it for a couple of years, but at least you GENERATE INTEREST in the online concept. The hardcore will latch on to it, and eventually it'll trickle down to the masses (at least those that have broadband connections). It's pretty obvious the console industry is going in the online direction and Nintendo really needs to get with the program with their next console. Have built-in ethernet, have a built-in hard-drive - make their system a cooler gadget.
I think you need to let go of the fact that profit is the immediate driver in EVERY business decision. If this was the case Microsoft never would have released the XBox in the first place...but now that it's out there and people like it, Microsoft is guaranteed to have a bigger piece of the pie next time around. Nintendo should be doing the same with online gaming.
silks
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 25, 2003, 11:02:30 AM
Silks: All installed online user bases reset at the start of the next generation, so it doesn't matter how many people get XBox Live or PS2 Online or whatever THIS generation. Nintendo will support online when it's practicle and profitable, which it obviously, despite everyone's darndest efforts to say otherwise, isn't right now.
Post by: knarf135 on December 25, 2003, 11:40:45 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 25, 2003, 11:53:28 AM
Post by: Deguello on December 25, 2003, 12:28:21 PM
Post by: dus on December 25, 2003, 01:04:22 PM
Wow Mc. That was really clever. For someone like me (I scored a 100% on the Vocab section of the SATs) misspelling juvinile was juvenile. But MC, I may not know you- but you surely don't and will never in your sad life know me. I am not an arrogant jerk as you so retardedly remarked- precotious, yes- but arrogant and rude? No. You've backed yourself into a corner, and can't get out. So you squirm and try to fight back the embarassment. It reminds me of the way I felt in my thread about GCN violence. Now that was bashing- bashing other systems, other forum users, and violent games. Yay! I'm glad you've recognized your need for a life.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on December 25, 2003, 01:11:56 PM
Post by: DrZoidberg on December 25, 2003, 03:38:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: dus
RESPONSE TO MOUSE C'S EARLIER REMARKS ABOUT ONLINE GAMING-
Wake up, mc! It is profitable for Microsoft to have Xbox Live- and if it isn't, than doesn't that mean that they will go that extra mile (and extra dollar) to please their subscribers? Sorry, kid. This is when the true fans of Nintendo (the ones worrying about them Ie. Me, Jonny, Nc) and the extreme fanboys (Hostile Creation, Mario) are divided.If this makes you lose your faith in PGC, too bad- they're right.
ahahahha RED BADGE OF INTERNET SELF WORTH, i love how you can elevate your self above others dus
Post by: dus on December 25, 2003, 03:45:49 PM
Post by: savanna03 on December 25, 2003, 05:24:35 PM
you can tell that NINTENDO is in DEFENCE MODE right now... they are afraid to take risk because they cant afford loosing money... they think connectivety is IT because its cheap and i do see some potential but it just add complexecity to the gameplay. i thought, they said simplicity will make the game strive... in my words, CONNECTIVETY IS JUST A GIMMICK to help them get more money. to make things worst... PSP is knocking on the door and when you look at the kind of ppl who buys a handheld... ha, the user base will only split, not gain. 2 front war isn't good if u dont have the muscle and resources to keep it going thats why SONY has nothing to loose. also i like to congrat MICROSOFT for bringing the PC gamers to the world of console because now it is possible to have 3 console in the market. they have dont their part, so now XBOX got a world wide recognition. it means, another odds against NINTENDO next generation. both SONY and MICROSOFT made some risk to help them in the future unlike NINTENDO who seems to just stay put. that is why CALCULATED RISK is good and online risk that SONY and MICROSOFT made will only GAIN. TRUST ME...
to tell you the truth, its only NINTENDO that can prevent this... they have the HARDCORE GAMERS on their side(which by the way pisses some off 'cuz of the cell shaded ZELDA alone) and now they have to learn to embrace the CASUAL GAMERS. they have to lure them with an ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM and not a GAMING MACHINE. embrace 3rd party who makes game that they wont. they got to be open minded on things and not completely diss them becuase they cant understand it. EVOLVING will get them out cuz being STUBBERNESS will kill them for sure especially that GAMEBOY MIGHT not save them next time around. BECAUSE WHEN ALL SYSTEM ARE ALL EQUAL IN POWER, GAMES WILL BE THE ONLY ONE WILL BE TALKING AND NINTENDO HAS THE BIGGEST ADVANTAGE.
THANK YOU
Post by: NWR_Lindy on December 25, 2003, 05:29:01 PM
Deguello: I really wish Nintendo wouldn't have put that LAN capability in Double Dash because they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. The people that want full online will bash it (myself included), and the people that don't care will bash it because it's a weak substitute for true online play. They would have been smarter to leave well enough alone.
silks
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on December 25, 2003, 05:44:10 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 25, 2003, 06:59:18 PM
Silks: True, brand loyalty can be created, but brand loyalty among who? XBox Live only has 500,000 subscribers, that's not many loyal followers to carry MS through the next generation. It's a start, yes, but so little of a start it's not even worth mentioning. Sony's "success" in that field is even worse. I think it's quite safe for Nintendo leave online gaming alone this generation, and probably the next as well (although I'd at least like to see them have a setup similar to Sony's, as Johnny stated).
Johnny: It's your opinion that LAN play doesn't offer anything new in Double Dash- I know quite a few people that love it. In fact, I'm going to a Double Dash LAN party on Saturday. You may not personally like it, but that's your opinion, which is but one drop in a vast ocean.
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 25, 2003, 07:01:03 PM
Quote
extreme fanboys (Hostile Creation, Mario)
Damn glad I am, too. I just wasted my entire Christmas Day playing a bunch of PS2 games, and I was bored out of my mind. I had more fun tossing a football with a little kid, which is not something I'm particularly fond of. I love my Gamecube, love Nintendo, and I know that Nintendo will continue to make products that I enjoy. I don't even think you understand. . .
I'm proud that you got a 100% on the verbal part of your SAT; that's quite an accomplishment. I'll leave it at that, since anything else I might want to say would result in an instant ban.
Post by: IWannaBeSponsored on December 26, 2003, 01:34:07 AM
Post by: Ocarina Blue on December 26, 2003, 02:51:50 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117No, the N.A. market is larger in both sales and profit. Japan was eclipsed back in the 90s.
That one took me by suprise. Wow, that was really bad on my part. Sorry about that, Selochin.
Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-R
- maybe GameCube deserves a C grade from a business perspective, but from a "I am a gamer, should I buy it?" perspective, I'd give it an A or B.
Yup.
I simply don't care about the business, as long as it is healthy enough to support Nintendo making games. I do disagree quite a bit with the sections referring to games, however.
The Gamecube has lots of good games, many of which would appeal to casual gamers if they tried them and were marketed appropriately. Zelda and Mario draw attention from their names alone, but games like SSB: M, Eternal Darkness, F-Zero, and even Mario Kart, to some extent, don't. Metroid Prime is a perfect example of a good game, which belongs to a franchise only half-known by casual gamers that drew alot of attention. The failure of other good games to gather much attention is because of shortfalls in marketing or image or something, it has little to do with the quality of the games themselves.
This generation of classic franchises has seemed fresh to me, despite Nintendo having already made the major shift to 3D (which Grey Ninja also pointed out). I'd write a few things out here, but once again, Grey Ninja has outlined my general opinion on the matter pretty well. Nintendo isn't in an easy position regarding it's traditional franchises. There has been a successful attempt to loan out a few known franchises to new developers (F-Zero, Metroid, Starfox) to allow EAD and the other core development houses to try a few new things. As easy as it is for skeptical people looking for faults in Nintendo to laminate the lack of new franchises, imagine the reaction if Nintendo didn't release a new Mario and Zelda and F-Zero and Mario Kart for the Gamecube. I'll agree that perhaps new Mario Golf and Tennis games wouldn't be loved any more than original games, but over those, I think Nintendo has been pretty wise in making decisions regarding franchises.
As for 3rd parties, the GC has it's 3rd party exclusives, the PS2 has it's 3rd party exclusives, as does the X-Box. The Gamecube gets most of the games available for both the other consoles that are worth it (with the exception of Vice City), and it gets it's fair share of exclusives. If Viewtiful Joe or F-Zero were for the X-Box, they'd be well known and ranted about. Once again the games exist, but aren't well known enough to gain the recognition they deserve. It might not be perfect, but the support does exist, even if it's not as strong as it is on the PS2. I'm not saying I think it's perfect, but I do think your being a little too harsh on it.
Most of all though, Nintendo is still making good games, and it isn't mindlessly conforming to the current fashions. Look at the pathetic attempt Nokia has made to penitrate the handheld industry with a 'mature' gaming devise. It's pathetic.
Post by: Mario on December 26, 2003, 03:19:38 AM
Quote
extreme fanboys (Hostile Creation, Mario)
Hey what? If you think im a Nintendo only gamer, then you're wrong, i enjoy my PS2 and plan to get an Xbox. Infernal Monkey said it best in a post in some other thread that i remember exactly, "Nintendo isn't the be all and end all of gaming ".
I would give GameCube an overall A. All the negative points Jonny makes in the article, i dont have a problem with any of them.
QuoteIt doesn't bother me in the slightest that GameCube doesn't get GTA, Max Payne or some other random realistic game that i can most likely play on my PC, it's not like i would buy the GameCube version of those games if there was one anyway.
Jonnyboy said:
It doesn’t compete in terms of third-party support.
Quote
GBA connectivity hasn’t materialized, much less revolutionized.
I've enjoyed using connectivity in Wind Waker and look forward to using it in Pacman, Four Swords and Final Fantasy. How is that a negative, because it could be better?
Quote
GameCube is most definitely not the coolest system to own. It’s not remotely popular with casual gamers.
So i go up to a random guy on the street with his Madden shirt, Need for Speed hat and GTA shoes on, ask "are you a casual gamer?", he says yes, then i ask "is GameCube popular with you?", i expect him to say "NOT REMOTELY!". Seriously though, if you know someone who is negative towards a certain product for whatever reason, does that bring the quality of that product down? Hell no. I dont really deal with these "casual gamers", since most of my gamer friends and family like Nintendo (not thanks to me, thanks to Nintendo), but whatever.
And this
Quote
Jonnyboy was angry that:
The general theme for Nintendo so far this generation has been, "We’re learning, but not very fast." It seems like whenever Nintendo fixes one problem left from the N64 era, a new one pops up. Four years ago, I was sick of hearing that things would be
better in the next generation. I’m still sick of hearing it, and I’m finding it harder and harder to believe.
Quote
One sentence later:
GameCube is a big improvement over the N64.
Sorry i couldn't help myself.
Quote
Some of GameCube’s problems could be remedied in the current generation, like better marketing and some improvement in
third-party support.
Nintendo have already started marketing better (well at least in the US), and what more third party support can they get? Are you unhappy that a mediocre version of Max Payne or Joe Blow's Pro Petrol Station isn't available on GameCube?
Quote
Connectivity could still be salvaged from its current laughable state.
I dont see people walking passed the games section, pointing to a tiny GC/GBA link cable box and laughing their asses off. GameCube has the ability to link to the Gameboy, other consoles do not. Its a positive not a negative.
Quote
The question is whether Nintendo can become mobile enough to act on these issues and make real changes. Otherwise, Nintendo fans will be left hoping that the next system will be the revolutionary system that GameCube was supposed to be.
This Nintendo fan doesn't want to know about the next system right now, and is eagerly anticipating many upcoming games for the Nintendo GameCube.
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 26, 2003, 03:47:02 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 26, 2003, 09:22:03 AM
Post by: NWR_Lindy on December 26, 2003, 10:27:04 AM
Nintendo should at least do something like battle.net. Scratch that, they should just do ANYTHING. I'd like to see Nintendo actually keep up with what the marketplace is dictating, just once.
silks
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 26, 2003, 10:46:11 AM
Quote
No, it was actually really lazy of them. Nintendo should take note of the fact that people are developing grass-roots software to play Gamecube games online. Maybe if those people had a legitimate way to play those games online they'd pay a small fee for the service...ya think?
Whatever gave you that much faith in people? I know if I had a choice between free and pay, I know I'd go for the free. I might buy it from Nintendo, but only because I respect them as a company and don't feel that I should cheat them EXCEPT OH WAIT I wouldn't buy online at all. Because I don't want it.
It's kind of funny, actually. . . all of you are whining about online gaming. . . but you're not going to appreciate it if it comes, you're just going to find something else to complain about. Simply for the sake of complaining. Nintendo is not being lazy because they're not going online, it's just not something they want to do. I'll assure you, whether you think it's more fun or not, thinking of connectivity ideas is a helluva alot harder than just making some online userbase. They could develop and start it easily. It would be a breeze to put in a little more programming so that games are online compatible. But they don't want them to be. I don't know why you people just feel like criticizing Nintendo, but that's all you're doing. You aren't making valid points, you aren't making things any better for anyone, or getting anything done, you're not sending your concerns to Nintendo, so that they'll know. . . you're just sitting here, bitching about it, and that alone makes your argument invalid.
That was, perhaps, a bit harsh. Sorry. But I think that the points you are arguing are petty. But then again, I don't like online gaming. Whatever. I hope I get Mario and Luigi today.
Post by: nolimit19 on December 26, 2003, 05:22:23 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 26, 2003, 05:54:39 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 26, 2003, 07:02:29 PM
It's probably the funnest I've had with a Gamecube game since SSBM.
Post by: StevePitman on December 26, 2003, 07:21:06 PM
Think about it.... what have you heard people say? typically you hear things like "Check out the graphics in that game!" or "You can play this game online!". We typically don't hear "I want a Gamecube because I hear that Nintendo is making innovative games!". Nintendo is so far out of touch with the casual gamers. Casual gamers are the majority of the console purchasers, feed them some hype!
I got Mario Kart for Xmas and after about 30 minutes I was saying "is that all?". I can't believe how short it is! and it looks like the N64 game.
Post by: Ocarina Blue on December 26, 2003, 08:37:40 PM
And it has huge graphical improvments over it's N64 incarnation, mainly the replacment of sprite with 3D models (on the carts, items etc.)Hype isn't really something that can be generated by a company unless they stretch the specs for a system a bit (Sony) or if they try to pay off a gaming website or something. I agree hype is good, but past the endless press confrences they've been chugging out, how would Nintendo generate it?
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 27, 2003, 05:21:45 AM
I agree, Mario Kart co-op is a blast. It's even more fun when you have a large group of actual human beings controling all the characters. Unfortuantly Nintendo wants the only way you can play that way to be if you have 2 GameCubes ($100 each), 2 copies of Mario Kart ($50 each), 2 Broadband adapters ($50 each), 8 controlers ($25 each), and 2 TVs (hopefully you already have these ). That's a grand total of $550. Good for Nintendo sure, but bad for you. Actually it's bad for Nintendo too, because in the above senario, no one is going to buy the Broadband adapters to do all this. Not that they make it easy to get one as it is.
Silks and nolimit19, I don't think a monthly fee service will ever work in the long term. No one is going to pay ten dollars a month to Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. That would be thirty dollars a month, $360 dollars a year. At best they'd have to choose one. Which would still be $120 a year.
Hostile Creation, great you're not interested in on-line games. In case you hadn't noticed, lots of people are interested in on-line games. I guess none of those people matter because they're not you.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on December 27, 2003, 07:10:41 AM
Quote
I don't know why you people just feel like criticizing Nintendo, but that's all you're doing. You aren't making valid points, you aren't making things any better for anyone, or getting anything done, you're not sending your concerns to Nintendo, so that they'll know. . . you're just sitting here, bitching about it, and that alone makes your argument invalid.
My bad man, I thought this was a discussion forum. Next time I'll log on, read your equally "invalid" bitching about the invalid bitching of others, and then log off. Maybe then you'll be happy. By the way, you aren't getting anything done with your posts either. Then again, maybe you are - you seem to be wasting my time pretty effectively.
Originally posted by: Cowboy Bebop
Quote
Silks and nolimit19, I don't think a monthly fee service will ever work in the long term. No one is going to pay ten dollars a month to Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. That would be thirty dollars a month, $360 dollars a year. At best they'd have to choose one. Which would still be $120 a year.
You're probably right. Although I'd be willing to pay $50/year for online gaming (after all, I spend more than that going out to bars with my buddies on any given night), I'm a young professional with disposable income lying around. Teenagers and parents wouldn't have that kind of money to waste on a luxury like online play.
Still, my frustration lies in the fact that Nintendo has done NOTHING to encourage online play in ANY form even though it's blatantly obvious that their customers want it. They released a broadband adapter seemingly for no other reason than to say they have one available. On top of that, they put no effort into online gaming on any level and then have the nerve to say it's not profitable. Of course it's not profitable if there's only one game to support it, developers are given no help, and you have to search high and low to even buy a broadband adapter. It's ridiculous.
silks
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 27, 2003, 08:14:34 AM
Quote
Hostile Creation, great you're not interested in on-line games. In case you hadn't noticed, lots of people are interested in on-line games. I guess none of those people matter because they're not you.
Are you blind? It's the exact opposite- far more people agree with Hostile Creation than those who prefer online games. This is entirely evident by the simple fact that less than 5% of XBox owners subscribe to XBox Live, and even less people play the PS2 online. I think it's quite obvious most people do not care enough about online gaming to pursue it. But I gyess those peopoe don't mattter to you? You'd rather Nintendo spend millions and millions of dollars in setting an online service for the sole purpose of pleasing less than 5% of it's user base, if that? As I've been saying, that's being enormously pretentious and arrogant. It's very self-centered of you to think that Nintendo has to go out of there way to please you.
Post by: The Omen on December 27, 2003, 08:41:05 AM
As for my grade, i give the GC a B. Its probably my favorite console since the SNES, and thats saying a lot. I have about 25 games, and have been pleased with most of my purchases. Every first and 2nd party game i have, i love. GCs impending doom was prophesized since its launch, and to me , its only improved, both in 3rd party support and marketshare.
Post by: savanna03 on December 27, 2003, 08:44:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuote
Hostile Creation, great you're not interested in on-line games. In case you hadn't noticed, lots of people are interested in on-line games. I guess none of those people matter because they're not you.
Are you blind? It's the exact opposite- far more people agree with Hostile Creation than those who prefer online games. This is entirely evident by the simple fact that less than 5% of XBox owners subscribe to XBox Live, and even less people play the PS2 online. I think it's quite obvious most people do not care enough about online gaming to pursue it. But I gyess those peopoe don't mattter to you? You'd rather Nintendo spend millions and millions of dollars in setting an online service for the sole purpose of pleasing less than 5% of it's user base, if that? As I've been saying, that's being enormously pretentious and arrogant. It's very self-centered of you to think that Nintendo has to go out of there way to please you.
hold on, i think what he meant was including the PC USER BASE. the reason that PC ONLINE gaming is far more successful and popular than CONSOLE ONLINE because it is FREE and it is READILY ACCESABLE. so if you look at it, ONLINE GAMING IS POPULAR PERIOD. XBOX got a good idea but they screwed it up by creating a PAY PER PLAY service and they shut down the 56 k user base. SONY screwed it up by making the MODEM a separate ACCESSORY. NINTENDO has a great idea about LAN but the problem is, no body has extra TV around... if they can only push a small SCREEN with it, it might got potential.
now the question is, IS IT PROFITABLE??? look at this way, HOW DOES INTERNET SITE AND TELEVISION NETWORK MAKE MONEY??? its all about SPONSERSHIP and ADVERTISEMENT... now if NINTENDO can utilize that idea and use that in their sevice full of ADVERTISEMENT and SELLING OUT, i think it might work... keep it free and ppl will flock in your service. keep it interesting they might stay. now another great idea is let fanatic handle their own service... u might not make any money but you aint loosing it either. think online gaming as an evolution of multiplayer. WE DONT GET CHARGE MORE PLAYING MULTIPLAYER GAMES OPPOSE TO A SINGLE PLAYER ONE, THEN WHY ONLINE GAMING IS DIFFERENT???
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 27, 2003, 09:05:53 AM
I'm being pretentious, arrogant, and self-centered huh? How exactly does providing on-line play to the people who want it, stop the people who don't want to use it from not using it?
I think the low user base for on-line has more to do with Microsoft charging $50 a year for their service, and Sony/Nintendo charging $50 for their Broadband adapters then people not being interested in it.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 27, 2003, 09:27:50 AM
Quote
How exactly does providing on-line play to the people who want it, stop the people who don't want to use it from not using it?
It becomes a matter of practicality- why should Nintendo spend the time, effort, and money to set up an online system soley for less than 5% of it's user basde? Would you release a product that you KNEW no more than 5% of your users would actually support? Would you? STOP thinking about yourself for one minute, will you? Apparently 95% of console gamers, maybe even more, don't want to play games online, so why should that 5% or less get the attention? That's why you're being selfish. Online support is not practical right now- get over it.
Post by: nolimit19 on December 27, 2003, 10:12:28 AM
Quote
Would you release a product that you KNEW no more than 5% of your users would actually support?
most games made by a given company on any console will sell to around 5 percent of the console users. and most games cost millions to make too. its not really a valid argument. nintendo should be online, and it is....i think they could support it a little more. that doesnt mean THEY have to make games, but they could at least encourage EA or some other companies to support their online hardware. sure there arent many people to play online, but nintendo hasnt really given its user base the chance to show their support for online gaming. online gaming will be profitable one day, but this isnt that day. if you do online gaming intelligently, you wont lose millions...and it wont cost millions to begin with.
Post by: odifiend on December 27, 2003, 01:11:31 PM
Post by: odifiend on December 27, 2003, 01:13:11 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 27, 2003, 03:29:20 PM
The PS2 online setup is a much better example because it is almost identical to the Cube setup. I would like to know how profitable that has been. How profitable was SOCOM? How profitable was Tony Hawk's Underground and the various online EA sports games? I imagine that the cost of implementing online play for those titles did not result in a loss. Now not everyone who owns the PS2 version of Madden 2004 plays online BUT the option is there and I don't think EA is losing money by adding that feature. So why not add that kind of support to a game like Mario Kart that can be enjoyed offline, will sell well, and will be a better game because of that added feature?
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 27, 2003, 04:05:06 PM
Quote
Cowboy, YOU tell ME how to set up an online network that is guaranteed to make a hefty profit, that costs little to nothing to set up or run. Do it!
Ask the people over at the warp pipe, they could explain it a lot better. They're proving it can be done, except for the hefty profit part that is. (They're happy to just break even) I'm not just making this up. They're proving it can be done. Now if you could please provide a link that shows it would be prohibitively expensive and disputes the facts on the table, that would be nice.
Quote
It becomes a matter of practicality- why should Nintendo spend the time, effort, and money to set up an online system soley for less than 5% of it's user basde? Would you release a product that you KNEW no more than 5% of your users would actually support? Would you? STOP thinking about yourself for one minute, will you? Apparently 95% of console gamers, maybe even more, don't want to play games online, so why should that 5% or less get the attention? That's why you're being selfish. Online support is not practical right now- get over it.
Why should they bother with GBA/GameCube connectivity then? How many people do you think actually took advantage of that? How many people do you think will ever use the LAN feature in Mario Kart? Why put out the GBA SP when the original GBA is still selling like hotcakes. Why even develop and release a game like pikmin at all? Why should Nintendo do anything that isn't guaranteed to make them huge piles of cash? I thought they wanted to be innovative. I thought they wanted to reinvigorate the industry. I didn't realize they just wanted to play it safe and maximize their profit margin. I thought they made games, not money. I still don't know why wanting a game to be on-line because I think [gasp] it would make the game more fun is being selfish.
Post by: Ocarina Blue on December 27, 2003, 05:33:37 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 27, 2003, 07:04:38 PM
Quote
Hostile Creation, great you're not interested in on-line games. In case you hadn't noticed, lots of people are interested in on-line games. I guess none of those people matter because they're not you.
Exactly. They can curl up in a corner and die for all I care.
Quote
My bad man, I thought this was a discussion forum. Next time I'll log on, read your equally "invalid" bitching about the invalid bitching of others, and then log off. Maybe then you'll be happy. By the way, you aren't getting anything done with your posts either. Then again, maybe you are - you seem to be wasting my time pretty effectively.
First off, I never said that I was accomplishing anything more than you. I'm not trying to; I don't need to; I'm perfectly satisfied as it is. You are the one that should be out doing something about this if you're so concerned about it. I can sit here and do nothing, because I've got what I want.
Post by: David Cartoon on December 27, 2003, 07:09:44 PM
Now, I recently came into a PS2 modem I've hit the problem that I can't think of a damn game to play on it. Syphon Filter looks like it might be good, and Snake Eater is supposed to have some sort of online properties, but of course, these are a good ways away. SOCOM isn't really my thing, I haven't played a sports game since Super Baseball Simulator 1000. I forget if any FPS' are online on PS2, but I really suck at those actually. Racing games aren't my up my ally and FFXI doesn't seem to interrest me either. What else is there? Am I too picky, or is there a dearth of games here? (To be honest, I'd love to play Crimson Skies and it's various online modes, but I don't have an Xbox)
Just some mild ramblings...
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 27, 2003, 07:33:30 PM
As for Nintendo supporting connectivity instead, it's more popular, more accessible, and best all much cheaper
Post by: odifiend on December 27, 2003, 08:31:23 PM
But the way you speak, it is as if their technique is infalliable and that is simply not true evident by their fall from complete control (70%) of the market to their present state (13%). Your tendency is kind of annoying but even more annoying is your new tendency to think that:
"it was ingenious of Nintendo to include LAN support and then let others set up the tunneling software. Currently Nintendo hasn't spent a dime on Warp Pipe, because it's not even their project, and yet their game is benefiting from it. Nintendo has the perfect online plan- to let everyone else do the work while they don't do a thing."
What the hell kind of stragety is it to do nothing and let your fan's set up your online infrastructure? What's more is you think it is genius for Nintendo to do this? And you think Nintendo planned this? I guess in the category for doing absolutely nothing and not suing people who are only helping them, Nintendo gets an A+. By the way you'd be an excellent teacher.
Nintendo has 6 billion dollars in cash and no debts (TIME Asia). If they really want to stay in the hardware business, it is unacceptable for them not to be exploring something like online gaming. I'm not saying go bankrupt, but an "I'm working on it," from the big N would be so much better than "We're not going to risk only sitting on 5 billion stagnant dollars for the fans... I mean connectivity is great."
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 27, 2003, 09:07:58 PM
Also, if you think I think Nintendo is infallible, obviously you've read maybe a few sentences from a few of my posts. Read my editorial and read my posts in the thread- there's a difference between thinking Nintendo's doing very well and Nintendo's infallible. In any case, pointing out the opposing view points in your arguments is called bad persuasive writing- looking wishy washy doesn't instill a lot of confidence in the reader.
Post by: WesDawg on December 27, 2003, 09:16:22 PM
Quote
Unfortuantly Nintendo wants the only way you can play that way to be if you have 2 GameCubes ($100 each), 2 copies of Mario Kart ($50 each), 2 Broadband adapters ($50 each), 8 controlers ($25 each), and 2 TVs (hopefully you already have these ). That's a grand total of $550.
This is blowing things a bit out of proportion. I think Nintendo was anticipating that at least one of your 8 friends you're playing with would have a Cube, TV, copy of Mario Kart, and probably 4 controllers to go with his Cube. Then all you really need is the two BBA which aren't $50 each if I remember right. Speaking of which, if you guys are really having trouble finding them, write me. I live in Iowa. We get tons of everything and I always see BBAs on the shelves at Target and Best Buy. I remember the weekend the Cube launched it was said to be "sold out" all over the USA, but our local Best Buy had cases full of 'em just sitting around on Black Friday.
In regards to online gaming, I'm not that good of a gamer as is. I don't look forward to the day I can get my ass handed to me by a 12 year old with much fondness anymore. It don't really matter for me yet either though. I don't have broadband and as such, upgrading to online gaming would be a new $50 bill/month for me at least. I'm not ready to pay that yet.
I do take issue with this quote:
Quote
There is exactly one online game on the market. LAN modes are plainly or poorly implemented, and are just now arriving when other systems have had the feature for nearly a decade.
Maybe I'm a dickhead, but I think this is wrong. 10 years ago was 1993. I was in 9th grade. The N64 wasn't out. The PS1 wasn't out I don't think. In fact, I don't think I even had the internet yet. If people were playing LAN games it was on the PC, and it was a world of different from console LAN gaming. In fact, if you want to say that, then online gaming has also been around for more than a decade. Probably two at this point. There's a difference between what was going on back then and the sort of gaming that's appeared in the last 4 or 5 years. I don't have time to research a history report on it, but the sentence is misleading I think.
In fact, it sorta sums up my whole opinion of the article. I like my Cube. There's plenty good to say about it, but your editorial seems to ignore all that in favor of the bad. In that sence, it's misleading. If you're going to complain, then title you're editorial: "Things Nintendo is doing wrong" and none of us will read it. This is called "Mid-Term Report Card" which makes you think it'll look at both pros and cons.
Third party support is great IMO. First party games have been really mixed, from some of my new favorite games ever, to some that I wonder how they slipped through Miyamoto's glove <cough>Mario Golf<cough>. I loved Grey Ninja's comments on SMS. I've often thought how odd it is that people rave about Super Mario World and hate SMS so much. There are reasons not to love SMS, but it being "non-innovative" ain't one of 'em. Anyways, I wouldn't mind articles like this if they gave some time to pros and cons, but one sentence that says, "I like Nintendo exclusives, but..." ain't objective. It's a pity offering. If you like your Cube, then tell us why. Later you can tell us what your complaints. Just like people do when they review games, or write report cards. Teachers always put good comments and bad ones on, unless you're a real bad student, whcih the Cube ain't. If you're gonna create a "Sports Game" category just to complain about the lack of sports games, then create a Side-Scroller category too, or a fighter one, or a platformer one, or a retro gamer one. That's where the Cube is huge right now. I can play most of the old NES and GENESIS library on it. That's pretty cool.
I don't want to comment on Sports games (cause I hate them), but I think Sony paid to have PS2 online exclusive for EA. It's not really Nintendo's fault that they got left out there. If it wasn't that way, I woulda expected to see them online on XBox too without using LIVE, since that would have required the same about of coding too. Really, Nintendo consoles haven't been the sports consoles since the SNES/Genesis days if I remember right. Not that that fixes everything, but its been a problem for awhile. It just wasn't noticable until the 40 million sports game fans started buying more consoles (hence gaming became a non-nerd activity). Now the disparage between the two is just suddenly obvious.
I figure a C is a pretty good grade. Not great, but pretty average from a console point of view. I just don't agree with the comments you made entirely. Based entirely on the comments, I'd think you'd give the Cube an F yet you call it your favorite system. I don't get that. If you hate it, go buy something else, and write for another site. It's that easy. I don't think you do though, or you probably would.
Post by: Shift Key on December 27, 2003, 09:32:10 PM
QuoteHow about some logic to your flaming?
If they really want to stay in the hardware business, it is unacceptable for them not to be exploring something like online gaming.
Post by: Kyosho on December 27, 2003, 09:43:10 PM
Quote
often thought how odd it is that people rave about Super Mario World and hate SMS so much.
It's the generation thing. As we get older, our tastes in games becomes different.
Quote
Third party support is great IMO. First party games have been really mixed, from some of my new favorite games ever
This opinion contradicts a lot of Nintendo fans on this board
Quote
If you like your Cube, then tell us why. Later you can tell us what your complaints
I actually prefer to hear the bad stuff first, then the good stuff. Easier to get the bad out of the way then focus on what is good in a game. Also, negatives tend to weigh more when criticizing or analyzing a company. How often do you see people praising Sony for their games? No one is going to waste their time pointing out things that don't need to be looked at.
Quote
if you think I think Nintendo is infallible, obviously you've read maybe a few sentences from a few of my posts
MC, your general tone in your posts make people feel this way including me. Re-read some of your posts carefully and see how it relates to others.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 27, 2003, 09:46:47 PM
Post by: Kyosho on December 27, 2003, 10:09:23 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 27, 2003, 10:33:05 PM
Post by: DrZoidberg on December 27, 2003, 10:33:37 PM
but online rah!
raaaage dump
Post by: nolimit19 on December 28, 2003, 04:34:47 AM
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 28, 2003, 04:52:22 AM
Quote
As for Nintendo supporting connectivity instead, it's more popular, more accessible, and best all much cheaper
Could you please provide some proof for this statement. Please forgive me for not just taking your word for it. I'd love to know the percentage of people who own a GBA GameCube link cable. I'd doubt it was very high for the GameCube, and I'd be willing to bet it was less then 5% of the people who own a GBA. According to your logic, Nintendo is ripping those people off, and anyone who wants connectivity is just being selfish.
Post by: odifiend on December 28, 2003, 05:46:18 AM
"online gaming only pleases 5% of the players," it seems that you only extrapolated that data so it isn't all that accurrate. Moreover Nintendo released the e-Reader and since its release it has been scrapped in Europe and pretty much laughed at in North America. I don't know how it is doing in Japan but I can't imagine it is doing that much better. I'm guessing the people it is pleasing equates to about 5% so I don't understand why Nintendo would think churning out billions of eReader cards that no one will ever buy profitable, but that online gaming which is becoming increasingly more popular is unreasonable.
To shifty: thanks for repeating exactly what MC has been saying for the past 6 pages.
Quote
If there was the need for an online game, I'm sure they'd find the best way to implement it PROFITABLY!
I'm not so sure I agree with you on that because it is hard to implement anything, especially successfully, if you refuse to constantly explore it. Psst... just so you know that's the logic to my flaming about exploring online gaming.
Online gaming aside, I ask anyone to tell me what Nintendo's direction is. Iwata says:
Quote
Online video games have been a false start so far, Iwata asserts, which is why he has no plans to lead Nintendo in that direction. The current path taken by game developers toward more cinematic graphics, richer story lines and complicated controls is a blind alley that, he says, will only worsen the current "nothing's new" ennui felt by many consumers.
I agree with Iwata that online gaming has been a false start but this second part is disheartening to any Nintendo fan. I don't understand his logic and citing Nintendo's sequels, MM: DD!!, SMS, 1080, and Mario Golf, I don't understand how he is breaking the ennui for consumers. His theory that gamers don't want better graphics and storylines is even more thought provoking and begs the question where else is there to go and what is Nintendo doing to get there.
Post by: Ocarina Blue on December 28, 2003, 05:56:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Currently Nintendo hasn't spent a dime on Warp Pipe, because it's not even their project, and yet their game is benefiting from it. Nintendo has the perfect online plan- to let everyone else do the work while they don't do a thing.
Nintendo has lots of resources, the type of stuff the Warp Pipe team and any others attempting to set up a network could only dream of. Warp Pipe is still in beta, and while it is benefiting Nintendo, it will gain much more use in it's fully tested and more user-friendly form. I see what you mean when you say Nintendo is gaining advantage from doing nothing here, but helping Warp Pipe would be a small deed for Nintendo, but a huge help to Warp Pipe, and therefore in the long run, to Nintendo as well. As for Nintendo's biggest aid being to promote LAN to 3rd parties, agreed, but LAN tunnelingis useless without something like Warp Pipe to back it up.
Post by: Mario on December 28, 2003, 06:38:45 AM
Quote
As for Nintendo supporting connectivity instead, it's more popular, more accessible, and best all much cheaper
Connectivity more popular than online gaming? ahahaha
Im sick of you saying the same thing over and over, whenever someone suggests something you bite back with "oh but that wouldnt be profitable for Nintendo". Well boo freaking hoo, it seems like you care more about Nintendo executives getting richer and richer, than what would be best for gaming and gamers. Oh Nintendo are making a profit, isn't that fun everyone!! Yay!
Post by: NWR_Lindy on December 28, 2003, 06:52:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuote
It's very self-centered of you to think that Nintendo has to go out of there way to please you.
Huh? I'm their frigging customer! They're SUPPOSED to please me because I'm giving them money to do so! Do you work for Nintendo or something? Are you really Satoru Iwata? You sound just like him!
I wouldn't call doing nothing a strategy. And don't you think that Nintendo's own developers could do a heck of a lot better stuff than what the Warp Pipe guys are doing?
Also, you throw around 5% this, 500,000 that, gimme some URLs. I don't even know where you're getting these numbers from...my guess is from articles that are a year old.
I love how Nintendo shies away from online gaming because it "isn't profitable", and yet finds the cash to R&D and release Virtual Boy, e-Reader, ROB the Robot, the GameBoy Camera and the 64DD. I'm sure all of these pieces of hardware gold made Nintendo a TON of money.
silks
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on December 28, 2003, 07:40:48 AM
By the way, 5% of Xbox users having Xbox Live is not as little as it sounds. GTA III is owned by only 10% of PS2 owners...is it not successful? Most games are purchased by much less than 5% of the installed base, especially on PS2, and are still considered successes. Sony grants "Greatest Hits" status to games that sell 250,000 copies, which is far less than 1% of the installed base. Nintendo's "Player's Choice" games have to sell 400,000 copies, which is around 3% of the GameCube installed base.
And if 5% of Xbox owners using Xbox Live is not successful, how would you characterize the >>>>>>>1% of GameCube owners using GBA connectivity? I think connectivity is a great idea with plenty of potential, but when Nintendo harps on it as a substantial reason to choose GameCube over the competition and then doesn't support it any better than it has, I didn't have the slightest hesitation in giving the feature an F. About half of Nintendo's E3 press conference in 2003 was devoted to connectivity. Of the games shown there, only FFCC has yet to come out. Pac-Man Vs. is plenty of fun and doesn't cost a dime for us, but how is it helping Nintendo? It's helping Namco sell a few games, perhaps, but I don't think R: Racing Evolution is going to burn up the charts anymore because it includes a free Pac-Man mini-game. And it certainly isn't going to attract a lot of people to GameCube over the other systems. How about the connectivity of The Sims: Bustin' Out, which Will Wright came out on stage to hype with Miyamoto? All the reviews I've read say it's a dumb gimmick that is not worth bothering with. What about the connectivity features in most of EA Sports's GameCube titles in 2003? How many people used those? Who cares about trading Madden Cards between the GameCube and GBA? How much did that little feature help the GameCube version sell over the PS2 version? (Hint: not at all.) Did you even know such a feature was in Madden 2003? Most people don't. This is what I'm talking about as the failure of connectivity.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on December 28, 2003, 08:35:27 AM
As for online gaming, if you really want to get into this, I have been playing DOOM LAN/online since '93. That is a decade, and frankly online will always be better on PC. With PC you can create a community that does more than just play games, you can create fanbases that are easily accessable after games, willing to PAY MORE for games, and will more likely participate actively.
Now here me out on this before you go mad. How many games have voice chat on PC? Probablly less than xbox live titles, but that doesn't mean much at face value. There are countless chat programs that can either be had for free or very cheap that allow you to get around this.
Money issues: I can recall more than a few times where Rick has said something on the lines of 'pc gaming costs a lot more than console gaming.' He is dead right, absolutely in every way. But then again, doesn't this say something about PC gamers? They are more likely to spend more if they are getting what they want? Now lets contrast this with console gamers. How much did gamecube go up in sales when the price dropped to 100 bucks? It sky rocketed. How often do people buy bargain bin games on consoles? The answer is always it is much higher than on PC.
PC is a place where you can get buy charging a little more, and where people will pay money if they want, but aren't neccisarily forced to do so. Lets look at MMORPGs. They are available on both PC and consoles, but where do they thrive? PC. The ability to easily and quickly get a new patch, a new update, and the willingness of a predominately older and more willing to spend userbase is the result of this. I
The fact is that until console games can attract gamers willing to spend more, it will never work. You just need more money being spent.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 28, 2003, 09:16:50 AM
Quote
Well boo freaking hoo, it seems like you care more about Nintendo executives getting richer and richer, than what would be best for gaming and gamers. Oh Nintendo are making a profit, isn't that fun everyone!! Yay!
What, because I don't want Nintendo to waste all their money then go out of business? Let's use the Mario logic here for a second and apply it to this situation- it sounds like YOU want Nintendo to go out of business! Now do you see how stupid a comment like yours was? How is online gaming BEST for the gamers? EXPLAIN that to me! Nobody has yet! All I've heard is I want to play online games, and I want to do this- quite frankly I'm SICK and TIRED of pimply little nerds sitting at their computers all day thinking they know how to run Nintendo better than Nintendo does. Just shut up already! It's really starting to piss me off! Mario, obviously you haven't understood a single thing I said, so I'll disregard your post in my editorial regarding this new information- please, you need to read ALL of my posts instead of the first few sentences and then assume what I'm getting at.
Quote
Huh? I'm their frigging customer! They're SUPPOSED to please me because I'm giving them money to do so!
But 19 more people want to spend their money on something different- if you were Iwata, what would YOU support?
And since you seem to be the only one challenging XBox Live's sales of roughly 500,000, go and find me a sales chart that says otherwise.
Quote
By the way, 5% of Xbox users having Xbox Live is not as little as it sounds. GTA III is owned by only 10% of PS2 owners
You can't compare XBox Line to a game, though, it doesn't work that way and you should know that, Johnny, being the director of one of the largest gaming fan sites on the internet. Xbox Live is the ABILITY to play games online, and only 5% of people, at least on the XBox (even less on the PS2) want that ability.
Post by: Mario on December 28, 2003, 09:30:59 AM
Quote
What, because I don't want Nintendo to waste all their money then go out of business? Let's use the Mario logic here for a second and apply it to this situation- it sounds like YOU want Nintendo to go out of business! Now do you see how stupid a comment like yours was? How is online gaming BEST for the gamers? EXPLAIN that to me! Nobody has yet! All I've heard is I want to play online games, and I want to do this- quite frankly I'm SICK and TIRED of pimply little nerds sitting at their computers all day thinking they know how to run Nintendo better than Nintendo does. Just shut up already! It's really starting to piss me off! Mario, obviously you haven't understood a single thing I said, so I'll disregard your post in my editorial regarding this new information- please, you need to read ALL of my posts instead of the first few sentences and then assume what I'm getting at.
Yes, i would love Nintendo to go out of business, because we all know setting up an online structure would cost 6 billion nintendo dollars. And dont even try to say im trying to tell Nintendo how to run their business, in fact im 100% against that, because the fact is none of us here have a clue how much it would cost Nintendo to go with option A or option B, and how easy or hard it would be for them to accomplish whatever is best. You are the one who think they know how to run Nintendo, while others simply state that they are interested in online gaming and are unhappy that Nintendo aren't pursuing it.
To be honest i dont really care about online gaming, which is why i never talk about it.
It's arguable that connectivity is more accessable and cheaper than online gaming, but assuming you have enough GBAs, then yes it is more accessable and cheaper, but not as fun or cool.
I'll see if i can find some sales figures...
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 28, 2003, 09:42:37 AM
Nintendo says online gaming isn't profitable.
I say online gaming isn't profitable.
They say online gaming is profitable.
How am I the one telling Nintendo how to run their business? If none of us really know how much it costs to set up an online network, why SHOULDN'T we believe Nintendo? Afterall, they've gone online every generation, now, I'd think they would have the most experience. Hence, if Nintendo tells me that online gaming isn't profitable, I tend to use that as the base of my opinions- if someone provides a good case otherwise, I'll change my opinion, but so far all anybody has done is talk about how they want to play games online, and how Nintendo should set up an online structure simply so they can play games online. Hell, I'd love Nintendo to support online gaming, but I wouldn't want them to waste money on it, which is my WHOLE point. I'm not concerned only with Nintendo execs pocketing money, I just don't want Nintendo chasing geese around burning money- THAT'S how you lose $5 billion, my friend. It would be nice if Nintendo could please quite literally everyone, but that's not possible.
Quote
then yes it is more accessable and cheaper, but not as fun or cool.
That's purely subjective- you should know that, Mario. Personally, I like the little extras connectivity has offered, while I'm quite put off by online gaming.
Quote
I'll see if i can find some sales figures...
Completely unrelated, but if you find a good site for sales, could you link me? I've been searching everywherer for some place that has any sort of up to date sales.
Post by: Mario on December 28, 2003, 09:58:00 AM
Lets look at a game that was released on all three platforms, but only the Xbox version had online play.
The Xbox version of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon, has sold 670,130 since release in the US. While the PS2 version has sold 605,284. Oh whats this? The Xbox version outsold the PS2 version? Despite the PS2s huge user base advantage? While this could have been for other reasons (more competition on PS2, FPS sell very well on Xbox), one reasons why some gamers would have picked the Xbox version over the PS2 version, is online play. You cant really deny that. The GameCube version sold less than 100k, but that's a different story.
And i know for a fact, that 500k Xbox Live kits were sold in the US, after December 2002. Who knows how many have been sold now, but it's most likely more than 500k by now.
Quote
That's purely subjective- you should know that, Mario, Personally, I like the little extras connectivity has done, while I'm quite put off by online gaming.
Yes, i also like connectivity, it amuses me, plus i happen to have a GBA (four GBAs actually
). It's subjective, i know.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 28, 2003, 10:23:49 AM
Also, link me to those sales, Mario- I remember hearing there were 300,00 XBox Live subscribers as of April 2003.
Post by: Mario on December 28, 2003, 10:45:47 AM
Those sales are Xbox Live kits, subscribers is different, and i admit is more accurate, so forget what i said about 500,000 Xbox live kits. 500,000 as of March 2003 is all i know. It was announced in April, but February or March figures were used.
Combine how much more Xbox subscribers there inevitably would have been in the past months, and the fact that the US install base of Xbox is nowhere near 10 million (more like 7 million ), and thats clearly more than 5%.
I have no idea what point im trying to prove, because i dont want Nintendo to go online, but yeah.
Post by: Kyosho on December 28, 2003, 10:51:49 AM
Lastly, American tastes differ from Japanese tastes as I'm sure you know. So people need to stop using Japanese surveys for their support. Nintendo is 2nd in Japan, but doing semi-abysmal in the US. People need to stop looking at the global issue and look at it regionally. If I was living in Japan, I'd be pretty happy with the games they have there for the Cube. Their games suit my taste more, but I am not willing to shell out the extra import fees/modding/hassles for it. The SNES days were when the Japan/US games molded together. But now, US Cube and Japan Cube got significant differences.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 28, 2003, 11:23:39 AM
Quote
Nintendo is 2nd in Japan, but doing semi-abysmal in the US.
Actually, the Gamecube nearly outsold the PS2 in the US for the month of November, and outsold the XBox by a great deal. I'm not even sure if the XBox is second in America anymore, and even if they are, it's by a very small amount and will son be surpassed considering the huge boost in sales the price drop has brought on. Keep in mind, ANYTHING you say about the Gamecube's sales in North America up until recently applies to the XBox as well, and Sony's too far ahead everywhere to be caught now, so there's really no comparisons you can make that paints Nintendo and Nintendo alone in a bad light.
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 28, 2003, 11:52:52 AM
Quote
GTA III is owned by only 10% of PS2 owners
You're talking percents here, man. 10% of PS2 users is a helluva lot more than 5% of Xbox users.
I was going to say something else, but I got bored. Sorry.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on December 28, 2003, 01:29:59 PM
Quote
quite frankly I'm SICK and TIRED of pimply little nerds sitting at their computers all day thinking they know how to run Nintendo better than Nintendo does. Just shut up already! It's really starting to piss me off!
The very fact that you're in this forum posting about Nintendo stuff qualifies you as a nerd just like the rest of us. The fact that you're getting worked up over this thread most definitely qualifies you as nerd, once again just like the rest of us. My condolences.
I made the point that "onling gaming doesn't have to be profitable right now" about 15 posts ago.
OK, my flaming is done.
silks
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 28, 2003, 01:33:08 PM
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 28, 2003, 01:41:17 PM
Quote
Personally, I like the little extras connectivity has offered, while I'm quite put off by online gaming.
Hence why you think it's OK for Nintendo to throw money at connectivity, but not at on-line gaming. As long as they're catering to your wants it's cool, and you call me selfish.
Unless you can show me proof that connectivity increases sales, I'm going to go on believing that connectivity is a cool little extra but it didn't sell one more copy of Animal Crossing. While if it had been on-line and let you vist other people's towns over the internet, send and receive in game e-mail, allowed you to download other user created images and songs, maybe even user created furniture, it would have increased sales. and more importantly to me, it would have made the game even more fun then it was.
Post by: BigJim on December 28, 2003, 01:54:35 PM
The 11/17 Press Release Says Xbox Live is "Half a Million Strong"
So as of mid November, Xbox Live was 500K.
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 28, 2003, 02:16:20 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 28, 2003, 03:01:50 PM
Quote
Hence why you think it's OK for Nintendo to throw money at connectivity, but not at on-line gaming. As long as they're catering to your wants it's cool, and you call me selfish.
Perhaps I'd rather Nintendo stick with the cheaper albeit equally niche feature of connectivity rather than supporting both online gaming AND connectivity, and lose a ton of money. Also, you know it's impossible to prove that connectivity does or does not improve sales- the Gamecube is the only console that offers the features, so there's nothing to compare it to (as there would be when comparing online games).
Quote
and 25% of the Xbox's user base have gone on-line.
I'm sure close to 100% of the XBox's user base has gone online, just not on the XBox, or on their own XBox. Hell, even I've played XBox Live and I don't even own an XBox.
Quote
FYI:
The 11/17 Press Release Says Xbox Live is "Half a Million Strong"
So as of mid November, Xbox Live was 500K.
Thanks, BigJim.
Post by: BigJim on December 28, 2003, 03:32:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Cowboy Bebop
and 25% of the Xbox's user base have gone on-line.
That particular item they crammed into the press release falls under "I'll believe it when I see it." If their subscription penetration jumped from 5% to 25% just over the holiday as they tried to imply, I will donate myself to the clean gene pool efforts and castrate myself.
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 28, 2003, 04:11:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
That particular item they crammed into the press release falls under "I'll believe it when I see it." If their subscription penetration jumped from 5% to 25% just over the holiday as they tried to imply, I will donate myself to the clean gene pool efforts and castrate myself.
I think what they were saying is that 25% of their users have tried the service. The xbox comes with 2 free months of live after all. After trying it 500,000 of them felt it was worth subscribing to at $50 a year. At least that's the impression I got.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on December 28, 2003, 06:33:11 PM
MC, I never said I was trying to run Nintendo - you said that. I'm just calling it as I see it. I'm a huge Nintendo fan but I'm not naive either...I'm not going to blindly accept anything that comes out of Satoru Iwata's mouth. Nintendo has a reputation for not catering to older gamers, and their refusal to even acknowledge online gaming (typically the realm of older gamers that can afford to get into it) only hurts their cause even more. The mainstream gaming public certainly doesn't think that Nintendo's lack of online support is "ingenious". The words I would be thinking of would be "oblivious", or maybe "short-sighted", or "uncompetitive", perhaps even "arrogant" or "pretentious".
The one good thing about having Microsoft and Sony on the scene is that it may actually force Nintendo to get off its high horse and see that their philosophy on what video gaming should be isn't the gospel they think it is.
silks
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 28, 2003, 07:14:00 PM
Post by: Kyosho on December 28, 2003, 08:03:20 PM
I leave with this quote:
Quote
Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that Nintendo is doing all they can do-
It should be more like "Nintendo is reluctant to adapt to the market to appease more than just their current loyal fanbase."
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 28, 2003, 08:06:06 PM
Post by: Kyosho on December 28, 2003, 08:38:28 PM
As for accusing you of being naive, go read your posts again. Read your explanations. Then view it from the other party and neutral and see how your explanations and comments will be affected.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 28, 2003, 09:04:10 PM
Post by: Kyosho on December 28, 2003, 10:23:42 PM
That's exactly what I thought your editorial was saying. You've said absolutely NOTHING new to me. You've pretty much reconfirm everything I've said about you. Either your analyzing skills are poor (assuming if you're born in 1988 that's understandable), or you're the one that really needs to read INTO other people's replies instead of just looking at the words. Even less surprising, you're constantly contradicting your opinions on certain issues. I will just leave it at that for you to figure out.
Nintendo will never be as GOOD as they were pre-N64 days unless they step up to the competition that they are facing. The NES performed well due to it being one of the few widely supported 8 bit systems at that time with little competition. The SNES days performed well because developed pushed the system to the limits as well as having mass support with little competition. The N64 days DIED due to what I strongly believe the choice of medium. Developers did not want to use cartridges as a primary source of medium because they are limited to 64-128 Mbits when they can use CDs up to 650 or more MBytes. SM64 was probably a revolutionary design that won back fans and some developers, but it cannot be denied that medium choice was an absolute turnoff to 3rd party developers when they are given the option to further enhance their products from a worthy competitor. Furthermore, it's true that the Gamecube probably is doing better than N64, but IMHO, they arent doing all that much better. Perhaps SALES and PROFIT may disprove my opinion, but we're all in another decade where everything can still be regarded as relative to the past. And relative to the past, performance and sales have been semi-abysmal.
Like I've said before, good for you that you're pleased with Nintendo's approach and current "success." I, like many, am not, and know what potential Nintendo has if they had/will open their eyes even further.
Post by: WesDawg on December 29, 2003, 04:53:54 AM
I still think 3rd party support has been fine. We've got nice huge games coming from Capcom, Namco, and Square. An exclusive Harvest Moon game. Some nice things from Sega. Konami is working with Nintendo to earn a userbase here. Ubi Soft has given us some real cool games all the sudden. EA seems to have no problem releasing their games on the Cube. Factor 5, Silicon Knights. You can play the new Medal of Honor on your Cube, or Timesplitters2, or James Bond. I just don't understand why people are disappointed. Perhaps they want more Mary Kate and Ashley. I would like to try my hand at GTA sometime, but if I really wanted to, I'd get the PC version, so I guess its not that pressing to me.
Post by: Retroyoshi on December 29, 2003, 04:56:13 AM
Ninty is a very conservative busniess. The video game world (heck, the technology world as a whole) is extremely volatile. Just because a few select companies are going though some good times doesn't mean that aggressive expansion (buying developers, expanding into dangerous territory that may not net a return) is a good thing. A lot of publishers and developers have done this and are hurting badly because of it (Sega most notably, but also 3DO, Midway, Sierra, and a lot of others). This is the way it has always been, and probably always will be.
Ninty's strategy is to maxamize return. You don't have to have the largest userbase, most product, or newest technology to do this. This is especially the case when you are dealing with competetors with extremely deep pockets that are pretty much willing to do market studies for you. In the case of "online gaming" the investment right now does not generate enough return to be worthwhile. Only a few 3rd parties have tested the online waters with console games (outside of the Microsoft funded "live exclusives"- an additional investment that generates no return).
The online strategy is akin to the dotcom crazy days. Everyone (developers) has plans for services and great ideas- but absolutly no one knows how to make those investments pay off. A conservative "wait and see" approach is only good busniess. I'm not saying that I'm thrilled with the prospect- because yeah, it would be fun to take Animal Crossing online but there wouldn't be a busniess model behind it, and from MS's live (and even Sega's Dreamcast) experiement only a small minority would even take advantage of it (say animal crossing sold 100,000 copies- that's only 5,000 users).
And incidently- the downside to suing ROM carts as a storage medium is publishing cost; not storage space as frequently mentioned. Just about any PSX game could be delivered in 64MB. Remember, you only have a few MB of video ram you are able to fill at a time (1MB in PSX, if I'm not mistaken). In fact, it's a dream of publishers to be able to publish downloadable games (Probably where MS is trying to eventually go with Live actually), and the size of games will have to accommidate that. Blame publishers for not wanting to pony up another dollar or so to publish on the N64, not the developers for not being able to work with a storage meduim. (If you want to blame Nintendo for anything on the N64, blame them for skimping on the ram). In any case- that ship sailed long ago.
Post by: Kyosho on December 29, 2003, 08:42:23 AM
As for a conservative approach, Nintendo as far as i'm concerned will have a tough time getting back to the top of the charts and staying there. They have to be more aggressive because it's apparent this conservative approach that we've seen only worked well in the past when 3rd party developers were patient and cooperative enough to work with them.
That 5% everyone keeps talking about is just a rough estimate, and in no way can those statistics be transferred 100% accurately to Nintendo. If explored right, it will generate revenue. I also believe in the matchmaking service. Nintendo does not necessarily need to host *everything* on their servers. They just need to develop a protocol that does peer to peer communication instead of server to peer communication. Granted, if you have something that is an online world like MMORPGs (PSO), that's a different story. But as we've seen so far from the PC world, if you can do it right with an aggressive approach, it will generate profit.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 29, 2003, 09:32:29 AM
Quote
Like I've said before, good for you that you're pleased with Nintendo's approach and current "success." I, like many, am not, and know what potential Nintendo has if they had/will open their eyes even further.
Kyosho, you've contradicted yourself just as much as you claim I have. Maybe I don't like being worried constantly, or maybe I choose to trust a company that has been one of the most successful in history while you, who has nothing better to do than create a name on a message board for the sole purpose of arguing this point with me it seems, think you can pick up every problem Nintendo. YOU are saying YOU know how to run Nintendo better than Nintendo does, despite giving me ample reason to believe otherwise. Maybe we just have fundamentaly different opinions, which is why neither of us will get anywhere continuing as we are. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, nothing more of it will come.
Also, don't attack people's age- that's a really low thing to do. You wouldn't have known I was 15 if you hadn't checked my profile right before you posted. I have my brithday in there for a very good reason, to prove that age can be very decieving- you expect better things from older people and worse thing from younger people, when the opposite is often true.
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 29, 2003, 09:50:47 AM
Quote
(assuming if you're born in 1988 that's understandable)
You are now an official dumb@ss. Insulting someone's intelligence based on their age simply to make yourself look better is pathetic. Your opinion now means nothing to me.
Post by: nolimit19 on December 29, 2003, 11:06:45 AM
Post by: odifiend on December 29, 2003, 12:30:52 PM
Nintendo's business now should not be allowed to be compared to Nintendo's business of the past. Nintendo no longer controls the video game realm. The level of competition is completely different from what it was then along with the larger part of the video game audience. The N64 days lost Nintendo its momentum. The GCN should be (should have been) the generation to get back out there. Nintendo's present inertia is unacceptable and has been so since developpers stop flocking to their system to make games (circa one year into PSX).
I like Mario, I like Link, I want to marry Samus, hell I'm even ok with a Pokemon or two (Not Pikachu though that no Attack or Special Attack having b!tch, it needs to burn), but most of this adoration was developped from an early age. However the gamers of today, casual gamers who think its just expected of them to have a gaming console but don't really have a clue of what to play, can't identify with Nintendo's franchises because they didn't see them evolve as we have. Therefore they don't buy N. I don't know who said it first but Nintendo needs to develop new, cool franchises with whom the casual gamers can identify or they're sunk.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 29, 2003, 02:13:00 PM
Quote
no matter what nintendo is doing now, they will need to step it up for the next generation.
Exactly! It's not often I agree with you, nolimit, but it seems this is one subject I can. As I've said, online gaming WILL be popular eventually, but not THIS generation. If Nintendo supports it, or at least offer support for it in the same manner Sony is now, I'll be happy, and if they don't, that's when I'll start worrying.
Post by: Kyosho on December 29, 2003, 02:59:27 PM
I have a brother (assuming ur 1988) who is 1 year older than you. Like I said, I have to point that out because it's not necessarily AGE and WISDOM that comes into play. It's simply the fact that I'm talking with a teenager. If any of you have ever talked with a teenager you will know what I mean. I am not using age to attack your choice of opinion, it's the way you approach other people's rebuttals. If you are not that age, then my apologies, but you're still stubborn, confusing, and constantly contradicting
We single out Nintendo because quite frankly we love Nintendo. We want to see it be more successful. I dont care about the PS2 or Xbox. I only care about MY Nintendo. I use PS2's success and Xbox's limited success as an EXAMPLE of this day in age how Nintendo can approach the situation instead of playing it how they did 2 decades ago. My "ample" reasons have been using PS2's, Xbox's, and PC's attributes. Those 3 are catering to the market today, whereas Nintendo is catering to the past.
If you check my profile, you will see that I made this name a while ago. Check my history. I did not make this name just to attack YOU. You are right in that we are probably never ever going to convince each other to step over the line to one side. I believe in this. You believe in that. That's fine we will just leave it at that. It seems you are just pretty much reaffirming everything I've said in your recent posts. However, it feels like I am talking to a schizo in the regard that one second you're agreeing and next second you're disagreeing in strong defense.
Hostile, this will be the 1st time i've said something to you. I am/was never talking to you. Exploiting text on the keyboard just to namecall is far worse than me being pathetic.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 29, 2003, 03:13:08 PM
Stop looking at the statistics and just enjoy the games. I don't care if Nintendo doesn't sell as many units as the competition, as long as they're still making a profit I know they'll be here for quite some time, and that's all that really matters to me. If Nintendo does become #1 again, that's great! But like I've said, it's only icing on the cake because Nintendo's already giving me everything I need, and then some. Just sit down, play the games, and leave Nintendo to worry about the statistics- that's their job, not yours.As for Hostile's comment, this is message board, and as far as I'm concerned, everyone's opinion matters, whether they were asked for it or not.
Post by: Kyosho on December 29, 2003, 03:30:51 PM
namecalling isnt really needed on this message board though, or so it states in the AUP. If anything I am trying really hard to not get into a serious flame war because if anything from my experiences I can be extremely harsh to the point where even if I gave the admin $, i'd still be banned
I am worried for the most part because I am not enjoying my games. I've had the NES a year after it came out. I love the franchises. I remember the SNES was probably the time I had most fun. The N64 started phasing out for me about 6-7 months after the first batch of games. I believe the last game I bought was Majora's Mask which was fun, but pretty much my whole library was 1st during n64 era. During SNES, much of my library was 3rd.
As for the Cube, Metroid was a refreshing rehash for me, though it did not last too long. Super Mario Sunshine I was over it already because it played just like SM64. MKDD, well, I was rather disappointed in some of the multiplay levels and some of the single play levels. The DK level is great. Every level in MKDD should have some sort of complexity just like that. Zelda is probably the best of the bunch. I've had no regrets picking that up. I had pre-ordered 1080, but now I am going to transfer that over to Baten Kaitos in hopes that will be good. I will be picking up FF:CC, and after that nothing really appeals to me on the EB Upcoming List. As you can see, I am very selective in my choice of games. I used to work @ EB, and the ironic thing was I played BEACH SPIKERS over a ton of other games that were out during that time.
I feel it's my duty to tell Nintendo how I feel about their current crop of games. Because like I said, I am not enjoying my games as I could be.
Post by: odifiend on December 29, 2003, 03:50:02 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 29, 2003, 04:51:17 PM
Post by: Kyosho on December 29, 2003, 05:18:31 PM
yeah I forgot to mention Tales of Symphonia. I'm unfamiliar with that seriess, but it looks good. It's a tough choice between Baten Kaitos and Tales of Symphonia. I simply didnt mention because I forgot.. thanks for reminding me
Post by: nolimit19 on December 29, 2003, 05:50:31 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 29, 2003, 06:01:18 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 29, 2003, 07:46:38 PM
Quote
Hostile, this will be the 1st time i've said something to you. I am/was never talking to you. Exploiting text on the keyboard just to namecall is far worse than me being pathetic.
Sorry. I'll try to be more goddamn tasteful next time if that makes you happy.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 30, 2003, 05:37:50 AM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on December 30, 2003, 07:25:11 AM
Whoever pointed out the problem of comparing game sales to Xbox Live subscriptions, is of course correct. I was making crude comparisons (I even did the math in my head), so I didn't mean for it to be taken too seriously. I just wanted to show that 500,000 Xbox users is not such a small portion of the installed base. Because there aren't really any comparable services in the console world, and since Xbox Live is packaged and sold just like a game (and even costs as much, per year), I thought it was the best I could do under short notice. ;-) But I do think it's fair to compare percentages of game sales across platforms. Let's say that Game X sells 12 million copies on PS2 and 12 million copies on GameCube. Obviously the raw sales are just as good on either platform, but Nintendo can say that nearly every single GameCube owner bought this game. It's perhaps a small difference, but one that their investors and the media and a lot of other people will care about. In the same way, it's more impressive for a game to sell one million on GameCube than to sell one million on PS2, because of the percentage of installed bases buying the game.
As for LAN console gaming, the feature is not much more popular on Xbox for GameCube than it was on PSX or Saturn or whatever old systems supported it. It's just too hard to set up that many systems and TVs, not to mention the multiple copies of the game you have to own. The only systems that have ever pulled off LAN gaming well are PC and Game Boy, both because the hardware and display are naturally together anyway. It's easiest on PC because people can make extra copies of the game CD or create multiplayer spawns. On Game Boy, you still have the significant problem of everyone needing a copy of the game, so more obscure titles never see much multiplayer action. That's why we all love the games that can be played with just one cartridge.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on December 30, 2003, 07:59:52 AM
So Mouse_Clicker, when Nintendo says "Online gaming isn't profitable" and "We don't think it will bring anything new to gaming", can you understand why I think they're clueless and I don't believe them? Their track record at predicting market trends has been horrible ever since the SNES died out. They do some innovative stuff in terms of new gaming experiences but it never has a major impact - it's always gimmicky gadgets like the GameBoy Camera and e-Reader. The GameBoy Advance SP is tight but it's an evolution of an existing concept rather than a new frontier. Console online gaming is a new frontier and I'd have expected Nintendo to be at the forefront; instead, they're taking their typically lethargic "wait and see" attitude.
As far as I'm concerned, the release of the Gamecube signalled Nintendo's refusal to compete in the US market. It looks like a toy, is perceived as a toy and Nintendo certainly doesn't discourage this perception. It's frustrating to see such a great company be so inflexible.
silks
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 30, 2003, 08:33:24 AM
Post by: Kyosho on December 30, 2003, 08:49:17 AM
I feel in order of chronology
1) using cartridges as the medium
2) losing many 3rd party developers
3) lack of games
I feel what they fixed in the Gamecube were
- changing to a cheaper and larger medium format
that's all I can think of at this time.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 30, 2003, 09:32:20 AM
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 30, 2003, 10:39:46 AM
Quote
No, Silks, I don't quite see your reasoning there. Maybe I would if the numbers were against Nintendo, but they're not.
What numbers are you talking about? Their finacial numbers? They reported their first ever loss. Their percentage of the market? They are a distant 2nd or 3rd. Exactly what numbers show that Nintendo is currently a roaring success?
Quote
And the Gamecube, to me, represented Nintendo recognizing the mistakes they made with the N64 and fixing them, and I think they've done a great job so far.
That's what they said, and that was the hope, let's take a look at it though:
Style: I don't care what the hardware looks like, you don't care what the hardware looks like, but casual fans do. Most 12+ aged males do not want to look like a nerd. They don't want a purple box in their room. Sure, they also released a black one at launch, but that wasn't the one they featured in their promotions. Either way, it's not a slick looking piece of hardware like the PS2. You and I may find all this pathetic, but it's a fact of life, one Nintendo needs to recognize. If the GBA SP is any indication, hopefully they have.
DVD playback: This is probably the only generation where this will be a selling point. Every one is/was switching over from VHS to DVD. It's alot easier to justify the purchase to a parent or spouse if you're also getting a DVD player out of the deal. By next generation everyone will already have a DVD player and stand alone units will be cheap. Maybe you already had one, I did, but I know at least 3 people where this was a factor.
Disc size: Sure it has larger capacity and is cheaper than a catridge, but it's still smaller than what everyone else is offering. This leads to compressed cut scenes for the GameCube version.
Third party: This is about 50/50. They've been losing a lot of third rate third parties, but have been strengthening their ties with the biggies. The problem is that you and I might not be interested in Atari's, Eidos's, and Acclaim's games, but casual gamers are. Who do you think keeps buying all that licensed crap?
Kiddie image: Nintendo has done very little to address this. Sure there are 2nd party games like Metroid and Eternal Darkness, but most casual gamers don't know about them because Nintendo failed to aggressively market them. The look of the console adds to this. cel-shading Zelda didn't help.
Hype: Would it kill Nintendo to exagerate every once in a while? They release realistic, maybe even slightly lowered specs, while Sony and Microsoft make it sound like they're console is the second coming, and will help you score with the chicks. Give the developers the real numbers, but give the masses something they can brag about.
I hate to sound all doom and gloom because it's not, but those are a few misteps that Nintendo has continued into this generation. You might not care about casual gamers, but their the ones that keep a console manufacture afloat. Without them Nintendo is sunk. If you're truly concerned about Nintendo staying profitable so they can keep making games, then you should be concerned with those above things.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 30, 2003, 10:57:22 AM
Quote
What numbers are you talking about? Their finacial numbers? They reported their first ever loss. Their percentage of the market? They are a distant 2nd or 3rd. Exactly what numbers show that Nintendo is currently a roaring success?
Have you read anything I've said? The numbers that show online gaming is NOT popular enough to support now! Nintendo may be a distant second, but everyone is compared to Sony, and Microsoft, the so called crusading hero of online gaming, is a VERY distant third. And that first loss ever was quickly rectified with a price drop that propelled American sales almost to the level of the PS2- Nintendo recognized the problem and fixed it. Are you trying to make a point here?
Quote
Style: I don't care what the hardware looks like, you don't care what the hardware looks like, but casual fans do. Most 12+ aged males do not want to look like a nerd. They don't want a purple box in their room. Sure, they also released a black one at launch, but that wasn't the one they featured in their promotions. Either way, it's not a slick looking piece of hardware like the PS2. You and I may find all this pathetic, but it's a fact of life, one Nintendo needs to recognize. If the GBA SP is any indication, hopefully they have.
I don't know a single person who decided not to buy a Gamecube because the "official" color was purple- not a single one. And the people that DID make such a decision aren't the people I want taking this industry into the next generation. It's not all about making the MOST money, Cowboy- morality plays a role as well.
Quote
DVD playback: This is probably the only generation where this will be a selling point. Every one is/was switching over from VHS to DVD. It's alot easier to justify the purchase to a parent or spouse if you're also getting a DVD player out of the deal. By next generation everyone will already have a DVD player and stand alone units will be cheap. Maybe you already had one, I did, but I know at least 3 people where this was a factor.
Stop coming up with petty reasons- if you're going to make a case for Nintendo failing, you're going to have to do better than that. The people who decided on one console over another because of DVD playback obviously aren't into the games that much. And why the hell should justification matter at all? If I'm going to buy a console people shouldn't care WHY.
Quote
Disc size: Sure it has larger capacity and is cheaper than a catridge, but it's still smaller than what everyone else is offering. This leads to compressed cut scenes for the GameCube version.
Oh no, compressed cut scenes! Seriously, how long did you brood over all of these? I doubt any 3rd party denied the Gamecube support simply because the disc was a little too small. You know what that small disc offers? MUCH faster load times. So there's a balancing act going on.
Quote
Third party: This is about 50/50. They've been losing a lot of third rate third parties, but have been strengthening their ties with the biggies. The problem is that you and I might not be interested in Atari's, Eidos's, and Acclaim's games, but casual gamers are. Who do you think keeps buying all that licensed crap?
I consider LOSING Acclaim, Eidos, and Atari and GAINING incredible support from Sega, Namco, and Capcom a fairly even trade- actually, I'd say Nintendo got the better end of the stick, actually.
Quote
Kiddie image: Nintendo has done very little to address this. Sure there are 2nd party games like Metroid and Eternal Darkness, but most casual gamers don't know about them because Nintendo failed to aggressively market them. The look of the console adds to this. cel-shading Zelda didn't help.
That cel-shaded Zelda broke Vice City's record for the most preorders. I'll admit, though a lot of older gamers do see Nintendo themselves as being for a younger crowd, and Nintendo does need to step up their advertising (which they have been lately). I talk a LOT about this kind of stuff in my editorial, so I'll save myself the effort of retyping it for your convenience.
Quote
Hype: Would it kill Nintendo to exagerate every once in a while? They release realistic, maybe even slightly lowered specs, while Sony and Microsoft make it sound like they're console is the second coming, and will help you score with the chicks. Give the developers the real numbers, but give the masses something they can brag about.
That's it, I'm convinced- you're a lunatic. How has telling a "chick" you're a gamer EVER worked? Can you explain that to me? From what I've noticed most girls seem to prefer Nintendo's games anyway, perhaps because they're not as worried about image? I NEVER want Nintendo lying or decieving to get sales, EVER. That's another major point of my editorial, which I'll again let you read on your own.
In the end, though, you've come up with some pretty sour excuses for Nintendo's troubles- I'm not saying they don't exist, not by a longshot, but come back when you find the REAL reasons, like Nintendo ignoring the smaller 3rd parties, giving PAL territories the shaft most of the time, not giving their products more prominence in retail stores, not having many games that appeal directly to the Western audience, etc, etc- you got the marketing thing, but Nintendo's already in the process of fixing that. You can do better.
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 30, 2003, 11:32:31 AM
Quote
Have you read anything I've said? The numbers that show online gaming is NOT popular enough to support now! Nintendo may be a distant second, but everyone is compared to Sony, and Microsoft, the so called crusading hero of online gaming, is a VERY distant third. And that first loss ever was quickly rectified with a price drop that propelled American sales almost to the level of the PS2- Nintendo recognized the problem and fixed it. Are you trying to make a point here?
You havn't provided any proof that on-line isn't profitable. 500,000 * $50 = $25,000,000. I highly doubt Microsoft has invested $25,000,000 into Live. If you could show me some figures that say they have, maybe I'll start taking your claims seriously.
Quote
I don't know a single person who decided not to buy a Gamecube because the "official" color was purple- not a single one. And the people that DID make such a decision aren't the people I want taking this industry into the next generation. It's not all about making the MOST money, Cowboy- morality plays a role as well.
They won't be taking it into the next generation, Nerds will. Unless casual gamers start learning how to program. They will be financing the next generation though. Just like they did last generation, and this one. Like it or not.
Morality? Where did that one come from!
Quote
Stop coming up with petty reasons- if you're going to make a case for Nintendo failing, you're going to have to do better than that. The people who decided on one console over another because of DVD playback obviously aren't into the games that much. And why the hell should justification matter at all? If I'm going to buy a console people shouldn't care WHY.
Why does justification matter? Obviously you've never had to explain to your wife why you want to spend $200. It goes a whole lot easier if you can make it look like she's getting something out of the deal too.
Quote
Oh no, compressed cut scenes! Seriously, how long did you brood over all of these? I doubt any 3rd party denied the Gamecube support simply because the disc was a little too small. You know what that small disc offers? MUCH faster load times. So there's a balancing act going on.
I never said it cost us support from third parties, but it does come up in reviews that compare all three versions. Effecting which version a person who owns multiple consoles buys.
Quote
I consider LOSING Acclaim, Eidos, and Atari and GAINING incredible support from Sega, Namco, and Capcom a fairly even trade- actually, I'd say Nintendo got the better end of the stick, actually.
Again, it's not about what you or I want, It's about what casual gamers want. They don't care about Viewtiful Joe, but they do want the best version of Enter the Matrix.
Quote
That cel-shaded Zelda broke Vice City's record for the most preorders. I'll admit, though a lot of older gamers do see Nintendo themselves as being for a younger crowd, and Nintendo does need to step up their advertising (which they have been lately). I talk a LOT about this kind of stuff in my editorial, so I'll save myself the effort of retyping it for your convenience.
You and your editorial. I hate to break it to you, but a reply to an editorial posted on an unrelated message board is hardly an editorial. It's just another post. Now if you've got a point to make, I hope you don't consider yourself so important that you can't make it again. For us people that don't want to keep flipping back to a completely different post. After all, you don't seem to mind repeating "on-line isn't profitable" over and over again.
Quote
That's it, I'm convinced- you're a lunatic. How has telling a "chick" you're a gamer EVER worked? Can you explain that to me? From what I've noticed most girls seem to prefer Nintendo's games anyway, perhaps because they're not as worried about image? I NEVER want Nintendo lying or decieving to get sales, EVER. That's another major point of my editorial, which I'll again let you read on your own.
I never said telling a "chick" you're a gamer EVER worked. I said people bought into that hype. It's not lying saying that your console can push a huge number of polygons omiting that those are unlit, unshaded polygons. That's good marketing. It's bad marketing to release conservitive, in-game numbers when you competitors are doing the other.
It's not about what you and I want. We're easy. We'll buy any Nintendo console they put out, because we're already fans. What Nintendo needs to do is bring in new fans, and they do that by doing the things I mentioned.
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 30, 2003, 11:48:25 AM
Quote
Disc size: Sure it has larger capacity and is cheaper than a catridge, but it's still smaller than what everyone else is offering. This leads to compressed cut scenes for the GameCube version.
As MC mentioned there are the faster loading times, but there's also the piracy issue. GC games are almost impossible to pirate, and any mainstream or even hardcore gamers isn't going to try it. You need to have alot of money and a lot of time. While I don't have had numbers, I can safley say that GC discs hold enough data. Sure, the bigger discs hold more, but how much of that is actually taken up? The GC discs hold a large amount of data, which is more than enough for the average game. MP had beautiful graphics and sound, had a huge map, had almost perfect 60 fps, and had zero loading times. I'd like to see playstation 2 do that.
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 30, 2003, 12:03:12 PM
Quote
As MC mentioned there are the faster loading times, but there's also the piracy issue. GC games are almost impossible to pirate, and any mainstream or even hardcore gamers isn't going to try it. You need to have alot of money and a lot of time. While I don't have had numbers, I can safley say that GC discs hold enough data. Sure, the bigger discs hold more, but how much of that is actually taken up?
Yes there are benefits to the smaller disc size, but I'm trying to look at it from the point of view of a casual gamer. They don't care about piracy. They just want their graphics to be as clean as possible.
Quote
The GC discs hold a large amount of data, which is more than enough for the average game. MP had beautiful graphics and sound, had a huge map, had almost perfect 60 fps, and had zero loading times. I'd like to see playstation 2 do that.
Actually MP did have load times, they were just cleverly hidden by the doors and elevators. Did you ever run across a room to a door, and have to wait for it to open. That's why. That's not to take away from the skills of the programmers though.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 30, 2003, 12:05:27 PM
The key for a successful console is to not give people reasons not to buy it, even if they're dumb reasons.
Post by: Retroyoshi on December 30, 2003, 12:08:13 PM
Diminishing return starts taking hold to some features, and online console gaming is one of them- especially when you are catering to so few users.
I suppose online gaming has the benefit of adding users at little cost- but there is a huge initial investment to overcome. I believe that Microsoft said that they spent 10 million dollars building the Live infastructure. Games don't cost 10 million to develop, and they can be sold at the same cost as the Live subscription. If online racing was added to Mario Kart and Nintendo had to invest 10 million additional dollars to impliment it- why bother right now? It might pick up a fraction of that 5% of additional users, but there would be no immediate return. Several titles would have to also use the service to even make it feasable to develop the infastructure- and all that for 500,000 users (at best) split between them. Even if they payed their $50 a year, that is only the return of one game (for a significantly higher investment). It's better to develop a 1 million dollar game and get at least 20,000 users.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 30, 2003, 12:09:45 PM
Quote
You havn't provided any proof that on-line isn't profitable. 500,000 * $50 = $25,000,000. I highly doubt Microsoft has invested $25,000,000 into Live. If you could show me some figures that say they have, maybe I'll start taking your claims seriously.
I think I'm going to take Nintendo's word over YOUR word, especially considering you have done absolutely nothing to convince me- if you want me to believe otherwise, give me some proof that MS is making a nice profit on XBox Live.
Quote
You and your editorial. I hate to break it to you, but a reply to an editorial posted on an unrelated message board is hardly an editorial. It's just another post. Now if you've got a point to make, I hope you don't consider yourself so important that you can't make it again. For us people that don't want to keep flipping back to a completely different post. After all, you don't seem to mind repeating "on-line isn't profitable" over and over again.
Actually, my editorial was emailed to Game-Revolution as well as posted on the Gamecube Discussion board of this very forum. Did you miss my link on the first page, or do you not go into the Gamecube discussion at all? Here's another one, since you're so lazy.
As for repeating lines, no one has proved online gaming is profitable and practical. Seriously, I'm not as thick head as I may seem- if you can give me proof, I will honestly start reconsidering my entire argument. In any case, I gave you much better arguments against me than you have- it's not often your opponent would do something like that, so I'd jump on it if I were you.
Quote
Actually MP did have load times, they were just cleverly hidden by the doors and elevators. Did you ever run across a room to a door, and have to wait for it to open. That's why. That's not to take away from the skills of the programmers though.
Actually, those were not load times. Yes, they did have the same side effect as loading would, but they weren't load times. I forget the technical details of it exactly, though- ask Shadow Fox if you want to know more about that.
IanSane: Maybe I am taking an elitist approach to it, but those opinions aren't just what *I* think, and how they affect ME. It's impossible to prove indefinitely whether DVD playback or console color really are what's "dragging" Nintendo down, so to speak (really, there's not as much "dragging" as many of you believe), but it's my opinion that they affect sales very little. That's my opinion. I don't have a negative view of casual gamers, just of casual gamers that decide what console to buy based on what color it is and whether or not it plays DVD's.
Quote
The key for a successful console is to not give people reasons not to buy it, even if they're dumb reasons.
THAT I truly agree with, and is one of the problem's Nintendo faces- individually each problem isn't major, but together they do matter.
Post by: odifiend on December 30, 2003, 12:26:50 PM
Quote
I consider LOSING Acclaim, Eidos, and Atari and GAINING incredible support from Sega, Namco, and Capcom a fairly even trade- actually, I'd say Nintendo got the better end of the stick, actually.
I agree with MC that Acclaim churns out crap. Atari however has the DBZ: Budokai franchise and although I don't particularly care for it, I invite you find some sales figures on those two games and tell me that the (early) releases did not help Sony.
As for GAINING incredible support from Sega last time I checked Super Monkey Ball was the only original thing released so far from Sega. Yes! We have been allowed to buy Dreamcast ports! Skies of Arcadia, SA: 1&2, PSO! Thank you so much Sega for showering us with your old games yet always charging at least $40 for them. I find it sad that of the six games Sega has released, only two have been original. Last time I checked it was the Xbox that had Panzer Dragoon Orca and the PS2 that had Shinobi, new expansions of Sega's classics. Oh yes we are getting Sonic Heroes, but since the game might actually be good, the game is to be released on all platforms.
Capcom promised us exclusive RE. They have since released RE on PS2 (not true sequels, yet, but still). Not that was really their fault (RE 0 sales weren't what they expected). We don't have Megaman X, no plans of getting Onimusha, no devil may cry which are games they are famous for. But Capcom is not nearly as bad as Sega as they have blessed us with VJ.
Namco is the only company I agree with MC on. The company is the best relation Nintendo has IMO. SC 2, the starfox colloboration, and the Tales game are games that everyone MUST have. I'm not crazy about Donkey Konga but somebody must be.
MC, I have to say I didn't get how purple and morality fit together, but Cowboy is right: its all about the image. The gamecube is not so uncool but purple wasn't all that becoming. It did look lame and I don't know a single person with a purple cube even though I know about 20 owners of the cube. What is more if you notice in recent Nintendo ads, Nintendo is pushing the platinum gamecube so even they relized this. Personally, I don't understand why they weren't pushing the black cube earlier.
P.S. it would probably be profitable for Nintendo to sink a couple of dollars on a cool plastic shell for their game system and sell it, than to keep it purple and have it sit on the shelf and call it moral. Argue with that!
Post by: KnowsNothing on December 30, 2003, 12:32:09 PM
I don't want anyone thinking that I support that though. I own a purple gamecube.
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 30, 2003, 12:42:34 PM
Quote
Actually, those were not load times. Yes, they did have the same side effect as loading would, but they weren't load times. I forget the technical details of it exactly, though- ask Shadow Fox if you want to know more about that.
It almost worked like GTA's streaming city. It wouldn't load the whole map at once, it would only load the room you were in. Then the game would detect where you were going and start loading the next section. This worked great for the most part, but sometimes if you'd quickly run accross a room, it didn't have time to load the next section, so you'd have to wait a moment for it to finish loading before the door would open. The doors also masked the fact that there was nothing behind them until the game detected that's where you were going and loaded that area. The elevators though were definately fancy loading screens.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 30, 2003, 12:49:39 PM
Well there's also Super Monkey Ball 2, Beach Spikers and Soccer Slam which I'm pretty sure at the time of release were all Gamecube exclusive. PSO Episode I & II is technically a sequel as well since Episode II is basically PSO 2. At least that's how Sega treats it as. Personally I don't care if Skies of Arcadia is a port because it f*cking rocks!
Oh and as bad as Acclaim, Edios, and Atari are if they never supported the Cube we wouldn't have got Burnout 2, Timesplitters 2 and IKARUGA~ so although they for the most part suck I think having their support for the 1 or 2 good games they release every generation is worth it. While ultimately we don't miss much without them we don't lose anything if the Cube has their support. They're minor losses but losses nonetheless.
Post by: Mario on December 30, 2003, 12:56:02 PM
Post by: odifiend on December 30, 2003, 12:58:46 PM
Eidos, responsible for TS2, i didn't bash. If that game was a monkey it would be... umm... donkey kong, even though he is an ape opposed to a monkey, well you know what i'm saying.
Oh and I completely agree with you that having the minor 3rd party developers is not a bad thing at all.
Post by: Kyosho on December 30, 2003, 12:59:38 PM
Quote
It's impossible to prove indefinitely whether DVD playback or console color really are what's "dragging" Nintendo down, so to speak (really, there's not as much "dragging" as many of you believe), but it's my opinion that they affect sales very little.
MC, this is what I told consumers when I used to work @ EB whenever they asked me which console they should get:
If you want an Xbox, you get DVD playback, an internal hard drive, the latest graphics, a PC in itself, and sports games. You will lack console-ish RPGs and quality 1st/3rd person adventure games. Most of the library is less than stellar. However if you're a sports fan, you will adore the Xbox especially when you play in high definition.
If you want a PS2, you already get an outstanding library from PS1, as well as DVD playback, and a lot of support from many companies hence the vast library of games it already has. The only negative is the hardware is a tad outdated at this time. Buy this system if you want a wide array of game choices and are willing to sacrifice a little bit of hardware.
If you want a Gamecube, you get the Nintendo franchise games, these cute minidiscs, and quality 1st/3rd person adventure games like Zelda and Mario. You will lose out on sports games because Sega is not going to make anymore sports games. The library is smaller so you have less choice to choose. You have the option to hook up your GBA to your Gamecube for certain games via a connector if that game has that option. Buy this system if you like Nintendo's franchise characters or if *you* prefer to have your kid playing games that are presented more colorfully.
Those are the most NEUTRAL viewpoints that I can give. I was absolutely not favoring one side, and I was just simply saying how it is
The outcome: If the mother's kid was less than 12 and was not technical savvy or did not have a rocking home theatre w/ big screen at home, they usually ended up buying the Gamecube. Xbox's were sold most to young adults who were in college or ones that were uninterested in Nintendo's "kiddy" image at that time. The PS2 sold the most simply because people bought it for GTA or liked it when I said "a wide array of games." When it came down to second features such as DVD playback and such, many showed a lack of interest in the Gamecube because it has nothing to offer them outside of gaming. So in essence, Nintendo did not really take a step forward. The PS2 and Xbox both offered something for the ADULT who was buying the system for the kid a little incentive. You see, Sony and Microsoft know how to market it well. Not only is the kid happy, the adult was too.
So as you can see, Cowboy/Ian arent as wrong as you make them out to be.
Post by: odifiend on December 30, 2003, 01:05:07 PM
Post by: Mario on December 30, 2003, 01:05:11 PM
Quote
If you want a Gamecube, you get the Nintendo franchise games, these cute minidiscs, and quality 1st/3rd person adventure games like Zelda and Mario. You will lose out on sports games because Sega is not going to make anymore sports games.
There's still EA sports games... honestly Sega sports games dont sell that well, EA sports games are much more popular, you dont lose out on sports games if you have a GameCube.
Quote
Buy this system if you like Nintendo's franchise characters or if *you* prefer to have your kid playing games that are presented more colorfully.
Or if you like brilliant games? I know i dont buy a game for the franchise, i buy it if it's a good game.
Quote
My bad on forgetting Billy Hatcher too. My brain just implements the defense of forgetting for games that I personally wish didn't exist. I remembered about PSO 3 but felt no need to include as it is not out yet. The main point of my rant a couple posts up is that Sega's huge games (games that sold well or games it and Nintendo pushed) were nothing more than ports. Therefore to go out and buy a Dreamcast for $25 and the games for $10 is a cheaper solution and therefore I feel no gratitude toward Sega.
Well PSO 3 is out in Japan, and it sold pretty well, not amazing, but good enough. Super Monkey Ball, Beach Spikers, Sega Soccer Slam and Billy Hatcher and the soon to be released Sonic Heroes aren't on DC. Neither is F-Zero GX, but im not sure if that counts as a "Sega" game.
Post by: Kyosho on December 30, 2003, 02:16:46 PM
Post by: Mario on December 30, 2003, 02:29:22 PM
Quote
If you want a Gamecube, you get the Nintendo franchise games, these cute minidiscs, and quality 1st/3rd person adventure games like Zelda and Mario. You will lose out on sports games because Sega is not going to make anymore sports games. The library is smaller so you have less choice to choose. You have the option to hook up your GBA to your Gamecube for certain games via a connector if that game has that option. Buy this system if you like Nintendo's franchise characters or if *you* prefer to have your kid playing games that are presented more colorfully.
isn't really putting GameCube in a positive light, why would anyone buy a GameCube after hearing that? How would they have any idea really great games like Animal Crossing, Viewtiful Joe, Super Monkey Ball, Pikmin etc. even exist? I wish people would actually play these games before dismissing them as kiddy crap, oh well. And yes i know how much sports games are sold on GameCube, not nearly as much as PS2 and Xbox, and i also know that EA sports games sell more than Sega sports games, by far.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 30, 2003, 02:55:07 PM
Quote
Last time I checked it was the Xbox that had Panzer Dragoon Orca and the PS2 that had Shinobi, new expansions of Sega's classics.
And last I checked Shenmue 2, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Gun Valkyrieand Jet Set Radio Future all sold horribly on the XBox despite being very good games, and yet Sega continues to support it- makes you wonder what Sega's "motives" are, doesn't it? As for Sega classics, the Gamecube does have the most complete collection of Sonic games on any one system to date- I know that's not exactly the same thing, but you can't say the Cube is completely without classics.
Quote
Oh yes we are getting Sonic Heroes, but since the game might actually be good, the game is to be released on all platforms.
Now that's purely your opinion- personally, I loved Sonic Adventure 1 and 2, and apparently so did the public because both sold very well- I believe SA2 even outsold its Dreamcast counterpart, which is pretty impressive for a port on a supposedly ailing system.
Quote
Capcom promised us exclusive RE. They have since released RE on PS2 (not true sequels, yet, but still). Not that was really their fault (RE 0 sales weren't what they expected). We don't have Megaman X, no plans of getting Onimusha, no devil may cry which are games they are famous for. But Capcom is not nearly as bad as Sega as they have blessed us with VJ.
That's Resident Evil..... exclusive. Is there something you missed about that? Nobody wants to play Gun Survivor, it shouldn't even be considered a RE game! You also forget about Killer 7, Dead Phoenix (it is still coming out), and Gotcha Force.
Quote
MC, I have to say I didn't get how purple and morality fit together, but Cowboy is right: its all about the image. The gamecube is not so uncool but purple wasn't all that becoming. It did look lame and I don't know a single person with a purple cube even though I know about 20 owners of the cube. What is more if you notice in recent Nintendo ads, Nintendo is pushing the platinum gamecube so even they relized this. Personally, I don't understand why they weren't pushing the black cube earlier.
Changing the color and design of their console just so their owners can look cool is not what I want Nintendo doing- read my editorial, because I really don't want to have to repeat that again and again. I know that purple isn't the BEST color to have chosen, I'm just saying it shouldn't be considered a reason for Nintendo's much heard of downfall. I agree that it would have been best for Nintendo to push the black Gamecube and simply offer the purple ones for those who wanted them, but I don't think it's worth crying over that they DIDN'T.
Quote
Oh and as bad as Acclaim, Edios, and Atari are if they never supported the Cube we wouldn't have got Burnout 2, Timesplitters 2 and IKARUGA~ so although they for the most part suck I think having their support for the 1 or 2 good games they release every generation is worth it.
That I agree with, but remember that Acclaim, Eidos, and Atari didn't make Burnout 2, Timesplitters 2, and Ikaruga, respectively, they just published them- the the loss of the publisher doesn't necessarily mean the loss of the developer. Specifically, I believe Free Radical has a new publisher now, and Treasure has such a close relationship with Nintendo I wouldn't be surprised if they were made a future 2nd party. Criterion is the only real loss of the three, although it is a sore loss- Burnout 2 is one of the funnest videogames I've played in a very long time.
Quote
It almost worked like GTA's streaming city. It wouldn't load the whole map at once, it would only load the room you were in. Then the game would detect where you were going and start loading the next section.
I'm pretty sure you're right, but I have heard another reason for that- I'll see if I dig up what I remember reading about it. Keep in mind, though, even GTA had to load between islands- True Crime is a better example, since its city is much larger than either GTA's and streams the entire thing, eliminating any loads whatsoever.
Quote
isn't really putting GameCube in a positive light, why would anyone buy a GameCube after hearing that?
I have to agree with you there, Mario- Kyosho's descriptions don't sound too neutral. Here's what I would have said:
With a PS2 you get DVD playback right out of the box, PSX playback, and a very broad variety of titles that suit almost any need. Specifically RPG's are abundant. Online play is available and supported.
With an XBox you get DVD playback with the purchase of a kit, great graphics, a hard drive (which means no need for memory cards), and a library of PC style games. Online play is available and heavily supported.
With a Gamecube you get great graphics, Nintendo's wordclass games (such as Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc), and the ability to connect to the Gameboy Advance. Online play is available.
Post by: Mario on December 30, 2003, 03:27:39 PM
Quote
And last I checked Shenmue 2, Panzer Dragoon Orta, and Jet Set Radio Future all sold horribly on the XBox, and yet Sega continues to support it- makes you wonder what Sega's "motives" are, doesn't it?
Interesting fact, Sonic Adventure 2 on GC has outsold every single Xbox Sega exclusive combined, hows that for a good lol.
Your descriptions are much more fair mouse clicker. If i was a casual gamer who had no idea what to get, after hearing those descriptions i would be forced to actually check out the exclusive games for each console then make a decision that best suits my gaming needs. Bah, as if a casual gamer would think like that
. It really annoys me how some people buy an Xbox for sports games that are available elsewhere, or buy a PS2 for Tony Hawk or Lord of the Rings. Oh well.
Post by: Kyosho on December 30, 2003, 05:54:10 PM
At the time I was working, Viewtiful Joe was not even close to being out, and Animal Crossing was bought mainly by younger people. Maybe nationwide statistics show EA coming on top on their sports games, but I've had more customers come back saying that EA sports games are worse than their Sega counterparts for certain sports. I've played almost the whole entire GC library while I was working there, so it's not like I didn't know what I was talking about. If people were interested in the Gamecube before they asked me, it was because their friends had SMB or Nintendo-franchise related, so you may rule that assumption out.
THat's not to say I didn't sell GameCubes when people came up and asked me questions. You guys should both work in retail to get the idea of what people are wanting in their systems as well as what types of people buy what instead of basing this on statistics and your own assumptions. Much of the conflicting opinions are also demographic related.
Quote
It really annoys me how some people buy an Xbox for sports games that are available elsewhere, or buy a PS2 for Tony Hawk or Lord of the Rings.
It's because Xbox is THE best system for sports for the adult sports fanatic. The controller is more comfy in their hands, and what else better than playing on their high definition TV via component adaptors? Other systems may also support HD, but none have come as crisp as the Xbox's sports games. The CSR are there to help you choose what is BEST for YOU, not what is the BEST system. The day someone tells me to buy a Gamecube for sports games is the day I quit console gaming.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 30, 2003, 05:58:18 PM
Post by: odifiend on December 30, 2003, 06:21:07 PM
About resident evil I just find it a bad sign that Capcom is searching for ways to get out the exclusive deal. I've already heard that Capcom meant RE 4 exclusive only. Well that is good now, what does that mean for RE 5? Capcom because of lackluster sales has been forced to take back the flagship of their deal with Nintendo. It just looks bad, that's all I was saying. I didn't forget about Killer 7 and I don't know if things have changed (they might have and I missed it) but it seems that Dead Phoenix is on the very downlow right now.
MC: I'm not crying over the color. It's just that you are famous for your line, "you think you can run Nintendo better than Nintendo." The color issue could have been easily spotted and even more easily resolved. Instead it took Nintedo a year to release the Platinum cube and about another year to start selling the cube as platinum as opposed to purple.
Post by: Kyosho on December 30, 2003, 07:56:15 PM
Quote
Unless you're asked bu the customer themselves, you don't list any cons when you're trying to sell something, Kyosho. In addition, you weren't just giving "Factual" statements- you were giving your opinion in some areas and hinting in others. It was not a balanced comparison
Again, you should work in retail. It's better to not have a pissed off customer coming back saying "he didn't tell me this." Like I said before, #1 = inform, #2 = sales. After you inform, then you leave him/her their own decision. Any consequences will be their own fault, not yours. I've seen employees/co-workers get hassled around because they don't inform about cons. There is always a little catch in everything you buy.
Now that I look back, yes I did give an opinion, but it was an opinion built on experience instead of personal preference. That's where a biased opinion and a neutral opinion comes into play. When I had first started, I gave mostly pros for each system. Did it really pay off? No. I've sold more systems giving a full breakdown of each system than just skirting only the good stuff about each system.
And about the color thing, to be quite honest, I would never have bought a Gamecube if it was only available in purple. Thank God for black and platinum. Simply didn't match the furniture, and it's just a very weird color to be seen on a TV stand.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 30, 2003, 07:59:59 PM
Quote
Now that I look back, yes I did give an opinion, but it was an opinion built on experience instead of personal preference. That's where a biased opinion and a neutral opinion comes into play. When I had first started, I gave mostly pros for each system. Did it really pay off? No. I've sold more systems giving a full breakdown of each system than just skirting only the good stuff about each system.
Then I would say this: The PS2 is admittedly weaker, not always that reliable, and has quite a few mediocre games. The XBox can be just as unreliable as the PS2 and will only really appeal to people who like PC style games. The Gamecube will only really appeal to people who like Nintendo's style, whatever that may be, and doesn't have much of a variety beyond that, as well as having almost no online support.
Quote
And about the color thing, to be quite honest, I would never have bought a Gamecube if it was only available in purple. Thank God for black and platinum. Simply didn't match the furniture, and it's just a very weird color to be seen on a TV stand.
That's what I call being shallow- it's pathetic that you would actually refrain from buying a console because it "simply didn't match the furniture"- are you listening to yourself? I can understand buying a black Gamecube over a purple one for this very reason, but to actually not buy a console AT ALL because of such a materialistic reason is one of the saddest things I've ever heard. Kyosho, that has dispelled any respect I had left for your opinion- how the hell can I debate with someone about image when he would rather look cool than enjoy himself? This is over.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on December 30, 2003, 09:16:11 PM
Quote
With a PS2 you get DVD playback right out of the box, PSX playback, and a very broad variety of titles that suit almost any need. Specifically RPG's are abundant.
With an XBox you get DVD playback with the purchase of a kit, great graphics, a hard drive (which means no need for memory cards), and a library of PC style games.
With a Gamecube you get great graphics, Nintendo's wordclass games (such as Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc), and the ability to connect to the Gameboy Advance.
MC, you completely left out online gaming in these descriptions, like it's a total non-factor in anybody's buying decision. You gotta add that in to make these lists completely unbiased. If I was a sports fanatic (for example), the ability to play/not play sports games online would definitely factor in to any console purchase. Same thing with RPGs - someone that loves the Final Fantasy series would find FF Online very tempting (although this isn't the best example since FF fans would likely have the PS2 already, but you get the point).
Also, I think the Gamecube color issue was huge. It left a really bad first impression. The public was waiting for something really slick-looking, and instead they get this off-the-wall purple lunchbox. Personally I didn't care (I'll always buy a Nintendo console regardless) but I'm certain most people were like, WTF?!?! The whole purple thing gave those that regard Nintendo as "kiddie" even more ammunition, and made it easier for a lot of people to go with the incumbent PS2 strictly on aesthetics alone (whether it's shallow or not, it happens).
The bottom line is that a purple Gamecube looks like a toy for kids, while a PS2 looks like a stereo component and therefore a toy for adults. The XBox is just fugly, and yet it still looks better in a stereo rack than the Gamecube. You can't discount aesthetics - the GameBoy Advance SP has proven that (why do you think it got write-ups in moronic magazines like Maxim and FHM? Because it looks cool). The average gamer is now 29 years of age (link), and 29-year-old gamers want cool-looking equipment. They don't want stuff that looks like a Fisher-Price toy.
silks
Post by: DrZoidberg on December 30, 2003, 09:22:16 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 30, 2003, 09:49:14 PM
Quote
MC, you completely left out online gaming in these descriptions, like it's a total non-factor in anybody's buying decision.
Honestly, that was a mistake- I'm REALLY sorry about that.
Online play should go under advantages for PS2 and XBox and disadvantages for Gamecube. Seriously, I was so bent on the games I forgot that. I edited my posts to include it.As for image, I am NOT saying the purple Gamecube was the RIGHT move- stop assuming! I was simply saying that it's not THAT big of a deal- the only person I've met so far that would actually refrain from buying a Gamecube if it were only offered in purple is Kyosho, and that should go a long way towards discrediting anything he's said. Yes, Nintendo should have pushed the black Gamecube from the beginning. No, it was not that big of a deal.
Quote
The average gamer is now 29 years of age (link), and 29-year-old gamers want cool-looking equipment. They don't want stuff that looks like a Fisher-Price toy.
Obviously they're insecure- people shouldn't care what their equipment looks like- it's quite ironic that a 15 year old boy, essentially, is telling you this. I understand the whole matching thing, but the world won't end if everything isn't the same monotone color.
Post by: Kyosho on December 30, 2003, 10:09:18 PM
Quote
Then I would say this: The PS2 is admittedly weaker, not always that reliable, and has quite a few mediocre games. The XBox can be just as unreliable as the PS2 and will only really appeal to people who like PC style games. The Gamecube will only really appeal to people who like Nintendo's style, whatever that may be, and doesn't have much of a variety beyond that, as well as having almost no online support.
That is perfectly acceptable. Seriously, Mouse, get a retail job @ a video game store. That will clue you in as to what I'm talking about. For now, you're just trying to defend yourself using hypothetical logic.
Quote
Obviously they're insecure- people shouldn't care what their equipment looks like- it's quite ironic that a 15 year old boy, essentially, is telling you this. I understand the whole matching thing, but the world won't end if everything isn't the same monotone color
it's not ironic at all. If anything, this just shows how ignorant some people are. This is where age is a factor. As you grow older, you will see that there are reasons for multi-toned colors in furniture. You will see what happens when something does not match. Maybe for you, it's a TOY, but for me it's a TOY and a piece of furniture that I set next to my TV. If only one is satisfied, then it's not worth it for my earned $$$ to be spent on it. It's easier to say "it's purple who cares" when your parents buy it for you. You never see someone with a beige desk, rosewood drawer, and black bookshelves unless they have severe bad taste.
I guess this thought has never occurred to you... why would Sony and Microsoft make the color of their consoles black and not puce or green? Just think about that for a second.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 30, 2003, 10:56:37 PM
Post by: weyoun6 on December 31, 2003, 12:05:02 AM
Many of my friends like Nintendo games, which is why I got one. However, most people are not like me. The casual gamer - when making a purchase, does not research online to see which has the best games, or most beloved following.
The casual gamer (the people who buy 98% of all games out there) goes by word of mouth, what they see, and what the salesman tells them. When the casual gamer steps into his/her local gaming store, the first thing they will notice is the style of the console (yes, style does matter, otherwise cell phones would not be replaced by teenages every year, and the list will continue on in the reasons) The second thing they will see is the quality of graphics - You see things like "gameplay" and "quality" do not come out of a few minutes with a system. "Gameplay" does not sell. The last thing before the store rep comes up to bug them, is the vast shelves of games for the xbox and ps2, whilst the gamecube is stuck in the deep corner. If they see a gamecube at all - first impression (which does matter) will be
1. Not many games
2. It's purple
3. its cheap.
Now, the majority of people are not die hard gamers, the just simply want to have some fun after working, or to bring some friends over to play games. What do you think that person will do when confronted with this situation? Of cource they will go for the flash, most people do not have the time to burn to be come knowlegable about gaming. All they want is a diversion. so they buy the PS2 or Xbox, because their friends have them, and they look better than that thing in the corner that looks like a giant lego block with a handle.
If they do any research at all, they'll see that most reviews of multi system games , the gamecube is last as to which is the "better version" And unfortunatly to the people who love nintendo games, like my self, being 3rd place does not help to be inspired for the future. Most of the games on the cube are quite excellent. but they are not revolutionary. To be successful - they need to be stunning - to make a statement. People need to say - I WANT that! when they see it. And thats just not the gamecube.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 31, 2003, 12:48:40 AM
Post by: skyline on December 31, 2003, 02:09:48 AM
One more thing: Quality does portray a lot about image. If you make a purple plastic console that appears low in quality, it will severely hurt your image, no matter how high quality your games are.
Post by: odifiend on December 31, 2003, 03:51:59 AM
Re: RE, you said it yourself compared to the PSX sales they were nothing. In fact were did you get the # 800k because I really doubt it. Most people in Japan refused to buy it because they already played it and you should know about Nintendo's success with the older crowd in North America. Give me a URL.
Post by: BigJim on December 31, 2003, 05:55:42 AM
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-965830.html
"Analysts estimate that building the global network for Xbox Live will account for at least a quarter of the $2 billion Microsoft has said it intends to spend to establish its video game console."
It's a long-term expense plan, but they obviously don't expect to ever break even, much less make a profit, because even if there were 10 million Xbox Live users, it'd still take 50 years worth of subscriptions to break even without some other kind of revenue generated from it.
So it's not profitable. If these numbers don't make it obvious, absolutely nothing would convince 'em.
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 31, 2003, 06:00:43 AM
Post by: Cowboy Bebop on December 31, 2003, 06:53:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: BigJim
Late to add this, but:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-965830.html
"Analysts estimate that building the global network for Xbox Live will account for at least a quarter of the $2 billion Microsoft has said it intends to spend to establish its video game console."
It's a long-term expense plan, but they obviously don't expect to ever break even, much less make a profit, because even if there were 10 million Xbox Live users, it'd still take 50 years worth of subscriptions to break even without some other kind of revenue generated from it.
So it's not profitable. If these numbers don't make it obvious, absolutely nothing would convince 'em.
Nice link BigJim. I guess I was wrong, Microsoft is losing money on Xbox live. Your math is wrong though. It would take one year of Ten Million Xbox live users to break even, ten years at one million users, and 20 years at the current 500 thousand subscriber level.
That 500 million probably also includes advertising and incentives to developers to include live support. The costs are spread over 5 years. Also, the majority of the costs are a one time fee. A fee that will have to be paid at one time or another by anyone entering the on-line market. This generation or next. They're also building their own proprietary network, instead of using the existing infrastructure. Which is more expensive then Sony's approach. It also doesn't necessarily prove on-line is unprofitable. It just shows Microsoft's on-line plan is unprofitable. Microsoft's plans for the Xbox as a whole are unprofitable, so your argument would state that all games consoles are unprofitable.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 31, 2003, 07:47:49 AM
The XBox will be taken from the market once Microsoft lost too much to Linux. They're constantly losing customers and when opensource manages to become a major player, MS can no longer afford lossy operations like the Box.
Post by: BigJim on December 31, 2003, 07:51:23 AM
Anyway, the article says "building the global network" which on the surface doesn't imply developer incentives and the like, but it's possible. They're going the most expensive route because they want to own the product and service start to finish. (i.e. lock players in as best they can.)Certainly there are cheaper ways to do it, but if Nintendo says the scale still doesn't tip in the favor of sound business *right now*, I won't disagree with them. None of us can fairly do that. It stands to reason they'd put down online gaming while they don't have a ready-made product, so there is a smokescreen there as well.
They've acknowledged that online will come, but they're apparently going to wait for the planets to allign with their platform(s). Doing it now is too late for GameCube. Doing it sooner would have been too costly for the payoff. With only a 5% and 7% online penetration for Xbox and PS2 respectively, they're still a minority, so while we online-ready folks are going apesh!t for it, there's still plenty of time for demand to build.
Post by: DrZoidberg on December 31, 2003, 08:14:56 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 31, 2003, 08:27:03 AM
Quote
MC: what the hell are you talking about SMS didn't sell well? It just didn't meet Nintendo's expectations for a Mario title
That's what I meant- it didn't sell as well as Nintendo's expectations, which it probably should have.
Quote
Mouse, as I said before you and I may find it wrong (sorry Kyosho) that someone wouldn't buy a console because of it's color and shape, but that doesn't mean people don't. It's a reality. "Shouldn't" does not equal "Don't".
I know some people DO do that, I'm just saying I don't want Nintendo changing everything simply to appeal to THEM. If they want to buy a Gamecube in the end, that's great, but Nintendo should target the people who want the games first and foremost. Really, read my editorial because I'm just repeating stuff I've said there. I've given you 2 links.
Post by: Kyosho on December 31, 2003, 09:02:10 AM
Quote
hows about don't assume all 20+ people are the same too, i'm 18 now, soon to be 19, and i doubt the amount of worth i put into the colour of something will change over those 2-3 years when i'm 21-22 or what ever, it's just moronic.
Look at the first year of high school and compare it to your last year of high school. Do the same thing in college but multiply it by a tonfold. Maybe your choice of color doesn't change, but you will see many opinions change.
Quote
I know some people DO do that, I'm just saying I don't want Nintendo changing everything simply to appeal to THEM. If they want to buy a Gamecube in the end, that's great, but Nintendo should target the people who want the games first and foremost. Really, read my editorial because I'm just repeating stuff I've said there. I've given you 2 links.
You really are stubborn and ignorant MC. MOST of you probably were never hesitant because you guys are die-hard fans who never lived through Nintendo's lifespan. I was pretty hesitant to buy the Gamecube after N64s flop, so I fell into the casual console gamer category. Color sure was deterring people including me away. Not just that, again you want Nintendo to target *you* not everybody. Again, this just goes to show you that there are ALL kinds of Nintendo gamers out there. Ones who have blind faith and are stubborn, and ones who are still fans but notice flaws in a supergiant.
Post by: SSJ Shake on December 31, 2003, 09:23:55 AM
Now as for online gaming, it's NOT profitable! XBOX LIVE has wasted million, but that's because it's multi-billionaire company Micorsoft. PS2 has online because it don't spend as much money, it's online games are managed by the gaming companies that made those games. The only reason those gaming companies don't do the same for Nintendo, the way I see it, is because Gamecube isn't a financially stable gaming system like PS2 is. Online gaming must be switched to internet access via your ISP in your PC. This will save money, and therefore get a lot of more people to join. I won't join an online gameing system if it costs money to play. That's ridiculous. I think Nintendo's next system can handle online capablilty, but for now, Nintendo is trying to balance itself far to much from bankruptcy to waste money on unprofitable online gaming. BTW, I own a PS2 Online Gaming Package, and liek ti very much. Only problem, I need broadband to hook it up. x_x In the end, online gaming is a must for Gamecube 2 to succed. I know, XBOX only has half a million subscribers, but just the idea of online gaming, whether you use it or not, excites people enough to buy that system over Gamecube.
I think it's time for some new games for GBA and some old-school platformers for Gamecube. I'm sick of no new games for GBA, only re-released Nintendo games for it. And Gamecube needs a new Mario platformer-as in SMB 3 style. The new Mario is Ok, but it's no that great. And Mario Sunshine is a repeat of Mario 64. It's still fun though. And all E-reader crap must be destroyed if it's necessary for a game like SMA 4: SMB 3 to have eveything included.
Also, if Nintendo hopes to succeed, they need more M-rated games for the drewling masses. I don't particularly buy a whole bunch of violent games, though most gamers in America do. I'm not that big for them, but I do like one or two of those games every once and a while. They REALLY need to release more adult games to cure their baby look. I really don't think they should have do, but what choice exists? And they better do it soon. The President of Nintendo said when they stop makign consoles, they stop making games. They will never be a third-party game developer. You hope they shape up soon. You see, I own a PS2 for American like games, and a Gamecube for Nintendo developed games. Nintendo needs to find that middle ground, and fast.
Sorry if I pissed anyone off, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Post by: mouse_clicker on December 31, 2003, 10:09:09 AM
Post by: ib2kool4u912 on December 31, 2003, 10:38:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: SSJ Shake
This guy got the grades down right, except I have NO idea why sports games was a topic, or why it got the most writing on it. I'm sorry, but sports games suck! I don't understand y u'd play them. Just go outside and play, besides I view the game play and mechanics in sports games horrible. It's easier for me to play football outside then play it on my N64. Now, although I haven't played many sports games, barring racers and skateboarding, I guess my assumption is kinda assumed. But, whether or not sports games are great or not, I have no f'ing idea y they would be classified as an important topic.
Sports games were a topic because their are many people who only play sports games on their console. Just because you don't care for them don't mean other people don't. The point was to show that people buying a console for sport games won't (and shouldn't) even consider a Gamecube. Aside from not having Sega sports games, you would have to buy like 15 memory cards to play a couple sport games.
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 31, 2003, 11:00:51 AM
Quote
I don't understand y u'd play them. Just go outside and play,
Amen to that, brutha.
But people do buy them. Go figure.
Post by: nolimit19 on December 31, 2003, 11:24:50 AM
edit: sports games are super fun. its hard to find 22 guys to play football.....plus you can get hurt. why play shooting games when you can go paintballing. same difference as far as im concerned.
Post by: Kyosho on December 31, 2003, 11:34:39 AM
Quote
I just don't want Nintendo changing themselves to appeal to the people who value image over quality, like Kyosho here
It's called adaptation. You can spread your resources to adapt to people's taste instead of changing the company entirely. What that means is they can still address your concerns and also address casual gamers' concern as well. It should not be one or the other. It should be BOTH. If you've poured your heart into this, you would have had the heart to see that, instead of declaring your opinion backed by skewed factual evidence is the right and just one.
As for sports, if you don't have an intramural team for let's say Football, it is hard to get 12-24 players to come play with you. Basketball you can play in pickup games, but football there seldom are pickup games. Same goes with baseball. Golf needs a lot of money to start. Skateboarding can be done by people who have patience and do not fear falling on asphalt as well as being agile and light. Snowboarding, same thing. The purpose of a video game (sports inclusive) is to mimic real life or excite a person's passion where they don't have to commit costs and their safety.
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 31, 2003, 12:09:14 PM
Quote
It's called adaptation. You can spread your resources to adapt to people's taste instead of changing the company entirely. What that means is they can still address your concerns and also address casual gamers' concern as well. It should not be one or the other. It should be BOTH. If you've poured your heart into this, you would have had the heart to see that, instead of declaring your opinion backed by skewed factual evidence is the right and just one.
Y'know, this is exactly what Nintendo is striving to do right now, and I think it's also the basis of MC's argument. So this is all pointless.
Post by: skyline on December 31, 2003, 12:18:14 PM
By the way MC, you leaving the thread reaffirms a lot about the different "mindset" I was talking about, which of course is associated with age. No need to get upset about something you can't control.
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 31, 2003, 12:24:45 PM
Quote
By the way MC, you leaving the thread reaffirms a lot about the different "mindset" I was talking about, which of course is associated with age. No need to get upset about something you can't control.
You should be shot in the head. Should be twice, but the two bullets would cost more than you're worth. That was completely unnecessary.
You may want to note that Grey Ninja and mouse clicker were arguing basically the same thing, and Grey Ninja is about ten years older than MC. How old are you? Sixteen? Nineteen? I don't really care, actually, because your opinion is crap either way.
Post by: Kyosho on December 31, 2003, 12:50:51 PM
Post by: skyline on December 31, 2003, 01:12:15 PM
Hostile, you are also quite the idiot as well. Adaptation and catering to the casual gamer are NOT the basis of MC's arguments. MC was arguing that Nintendo should not change, that it should do whatever it wants as long as it is profitable. Of course, due to your short attention span you failed to read the rest of my post that Nintendo posted its first ever loss. It's not profitable anymore, so all of MC's arguments are invalid from the start. You should really stop arguing for MC. You lack the brainpower and maturity anyway to formulate any kind of reasonable argument and are wasting people's time here.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on December 31, 2003, 02:08:31 PM
So far this thread has established that:
- Microsoft is losing money on XBox Live, but whether or not online gaming is profitable or not is still up in the air (depending on implementation)
- a lot of people hate mouse_clicker
- mouse_clicker is incredibly proud of his editorial and wants everybody to read it
- Grey Ninja hates this site
- a lot of people care about what a game console looks like, and that's OK (as shallow as some may think it is)
- if you mention that you're 15 years old in a thread dominated by 20 and 30-somethings, your opinion is pretty much disregarded due to perceived inexperience/naivete/ignorance (especially if they think you're obnoxious)
- Nintendo needs to cater to the hardcore Nintendophile, casual gamers and sports gamers all at the same time
- people on this forum are ridiculously passionate about Nintendo consoles
- this thread may have set a record for number of replies
Did I miss anything? hahaha
silks
Post by: CaseyRyback on December 31, 2003, 08:25:35 PM
also Sony and Microsoft make a killing money wise online. there are not too many MMO's that these companies did not have their hands in. 500,000 subscribers was a long time ago and when you figure probably 20 percent of live players have broadband thats a pretty big number.
I am sure a Zelda MMO would more than pay for most of the development of other online ventures
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on December 31, 2003, 09:04:49 PM
Some of you cite Konami as one of the third-parties brought back into the fold in the GameCube era. Please tell me some of the great Konami titles released on GameCube so far. Same for Sega. I'll give you Namco and Square.
Sports titles is a scoring category because it's critically important in a console's success. Look at the top ten selling games of any given year if you don't believe me. I too am completely uninterested in these games, but they are sooooooooooooooo important to casual gamers, much moreso than platformers or shooters or fighting games or any other genre. That's why I singled them out.
Post by: DrZoidberg on December 31, 2003, 09:08:28 PM
Quotemeans what exactly on a video game forum? clownboat. unless the discussion of video games and their respective companies requires extensive biochemistry knowledge, in that case i better catch the next pimp-mobile out of here chump.
I have a Masters degree in Biochemistry whereas you have still yet to get a high school diploma
Quoteleft the thread/arguement actually, why leave an entire forum because some non-regular skullmonkies disagree with you, :moronface:
MC left the forum
Quoteinterweb drama is -fun-
hahaha now THIS is a thread. People telling other people they should be shot in the head, people telling other people that the entire state of Louisiana is a piece of s**t, man this is great. And all over video games too. Jonny really should have charged money for the amount of entertainment this thread has given me.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 01, 2004, 12:16:48 AM
The US has a high broadband uptake ratio, but other areas of the world are less saturated with broadband. To effectively sell online gaming you need to include narrowband. Many PC gamers play online via dialup, they could never play things like XBox Live. Nintendo might offer this, Microsoft never will. MS has the philosophy that anybody needs to have unmetered broadband and who doesn't is a primitive caveman and is to be ignored. That's where N could make some ground.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on January 01, 2004, 01:01:13 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on January 01, 2004, 06:49:36 AM
Quote
Some of you cite Konami as one of the third-parties brought back into the fold in the GameCube era. Please tell me some of the great Konami titles released on GameCube so far. Same for Sega.
I just HAD to point this out, since I can't believe Johnny missed it- the simple fact that Sega made an F-Zero game, both for the arcade and Gamecube, and the fact that Konami is letting Silicon Knights, a Nintendo 2nd party, remake one of its best games ever, is reason enough to believe that Nintendo has very good relations with both these companies and will get some great support from them in the future.
Quote
If you truly feel what you've said is accurate, you would not totally abandon your defense.
I've "totally" abandoned (well, after this post) this thread because it is going nowhere. You cannot honestly tell me that you are any closer to believing me or I am any closer to believing you since the beginning of the thread. It's called knowing when to give up. Maybe Hostile's been a little harsh, but he's speaking the truth.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on January 01, 2004, 06:55:15 AM
Quote
Nintendo knows online will become important and George Harrison (or whatever his name was) stated the N5 will natively support online.
When was this said? I've heard Nintendo say that they are working on some way to play online for free (whether or not they were talking about Gamecube LAN stuff I dunno) but I've never heard them say N5 will natively support online. Gimme a URL if you got it. (BTW - by "natively" I'm meaning "it will be built-in like XBox"...if you're just saying that it will support online in some capacity then forget I asked).
Quote
MS has the philosophy that anybody needs to have unmetered broadband and who doesn't is a primitive caveman and is to be ignored. That's where N could make some ground.
Agreed, but I think Microsoft just wants its users to have the best online experience possible. In their mind I guess you can't have that with narrowband, which you can't necessarily disagree with. But I certainly don't think that not having narrowband support is the best worldwide strategy for exactly the reasons you mentioned (but what do you expect, MS is a US company so their whole viewpoint is biased towards the US). Nintendo will definitely support narrowband because they can then sell online gaming to everybody everywhere.
silks
Post by: ib2kool4u912 on January 01, 2004, 07:35:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuote
Some of you cite Konami as one of the third-parties brought back into the fold in the GameCube era. Please tell me some of the great Konami titles released on GameCube so far. Same for Sega.
I just HAD to point this out, since I can't believe Johnny missed it- the simple fact that Sega made an F-Zero game, both for the arcade and Gamecube, and the fact that Konami is letting Silicon Knights, a Nintendo 2nd party, remake one of its best games ever, is reason enough to believe that Nintendo has very good relations with both these companies and will get some great support from them in the future.
I just want to say that i don't think that because Konami is letting Sk remake MGS it means the two companies are having better relations. I don't really know anything about so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Konami will make money on this while SK does all the work. Even if i hated someone i would definitely let them make me free money. If the Konami really did like Nintendo then why wasn't MGS2 Substance ported Gamecube as well as Xbox, and how come there are no other Konami games on Gamecube (aside from some disney sport things)? I'm not saying that Konami and Nintendo don't have good relations, I don't know if they do, I'm just saying nothing so far has shown it.
Post by: nolimit19 on January 01, 2004, 09:01:50 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on January 01, 2004, 01:33:15 PM
Spare me your educational background and the fact that you're a whopping six years older than me (y'know, if you're 23, I should be able to tell that you are). My efforts here were never to make anyway take me seriously; far from it. I would appreciate it, however, if you would not make assumptions about me, especially my upbringing, as I've probably had a better one than anyone else at this board (assumption, but trying to make a point
). The point I was trying to make this thread? Being older only means you'll die sooner. Nothing else. Skyline here has done a fine job of proving my point. Now I leave before one of you fools gets me to ban myself.
Post by: odifiend on January 01, 2004, 02:09:59 PM
P.S. don't even get me started about freak gerbil accidents.
Post by: Hostile Creation on January 01, 2004, 02:23:48 PM
Post by: StevePitman on January 01, 2004, 02:32:50 PM
Quote
You've finished Mario Kart in 30 minutes? That's about 20 seconds per track And it has huge graphical improvments over it's N64 incarnation, mainly the replacment of sprite with 3D models (on the carts, items etc.)
So you are saying that Mario Kart has 90 tracks??? not even close... Mario Kart is a nice game but as usual it doesn't have a lot to offer. Need for Speed Underground has 111 races in the underground mode alone!
Post by: nolimit19 on January 01, 2004, 02:40:59 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on January 01, 2004, 02:55:32 PM
Quote
So you are saying that Mario Kart has 90 tracks??? not even close... Mario Kart is a nice game but as usual it doesn't have a lot to offer. Need for Speed Underground has 111 races in the underground mode alone!
And they're all virtually the same.
I think it's funny. . . in that game, they make the screen blur and shake to make it seem like you're going faster
Post by: Ocarina Blue on January 01, 2004, 04:18:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: StevePitman
So you are saying that Mario Kart has 90 tracks??? not even close... Mario Kart is a nice game but as usual it doesn't have a lot to offer. Need for Speed Underground has 111 races in the underground mode alone!
Four cups * Four tracks each = 16 tracks. 16 tracks + all cups mode = 32 tracks. 32 tracks * 4 levels of difficulty = 128 races needed to finish the game. 30 minutes / 128 = something more like 15 seconds per track, I did the original arithmatic hastily, so it was a bit off, sorry. And that's only if you manage to win every GP you enter the first time, ignore the battle mode and don't care to check out any of the carts/characters you earn. I've replayed lots of th GP's with friends because it's just so fun to play.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 01, 2004, 11:09:22 PM
Quote
But having said that, we know that consumers continue to be interested in online gaming, and we know that it has to be a component of our next system. We're thinking about how we can fit it in, what kind of partners we would need, and so on.
I read that as "online from the start", probably didn't remember that right. But at least they go online.
Post by: vudu on January 02, 2004, 07:12:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: SilksI love how Nintendo shies away from online gaming because it "isn't profitable", and yet finds the cash to R&D and release ... ROB the Robot .... I'm sure [this] hardware gold made Nintendo a TON of money.
*ehem*
Post by: SSJ Shake on January 02, 2004, 07:34:56 AM
P.S. I'm not a nerd, I'm just trying to make a point that real intelligence doesn't count much on video games discussions. And I'm sorry for never introduced myself. I'm Tom from Chicagoland area of -augh- Indiana. I own a NES, N64, GB, GBP, GBC, GBA, PS2, and GCN. My older sis owns a SNES and PSX (among systems I own), which I play the RPG's on them from time 2 time. And I HATE XBOX and Bill Gates is the Antichrist.
Post by: Kyosho on January 02, 2004, 08:12:48 AM
Just for the record, I've owned Atari, NES, SNES, N64, DC, PS2, GB, GBA, and the Cube. Never was interested in the Xbox because I have a PC that can do better. I still play PS2 the most of all my systems. I traded in my n64 for the cube and haven't regret it yet.
Post by: Retroyoshi on January 02, 2004, 08:58:51 AM
The N64 doubled it's weekly sales after the "funtastic" colorful consoles. Granted, that has a lot to do with the imac "clear dishsoap colors" trend- but they didn't blend very well with home theatres and whatnot.
I really, seriously doubt the color scheme had much to do at all with the Cube's sales (as compared to the PS2). Remember, there was black at launch- and purple cubes might have actually given them an additional audience (My girlfriend thinks the purple cube is really cute and much less intimidating than the PS2). Heck, on launch day there *WAS* a couple of girls in line with me.
Incidently, I own the purple one and am quite happy with the color. Black is such a dull color. Incidently, I'm 24 and a professional. I personally hope nintendo keeps it's "different" approach and tries to stay out of the mainstream a bit. I mean, afterall- if the games all look and play the same on all of the different consoles why would anyone choose Nintendo over the others. A minority marketshare is still a marketshare, remember. Niches still need catered to- no matter how big the mainstream grows.
Classical music is still popular with a crowd (and still makes it's money and has it's superstars) even though Brittney Spears Pop and Limp Bizcut and 50 Cent are all the rage right now. Heck, I'm pretty sure classical will outlive Limp Bizcut in the long run. It's a minority market that isn't going away anytime soon.
Post by: vudu on January 02, 2004, 10:01:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: SSJ Shake
And no Rainbow Track? That's a mainstay. Then again, I've only beat 2 Grand Prix.
keep playing. rainbow road is the final track in special cup. you have to finish star cup in 100cc before you unlock it. so much for beating the game in 30 minutes.
Post by: vudu on January 02, 2004, 10:03:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-R
PROTIP: Use proper paragraph breaks and people are more likely to read your posts
thank you, super. i've had to skip every single one of skyline's posts because they hurt my head. apparently he was too busy getting his master's to learn how to start a new paragraph.
Post by: Hostile Creation on January 02, 2004, 10:07:59 AM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on January 02, 2004, 08:15:59 PM
But I'm still waiting for the Konami games. Even on N64, Konami had the two Castlevanias, ISS Soccer games, big head baseball, two Goemon titles, and several lesser titles like Hybrid Heaven. The only thing I can think of that they have done on GameCube is a big head baseball game in Japan only, and a couple of Disney Sports games that no one cares about. I'm looking forward to Twin Snakes, but it is still a ways off (I'm not holding my breath for March), and it's not exactly a new game, and it's just one Konami title after more than two years of the system being out. It may not seem like such a big deal to us, but Konami is the largest Japanese publisher and carries a LOT of weight over there. They are pretty big in America and Europe too, especially with the soccer games and Castlevania and Metal Gear. The fact that they have so poorly supported GameCube is a lot more distressing to me than publishers like Acclaim and Eidos throwing around insults and pulling support that they'll just give back after they see holiday hardware sales. Midway and Atari are bigger losses, but both of them still have some support for the system and could be won back.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 02, 2004, 08:54:57 PM
BTW, why does nobody complain about the NfS series not adding anything major every release? My friend even claimed there was more new stuff in each NfS title than in MKDD!
Post by: Yagee on January 03, 2004, 03:31:19 PM
Over here there is no such run on the XBOX. And I would never ever buy this crap. You can buy PS2 and articles for it in every small store or super market. But for XBOX and Gamecube you'll need to go to certain shops to get your money off. It's no problem to get BBA. And I would like to see online support in games. Just imagine what Mario Kart could have been. It could have been the killer game for online gaming on GameCube (together with F-Zero
). It's a real lack it's not in there. It's also sad and true that the 3rd party support isn't big or perfect. EA's having a exclusive deal with Sony in fields of online gaming. I won't buy castrated games so EA's must get enough money from sony since they won't get it from me and a "few" others.In my opinion not the online functionality should be profitable. I don't like the aspect of paying endlessly for a game even it makes fun to play. It should be instead one MORE feature of the game to push sales numbers - and that is where the profit may come from.
Since SNES CD-Rom extension (they advertised it here at launch of SNES to come), and the N64 DD (thank god this crap didn't made it to Europe) I simply don't believe ANY promise held by Nintendo. If it's not in or available at start it would not be broadly supported.
As far a "connectivity" to GBA concerns. This has yet to be shown it's usefull. All features yet implemented in the game only get unlocked (NES version in Metroid Prime for instance) or is rather useless (Zeldas Twinky Dinky Winky monitor). It's just to make profit - and that a side of Nintendo I don't like to see.
I have not much time left on playing Zelda to the end. I just have Metroid. These both made me buy that console (and a 20% discount
). When I'm short in time and a friend of mine is here I'd like to play Super Monkey Ball too. It's great fun.But then? The Gamecube is the first Nintendo Console I'd like to buy a lots of games for. But just that game perls. After F-Zero (when it's players choice) it's get empty on my wishlist and on the horizon there aren't really big blockbusters to come.
Anyway I'am happy with my decision to buy the GC but I definitivly like to have more online games available.
As for sports. Since here in Germany real football is more important than american football and baseball I'm happy to choose between Pro Evolution Soccer and FIFA Football. Wait that's from EA and EA is evil. I'm happy to choose between Pro Evolution Soccer - I mean to buy it or not
!
Post by: Yagee on January 03, 2004, 05:03:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Yagee
As for sports. Since here in Germany real football is more important than american football and baseball I'm happy to choose between Pro Evolution Soccer and FIFA Football. Wait that's from EA and EA is evil. I'm happy to choose between Pro Evolution Soccer - I mean to buy it or not
OK Pro Evolution Soccer is not really a GameCube game (yet). Let's take that less brilliant ISS out of the pocket and let me finally say: Football is not so important at all.
By the way:
My GameCube is purple it's been described as cute all the time (by me and my wife
)I don't have a problem with small game discs. It's a matter of technique - really.
This will be my last posting - before my wife killed me because I must be some kind of nerd reading this HUGE thread over hours (it's 5 o'clock). What a death!
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on January 03, 2004, 07:00:08 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 03, 2004, 10:47:43 PM
BBA availability doesn't seem to be as good as you suggest, on the NoE forums everybody complains about them not being available anywhere...
Post by: NWR_Lindy on January 04, 2004, 07:53:29 AM
My opinion still remains the same - Nintendo has wasted money on products that were a lot less worthwhile than online gaming.
silks
Post by: Radical on January 05, 2004, 10:28:25 PM
Your ratings listed; my comments under.
System Sales: B-
Excuse me. GCN is selling only with the huge price drops. PS2 is kicking both XBX and GCN ass.
Exclusive Games: B
Its not because exclusives are rated E. Its because they suck/dont have mass appeal. I bring up 3 games. (i own all 3 & regret)
SF:A ; they turned it into a collect a thon. The game used to be wicked with shooting spaceships and other cool stuff. Collect-a-thon gameplay is boring. Should of been like space games where you buy upgrades for your ship and take merc missions. SF *IS* a merc after all.
SMS: game lost the sm64 charm. nice attempt but did it have to be so.. fruity? (at some points?) And after the Luigi in SM64 fiasco, how come they didnt throw in something for the fans? Way to diss hardcore fanbase.
Zelda: Was cool at SW2k. Im not here to judge the celshaded, but if everyone thought it was cool at SW2k, why fix it? Z:WW with non-cel could of DOUBLED gcn sales.
Third-party Support: C
Because GCN isn't a pc- this is a good thing but when it comes time to port stuff, its bad.
Sports Games: D
I dont think the GCN is for sports. Everyone has sports; madden etc. on GCN is fine.
Technical Prowess: A
Wow, it has good ability, but where are the games?
Connectivity: F
This is a BIG deal. GCN is the ONLY system with practically no online (and "warppipe" is NOT online, you cant credit nintendo for it as it is done purely by the fanbase.)
Public Image: D
"Why the hell would you buy a GCN anyway? The games suck ass."
The above is what everyone has in their mind. This is why GCN sales lag. The key for nintendo is to offer QUALITY exclusives that people NEED gcn for. Then with the low price EVERYONE will have a gcn on the side.
Overall: C
Screw GBA connectivity. GCN really needs online, better exclusive games with the focus on appeal to "mature" gamers (sad but true. I mean, business is business, and nintendo should drop the "fruity" stuff in favor of more money and sales. This does not mean that gameplay needs a setback.)
It doesn't need the colors. It really needs to go out there and establish dominance by giving the public something from the GCN they cant get anywhere else. My bet is nintendo EASILY has enough exclusives, that given the ads and hyped-graphics, will multiply sales.
Post by: DrZoidberg on January 05, 2004, 11:10:06 PM
Quote
Third-party Support: C
Because GCN isn't a pc- this is a good thing but when it comes time to port stuff, its bad.
Sports Games: D
I dont think the GCN is for sports. Everyone has sports; madden etc. on GCN is fine.
fail'd @ english school.
Quote
Technical Prowess: A
Wow, it has good ability, but where are the games?
why in my DVD rack ofcourse
Quote
Public Image: D
"Why the hell would you buy a GCN anyway? The games suck ass."
The above is what everyone has in their mind. This is why GCN sales lag. The key for nintendo is to offer QUALITY exclusives that people NEED gcn for. Then with the low price EVERYONE will have a gcn on the side.
yet xbox, with relativly equal sales, doesn't suck eh? oh
Quote
Connectivity: F
This is a BIG deal. GCN is the ONLY system with practically no online (and "warppipe" is NOT online, you cant credit nintendo for it as it is done purely by the fanbase.)
fail'd @ relevance school.
Quote
Overall: C
Screw GBA connectivity. GCN really needs online, better exclusive games with the focus on appeal to "mature" gamers (sad but true. I mean, business is business, and nintendo should drop the "fruity" stuff in favor of more money and sales. This does not mean that gameplay needs a setback.)
why not have BOTH connectivity AND online?
(not that i really care for online, just make the titles with online and release the server side software for people to host their own servers)thanks for reviving the interweb drama thread, i thought it was going to die
Post by: odifiend on January 06, 2004, 09:31:23 AM
Radical I don't agree with all your ideas but I have to agree with Zelda @ SW2k. People who branded Nintendo as kiddie were going to buy GCN for this alone. Wind Waker was alright but it was no system seller. To yours and my dismay, I think Nintendo canned Zelda because the dark themes started on the N64 would be made darker and they might have to bump the Zelda series to Teen ruining Miyamoto's (maker of Zelda) vision for the entire series. You have to admit though that the Great Fairies, the Skulltulas and the Redeads, rendered any better than they were, might traumatize some kids.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on January 06, 2004, 01:26:48 PM
I don't see why Nintendo can't make a mature-themed action adventure. How hard would that be? Maybe put Mario and Zelda on the back burner for a while and actually start <gasp> A NEW FRANCHISE.
Really, Nintendo hasn't launched a cool "adult" franchise since Super Smash Brothers Melee, and it seems that they've completed abandoned that one. And don't mention Pikmin because frankly, nobody cares about it. Neat game but it wasn't, and isn't, on the radar of most people. Animal Crossing is cool but doesn't appeal to most adults.
Metroid Prime? Super Mario Sunshine? StarFox Adventures? Donkey Konga? F-Zero GX? Zelda: Wind Waker? Wave Race: Blue Storm? Mario Kart Double Dash? Mario Golf Toadstool Tour? Nothing new there. All based on existing franchises that have been done to death. Heck, Metroid Prime is the best GC game by far, and that's because it's based on a franchise that hasn't already been milked dry over the last 10 years.
Just a thought: you'd figure that Nintendo would look at their own N64 and say, "Hey, Goldeneye was the most-acclaimed and most-admired game on that system", and then look at the XBox and say, "Hey, HALO is what's kept that system afloat for two years because people absolutely love it", and maybe get a second-party to make a full-blown HALO-killing FPS. But nooooooo, instead we get another Mario Kart game. Whooopee.
All I can say is that Metroid Prime 2 had better have some insane multiplayer, if not full-blown online play. I have HALO 2 on pre-order just in case.
I don't mean to bitch but I really can't understand Nintendo's apparent refusal to make anything outside of its existing game library.
silks
Post by: nolimit19 on January 06, 2004, 03:01:32 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on January 06, 2004, 03:39:02 PM
Post by: Ocarina Blue on January 06, 2004, 05:09:14 PM
To be fair on Nintendo, most of their new franchise games don't sell nearly as well as their well-known ones. Pikmin is a good example. But I agree, more new franchises out of Nintendo would be nice.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on January 06, 2004, 05:58:15 PM
Now, Geist looks interesting, and Metroid Prime 2 will be amazing of course...Tales of Symphonia will be good, but it'll be hard for me to justify buying that when I have a gang of Final Fantasy's (just picked up FF Chronicles and FF Anthology for PSOne) staring me in the face.
Here's my wish list:
1) A signature RPG series to compete with the Final Fantasy's and Dragon Warrior's of the world (Golden Sun may fill this slot, but I'd personally like to see something less cartoony)
2) Pokemon RPG - heck, I'm far from a kid but I'd buy it
3) A dark and edgy first-person-shooter that has full-blown online play
4) Golden Sun console RPG
5) A Zelda game that follows in the style of Ocarina of Time (I don't want it to be "edgy" or "mature", but for crying out loud, get with the times and stop trying to turn the series into a Disney cartoon)
6) A console Fire Emblem would be killer
7) Super Smash Brothers Melee 2 with online play, records and rankings (now THIS is a series that deserves to be exploited)
Nintendo REALLY needs to focus on RPGs with the next console. They should just update the Super NES, really. The SNES didn't have a lot of sports games but man did it have RPGs locked. If Nintendo's next console became known as the "RPG console" that'd go a long way towards Nintendo getting back the hardcore, non-Nintendophile audience.
silks
Post by: odifiend on January 06, 2004, 06:10:39 PM
Post by: vudu on January 07, 2004, 05:13:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Silks Just a thought: you'd figure that Nintendo would look at their own N64 and say, "Hey, Goldeneye was the most-acclaimed and most-admired game on that system", and then look at the XBox and say, "Hey, HALO is what's kept that system afloat for two years because people absolutely love it", and maybe get a second-party to make a full-blown HALO-killing FPS. But nooooooo, instead we get another Mario Kart game. Whooopee.
::cough geist cough::
Post by: KDR_11k on January 07, 2004, 05:48:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Silks
Tales of Symphonia will be good, but it'll be hard for me to justify buying that when I have a gang of Final Fantasy's (just picked up FF Chronicles and FF Anthology for PSOne) staring me in the face.
You need a justification? How about "This game is much better than any Final Fantasy"?
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on January 07, 2004, 06:03:27 AM
Post by: vudu on January 07, 2004, 06:54:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117 It's more like a Deus Ex or System Shock, perhaps.
well that's ten times better in my mind.
Post by: Inkwell on January 07, 2004, 02:44:06 PM
Quote
I just HAD to point this out, since I can't believe Johnny missed it- the simple fact that Sega made an F-Zero game, both for the arcade and Gamecube, and the fact that Konami is letting Silicon Knights, a Nintendo 2nd party, remake one of its best games ever, is reason enough to believe that Nintendo has very good relations with both these companies and will get some great support from them in the future.
I have a problem with this. If Konami had such a great relationship with Nintendo why wouldn't they make the Twin Snake game themselves? What is the point of obtaining a second party that has thier own agenda for trying to make excellent games just to take it away to say work on this game because this would improve relationships between the two. WTF! SK could be working on thier own thing rather wasting time making a remake of a game that Konami should be handling themselves. Just like Sega making F-Zero (good game by the way) what was the point? Sega really didn't do anything more to the series except update it to the GC....Nintendo could of done that. Sega should have doing original content. Oh even though Sega games haven't been selling all to well on X-Box, atleast they have been getting far more original content (which makes no sense). IMO Nintendo third-parties have been utter crap; the major companies...not so much with Capcom...have been almost worthless.
Post by: shanyu on January 07, 2004, 05:31:13 PM
First off, lets deal with the later subject. Its a simple game of numbers for the upper management of the companies, and a sound strategem at that. There are more PS2 machines out there than any other console. There are still more PS2 machines purchased annually than any other console. The largest market share of game consoles is PS2, so it makes sense that first and foremost you develop for that platform. Now then, if you can engineer your code to be cross platform, you can spend many man years (team of 20+ for 18 months) developing for the primary platform (PS2) but only a few man years porting (team of 1 or 2 for 18 months) to the other platforms (XBox and GameCube).
Now for the techical diffculties leading from developing cross platform games and the GameCube's particular woes. First, the GameCube doesn't have as much physical memory as the PS2 or XBox. The PS2 has 32 MB of memory available for the runtime, the geometry, the physics representations, the textures, display buffers, etc. It is fortunate to have separate memory allocated for the audio subsystem. The XBox, however, has 64 MB of unified memory that is shared for everything, audio, display buffers, geometry, game runtime, textures, etc. The GameCube has 24MB of memory for general use for the display buffers, geometry, game runtime, etc, and 16 MB for audio. There are tools for stealing 8 MB of the audio memory to use for game runtime memory, but it has restrictions (its horrible slow, can't be used for anything the graphics chip wants to talk to and must be managed carefully). The GameCube can do DXT1 texture compression (S3 Compression) but unfortunately that doesn't do transparency very well (like at all really... 1 bit transparency is neigh usless), so what you end up having to do is horrible texture compression color channel swapping that results in alpha textures being twice as big as they need to be. Did I mention the GameCube doesn't have a vector processor? That's right, the main processor has to do all of the vector processing for multibone weighted skinning and so can't be done in hardware on the GameCube like it can on XBox or PS2. Then there is the problem of the actual DVDs being smaller than a normal DVD. So not only must the developer manage to get a game designed to run in 32MB of memory run in 24MB, but they must also fit all the data on a disc half the size. Never mind that you also must make sure that you've correctly stored the data (oh yeah, the GameCube is BigEndian vs Little Endian like the XBox and PS2) so developers must take special care to ensure that the data gets byte swapped properly or else numbers like 1 turn into numbers like 65535. There are also the game play concerns of the XBox and PS2 having more buttons (3 more) and all of them being analog or digital vs the GameCube having only 2 analog buttons. Nevermind that the PS2 and XBox both have 2 rumble motors that have an analog speed vs the GameCube's single motor that can Go, Stop, or Stop Right Now. That can make it difficult to make the rumble effects feel consistant across platforms.
Don't get me wrong, the GameCube is a great little piece of hardware. In fact, I was the one slated originally to do the GameCube port of that game PsiOps that was so elegantly referred to as a "piece of crap". But developing for the GameCube isn't as rosy as one would think, and to be honest it doesn't make a whole lot of economical sense for 3rd party developers to spend so much time and so much pain trying to make sure their game can be ported to GameCube when they'll only end up selling 20,000 units or so.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on January 08, 2004, 05:55:50 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k: You need a justification? How about "This game is much better than any Final Fantasy"?
Heeeey, watch that. I loves me my old-school Final Fantasy's. I'll give Tales of Symphonia a look though.
kingvudu: Geist could be neat, but I'll believe it when I see it. I can guarantee it won't be nearly as good as HALO 2, and it likely won't have any online play either (although I'd love to be proved wrong Nintendo). But I bet it scores about an 8.5 - very good but not great.
Even if it is good, it'll have to be REALLY good - like, the BEST console FPS out there - for people to even care. Unfortunately, the "Best console FPS" ship will be sailing with HALO 2.
silks
Post by: vudu on January 08, 2004, 06:34:35 AM
i just got done playing all the way through halo for the first time about a month ago. i'm going to have to agree with pretty much everyone else out there ... the level design sucked. i really liked the health/armor system, and i loved that you could throw gernades without putting down your primary weapon. i even enjoyed only being able to hold 2 weapons at a time. but the level design came close to nearly ruining the entire game.
i trust they'll fix this problem for halo 2, and i probably won't have any complaints with it, unless they do another crappy pc port.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 08, 2004, 06:37:10 AM
Well one advantage to having SK and Sega work on someone else's game is that it frees up Konami and Nintendo to work on something else. Now I somewhat agree that SK is being wasted on MGS and in that case really only Konami benefits since while they have more time to work on something else I REALLY doubt they're using that time to work on something for the Cube. At least having Sega work on F-Zero allowed EAD to work on other Cube projects. I guess Nintendo is just trying to suck up to Konami a bit. If Twin Snakes is successful I imagine Konami will be quite grateful they are making money off of a game they barely had to work on themselves.
As for the F-Zero thing Nintendo could probably have made the final game themselves but I don't know if they knew exactly what Sega was cooking up when they gave them the game. For all we know Nintendo gave them free reign to do as the wish and Sega chose to make something that didn't really do much with the series. They did at least add the story mode so it's not total cookie cutter.
Post by: mouse_clicker on January 08, 2004, 11:14:02 AM
Quote
I can guarantee it won't be nearly as good as HALO 2
I find it very odd that one can make such a blanket statement after seeing no more than short videos of either game. Do you work at N-Space or Bungie, Silks, have you played these games? Do you know for a FACT that Halo 2 will carry on Halo's crown of "Best Console FPS", a title bestowed on it by very few people?
Post by: NWR_Lindy on January 08, 2004, 08:20:30 PM
Geist is being developed by a team with no proven track record and unknown development talent. Sure, they're under Miyamoto's thumb so the game will be good, but HALO 2 quality...I doubt it. Ten years from now I doubt Geist will be held in the same high regard as, say, Goldeneye (or HALO for that matter).
My prediction is that Geist will be good, but not classic. HALO 2, on the other hand, could very well be a classic.
silks
Post by: KDR_11k on January 09, 2004, 05:33:07 AM
Post by: NWR_Lindy on January 09, 2004, 05:56:15 AM
;-D
silks
Post by: CaseyRyback on January 13, 2004, 04:48:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuote
I can guarantee it won't be nearly as good as HALO 2
I find it very odd that one can make such a blanket statement after seeing no more than short videos of either game. Do you work at N-Space or Bungie, Silks, have you played these games? Do you know for a FACT that Halo 2 will carry on Halo's crown of "Best Console FPS", a title bestowed on it by very few people?
Halo is the king of the console FPS. No matter what people say, the game has an attachment rate of more than 25 percent of all Xbox's and growing( assuming 12 million Xbox's sold and more than 3 million copies of Halo sold). I think its a solid game, it has its flaws (mainly because rushed for launch) but it is better than any other console FPS out still for the Single Player (rainbow six 3 and SOCOM has better replay value). Also I agree with silks, in that N-Space made some Barbie game as its last game.
Johnny, does Geist have the skills system like a Spector type game( System Shock, DX)? I was just wondering because you said it was more like those games and they have RPG and other elements as opposed to Goldeneye.
Nintendo needs to get EA to make online games on the Gamecube so that people with more than one console will be able to play online. Online is a strong selling point, and its one of the reasons that ESPN games do a little better on Xbox because they can be played online as opposed to EA games(I know EA still controls the market but saying sales are lost because people want to have an online football game).
Anyone who thinks sports games are meaningless, look at what they did for the Genesis. They helped SEGA sell tons of systems and everybody who played sports wanted them to play with more than two people.
Post by: vudu on January 14, 2004, 05:36:29 AM
Quotei actually like timesplitters 2 much much more than halo for a single player experience. the arcade mode in that game was excellent.
Halo is the king of the console FPS. No matter what people say, the game has an attachment rate of more than 25 percent of all Xbox's and growing( assuming 12 million Xbox's sold and more than 3 million copies of Halo sold). I think its a solid game, it has its flaws (mainly because rushed for launch) but it is better than any other console FPS out still for the Single Player
also, i'm pretty sure halo wasn't rushed for the xbox launch. the game was originally slated for release on computer, so if anything, it was delayed for the xbox's launch.
as it's been pointed out a million times before, the game was really good, save for the level design. as much as it pains me, i'm going to have to agree with gamespy.com here...
Quote
Worst of all were the levels, which offered fleeting glimpses of brilliance, but all too often degenerated into recycling the same areas over and over until you were bored to tears. It was as if someone at Microsoft or Bungie realized Halo was an amazing six-hour game ... but needed to pad it out to 10.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 14, 2004, 08:19:00 AM
Post by: vudu on January 14, 2004, 08:54:39 AM
penny arcade!
the date on that comic is july 23, 1999, more than two years before the xbox was released. if bungie had enough of the game finished to show off a movie of the game, it must have been in development for at least a year (give or take) prior to july of 1999. that's three years. hardly rushed.
Post by: mouse_clicker on January 14, 2004, 10:35:40 AM
Quote
also, i'm pretty sure halo wasn't rushed for the xbox launch. the game was originally slated for release on computer, so if anything, it was delayed for the xbox's launch.
Since this thread has gotten completely off topic, I'd like to interject this- yes, Halo was in development for a very long time, but it began as a Mac exclusive, as are the rest of the entries in the Marathon series. Microsoft then bought up Bungie and they had to go through the arduous process of porting Halo over to the PC. THEN Microsoft decided not only will Halo be an XBox game, it will be a launch title (an ingenious move on MS's part, if I do say so myself)- so now Bungie had to move production yet again, this time to the XBox, and given their limited time, Bungie had to rush production to meet launch. I'm not a huge fan of the game myself- I think the only thing it has over Timesplitters 2 is a story that's actually good. It's not a revolutionary game in the least, it just did most of everything better than the vast majority of stock FPS's out there, albeit a lot better.
Also, Silks, nice to see me quoted in your signature but I'm trying to figure out if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Post by: revolg_98 on January 14, 2004, 01:13:42 PM
I think they made Zelda and Luigi's Mansion kiddy games. As for sports, make less they're all the same anyway
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 14, 2004, 01:23:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: revolg_98
I think the Gamecube would be alot better if they kept Rare.
Sadly, it wouldn't...They have only put out one title so far, and it was a bomb(Grabbed by the Ghoulies)...Though I am the biggest Rare fan in the world it's easy to see that they've lost their flame, leaving Ninty no choice but to jettison the dead weight for some pocket change...
"I think they made Zelda and Luigi's Mansion kiddy games."
*sigh* Are you too "cool" to play those games? Pathetic...
Post by: odifiend on January 14, 2004, 04:15:45 PM
When I heard that Nintendo had given up Rare I was so livid because they pointed to lack of Rare sales even though Rare had yet to release a GCN game. Still SF:A was released and that game was such a disappointment for me (it was in development for something like 5 years and that's the best they could come up with- a zelda without real puzzles or a real story) it almost warranted Rare's sale, since they can't make a good game even with an ample amount of time. Also you have to remember the reason you like Rare is really the developers behind the games. Most of these developers have already left for Free Radical and other companies, so the Rare that Microsoft has is not really Rare.
Rare was dysfunctional and holding on to them would only waste Nintendo's resources.
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 14, 2004, 04:19:01 PM
My favorite title, by far, is Banjo-Kazooie...The best collect-a-thon ever! ^_^
Post by: odifiend on January 14, 2004, 04:25:07 PM
I liked the humor in Banjo-Kazooie but I never could become a fan of the series, maybe deep down I just think eyeballs on everything is unnerving.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 15, 2004, 08:52:25 AM
Post by: NWR_Lindy on January 15, 2004, 03:41:47 PM
TimeSplitters 2 is a hot game. I actually think some of the multiplayer is better than HALO, especially when you get some Bots going. HALO has a much higher "coolness" factor though...its very obvious that TS2 was designed by the Goldeneye team because the two games play almost identically. TS2 is great but its just under that top tier of first-person shooters.
silks
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 15, 2004, 03:56:49 PM
It doesn't matter if you are playing Mario, Metal Gear, or Vice City...Playing a videogame will not make you cool...period...
In fact, if you even think about the "coolness" factor in a game before buying it, then you must be pretty insecure about your social life...
(not directed to any specific person, of course)
Post by: SearanoX on January 15, 2004, 04:15:46 PM
As for it being dumbed down, I doubt it. People will use this term far too often. Console games don't have to be simple, or, more specifically, dumbed down. Look at Final Fantasy. Were it made for the PC, would it be any more advanced than it is right now? What about Splinter Cell? If it were made exclusively for the PC, would it be better? I doubt it.
You're also not making a whole lot of sense. LAN and online team play? What's not action-oriented about that? They only thing they actually did was make the game more focused on single player.
In addition, look at the more recent things on the PC, before it was ported to the XBox. There is a video advertising the game (and the GeForce 2 GTS), where the game looks remarkably similar. The Marines and Covenant look the same, the single player story is mentioned, and there are many vehicles and weapons featured that are in the XBox version. In fact, the only thing different seems to be the graphics, which feature pixel shaders and bump maps.
The way the game looked and played was nearly exactly the same as on the XBox version as it was on the PC version. That they "dumbed it down" for the XBox is complete BS. I can say with certainty that the game was close to being 65% complete before it was brought to the XBox. The only features added were auto-aim, better graphics, XBox LAN play, etc.. In fact, it's obvious that some of the later levels were rushed, because they reused areas from earlier in the game. This shows that Microsoft didn't dumb the game down, not in the least. They simply wanted it as a launch title that would sell the system. That's why the earlier levels are generally better - they had more time spent improving the graphics and such than actually finishing the single-player portion.
Really, to say that the game was dumbed down was just stupid. Games evolve over time, and that's just what Halo did. You can't expect the first screenshots of the Mac version to be representative of what the final game will be like.
EDIT: In fact, here's the video for you. Quicktime is required.
Post by: CaseyRyback on January 15, 2004, 06:39:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Silks
mouse_clicker: I just think that's a classic line..."Online isn't profitable. Get over it." It kind of captured a moment in a time, a freeze-frame of American innocence perhaps lost forever....or not. Either way it's funny, that's why I put it in my sig. After all, this was the INTERWEB DRAMA thread.
TimeSplitters 2 is a hot game. I actually think some of the multiplayer is better than HALO, especially when you get some Bots going. HALO has a much higher "coolness" factor though...its very obvious that TS2 was designed by the Goldeneye team because the two games play almost identically. TS2 is great but its just under that top tier of first-person shooters.
silks
yea, it is funny because Sony makes tons of money off of online games, yet certain people here always make the argument it is not profitable. Would a Zelda MMO not make money?
Also I agree because coolness seems to sell games. Coolness sells games because you want to tell your friends about them and word of mouth spreads.
Post by: Kyosho on January 15, 2004, 11:22:43 PM
Post by: CaseyRyback on January 16, 2004, 08:25:45 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 16, 2004, 09:39:07 AM
Post by: Jale on January 16, 2004, 09:58:55 AM
Post by: odifiend on January 16, 2004, 12:07:41 PM
Post by: revolg_98 on January 16, 2004, 12:34:08 PM
Post by: CaseyRyback on January 16, 2004, 01:25:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: odifiend
I have to agree with Jale here. Why are you guys always talking about a Zelda MMO? There are much better franchise matches for this. The best one I can think of now is Pokemon. (I know that one made those seeking coolness happy)
Yea pokemon would work well also, but you have so many towns and people and different things to do in Zelda that I could see it work.
Post by: SearanoX on January 16, 2004, 01:36:54 PM
I figured as much.
Post by: Jale on January 16, 2004, 01:40:23 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on January 16, 2004, 01:43:30 PM
Post by: odifiend on January 16, 2004, 02:35:41 PM
). The genius of Nintendo's business sometimes is startling- getting families with siblings or losers with no friends to buy both copies of essentially the same game. Simply genius. Now if they just got rid of the TV show, every person alive, would own a pokemon game. Hell I'd be willing to say if from out of the blue, Nintendo announced now that, "hey we're copying M$ and setting up an expensive infrastructure, that we expect no revenue from, but with a PokeMMO as the flagship," they could break even.Pokemon MMO = Perfect Pokehook for getting customers to start paying for online services.
P.S. the "new" pokemon versions Fire Red and whatever Green are so uncool it is not even funny. Nintendo should allow trade ins or discounts for the Red and Blue since they're the same game with the ability to connect with Ruby and Sapphire.
Post by: Ness_the_Mess on January 16, 2004, 08:38:55 PM
I AM A NINTENDO LOYALIST.
Allright, so I'm canadian and you'll expect me to be a loyalist (please laugh, I don't have many jokes in me). But you know what? I don't care. Call me a fanboy. Whatever. At the end of the day, Nintendo is a family company that makes quality games and never ceases to make me smile. Super Mario RPG. Earthbound. Marios 1 to 19287. A Link to the Past. Ocarina of Time. Pokemon (YES, POKEMON. I'm a strait adolescant male who can admit that it is an incredible game). Wind Waker. These, and many others, are favourites of mine that will be with me forever. Nintendo made them all. I love Nintendo (NO - not in that way).
I can whole-heartedly agree that the Gamecube deserves a C grade. While it has brought us some fun games, some good times, on the whole, it's the pits. Yes, I want to play SNES all day - so shoot me. What I cannot agree with is that it is because of a lack of an online plan. Sure, I'd like one. Do I need one? Will I pay 15 bucks a month to play online a couple hours? Nope. From a buiz-ness standpoint? I don't know. I'm sure Nintendo does. I'm sure Microsoft is honest when they release financial reports saying that they're losing some money off it. Is it worth biting someone's head off? I don't think so.
It's funny to come back here, and see some of my ideas come back. Ideas that made me leave (because it seemed that at the time the members of this site weren't pleased with me). One was the lower quality of the news delivery at this site. When it all comes down to it though, this is NOT a large site. It is allowed to be inferior, as it does not have 'insiders' paying them a total of a couple tens of thousands (or more, I don't really know). Leave it be. I'm glad that the people who write here love Nintendo enough to devote their free time to it. Cuto's.
Flaming is ugly. I realise that this situation elevated because of the raw emotion involved in seeing a loved company (that, honestly, delivers much of our entertainment) bashed. Nevertheless, letting ourselves begin to insult eachother because we can't CONTROLL these emotions is bordering in plain silly. Allright, so I claim to be a pacifist - but I believe we can all agree that cussing at eachother is not the best way to get our point across. It just makes people ignore you (I actually wrote an essay on evangelism/scaring people with your point).
Back to relevance, I trust Nintendo. Trust can be painfull sometimes, as it is now - Nintendo just simply isn't delivering as much as they have in the past. I do not believe, however, that they are failing at all. The past year they outsold M$ in consoles. Number 2 is better than many people thought N was doing. Shigesato Itoi's lack of a 3D sequal to Earthbound is especially annoying to me (but that is getting a bit off topic). Still, through it all, I believe Nintendo isn't doing all that bad. They're picking up momentum. They have their 'mystery machine' being revieled soon. They claim to be releasing their console in Japan next year (along with Sony, M$ has just sort of grunted and said 'yeah, um, ok'). Zelda this year. Metroid this year. Mario 128 definitely a possibility. Pokemon Colloseum. I'm sure there are more great titles, and surely at this E3 we will get a tiny peak at N5. It is still exciting. Nintendo still has billions of dollars. Miyamoto is still around, and we should cherish that as long as he is - you can't expect him never to retire.
Have your console of choice. Play online games. At the end of the day, it's good to play together, online, offline, or single player. Nintendo will always rule in my books, whether I'm stubborn or not.
Good day to you.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on January 16, 2004, 09:00:08 PM
A Zelda MMO wouldn't really fit, but a Pokemon MMO would rule. Actually, what would be ideal would be an MMO with the play mechanics of Pokemon in the guise of Fire Emblem. Instead of Pokemon creatures have dragons or something. That'd go over big. Mix Pokemon with traditional AD&D RPGs.
silks
Post by: KDR_11k on January 17, 2004, 04:20:44 AM
The dumbing down cannot be seen in a video. The PC version was supposed to have a more complex gameplay and heavier emphasis on teamplay than the XB version. I didn't pull that out of my rear end, that's what was said in a preview in a PC Games magazine (they said they played both versions, so...). Don't ask me which issue, that's too long ago, I don't remember anymore. Anyway, that's GAMEPLAY, it has zero to do with graphics (which are of course similar, the XBox is identical to the PCs of that time period). I cannot play Halo online to try anything out, the game's not on my "worth my money" list and thus not in my posession.
Post by: SearanoX on January 17, 2004, 06:41:01 AM
I see where you're coming from, but the fact is that judging from the video, we can not only see that the graphics have been relatively finalized, we can also see that the single player mode seems to be the biggest thing. After all, the Marines are being hyped up (and rightfully so), and many of the things mentioned pertain to the final game's plot.
I'm not saying that the game underwent absolutely no changes, but when it was brought to the XBox, I have a very good feeling that the gameplay was nearly finalized at that time. Think about it - the game was really only in development on the XBox for about a year - definetly not enough time to build the game nearly from the ground-up, especially in the way that they did it. Like I said, much of the time was also spent making graphics alterations, as well as optimization for the console (control scheme, framerate, etc.). Then, there's the issues of play testing, marketing, etc. that would take up a good couple more months.
I'll agree that the game was somewhat more multiplayer-oriented when it was first on the PC/Mac, but the way you made it sound was that Microsoft completely ruined the game and turned it from something beautiful into another FPS clone - definetly not the case. In fact, if anything, Halo is one of the most original FPS games ever - it's the first I've seen with a plot that is actually worth caring about, it has tons of strategy, the AI is the next step up from Half-Life's, the vehicles are a great addition, heck it's even spawned several ripoffs. It may have changed, but for something to still be so revolutionary even after it was "dumbed down" just doesn't make much sense to me.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on January 17, 2004, 04:14:44 PM
There's a difference between "simpler" and "dumbed down". No reason to throw spin and connotations all over your words. I'd love to see some real debate about the proper level of complexity in a modern game, especially in light of Iwata-san's recent comments.
Post by: oohhboy on January 17, 2004, 05:04:41 PM
Sure the game had about the same level of graphics as say Duke Nukem 3d. But Halo was a step back most of the way. Even now it remains an uncomplete game. Half-life had a greater number of varying evenviroments, more weapons, secondries, better atmosphere. The only thing that Halo has over any of these two games is quick genade, melee, vehicles and better GFX. The AI is nothing special as most of those things have already been done back on the PSX in MOH. Also the lack of options in Halo Multiplayer is unaccpetable. If it was really more multiplayer oriented, it should have more options, bots to fill in the gaps and seeing how the "AI" was so good, it should have been included.
Halo was not revolutionary, evolutionary at best and in no way deserving of all the hype it got. An unfinished game.
Post by: CaseyRyback on January 17, 2004, 08:14:13 PM
I wish more companies would be like SEGA and release an official first party keyboard and mouse. It would be the only way I would ever get back into Xbox Live.
Post by: SearanoX on January 18, 2004, 04:08:12 AM
Quote
Hey SearanoX, you haven't played the original Marathon series haven't you? The Marathon series is a Sequal/prequal (?) to Halo. That game had more weapons, more unquie weapons, way thicker stroy line, puzzels, more different types of enemies, real secondry functions on all weapons.
While I've heard of it, I haven't played it...yet. I hear that it was quite good. It wasn't really a prequel/prequel, though. I assume you're referring to it as you would refer to Perfect Dark being a sequel to Goldeneye. When it comes to things, more weapons, more enemies, etc., that isn't necessarily better. A game can be packed full of all of those things, but what Halo has over it is one thing - balance. Halo's enemies, weapons, etc. all serve a purpose. There is absolutely no weapon that is useless, or obsolete. The Pistol, for instance, can be the best weapon in the game, while the Needler is good at taking out Elites and attacking from around corners.
Quote
Sure the game had about the same level of graphics as say Duke Nukem 3d. But Halo was a step back most of the way. Even now it remains an uncomplete game. Half-life had a greater number of varying evenviroments, more weapons, secondries, better atmosphere. The only thing that Halo has over any of these two games is quick genade, melee, vehicles and better GFX. The AI is nothing special as most of those things have already been done back on the PSX in MOH. Also the lack of options in Halo Multiplayer is unaccpetable. If it was really more multiplayer oriented, it should have more options, bots to fill in the gaps and seeing how the "AI" was so good, it should have been included.
I'm an avid Half-Life fan, so I know how good the game is, but on a technical level, it doesn't compare. AI is nowhere near as good, but it makes up for it in puzzle solving, action, atmosphere, etc.. However, Halo does do all of these things better.
First, let's look at the environments - you claim that there isn't enough variety...hello? Have you played the game? Look at The Pillar of Autumn, and then compare it to say, what you see on the Halo mission. We go from small, cramped quarters to huge mountainous areas where vehicle is nearly the only way to get around efficiently. Not to mention of course the huge structures and underground installations that can be found - all of it looking significantly un-human. Next, we go to Truth and Reconciliation, where the mission takes place during the night in a rocky, mountainous area. Flashlights, night vision, and stealth are all quite integral in the beginning of this one. When we get to the latter half, aboard the Covenant ship, it changes into a purple-blue-green, technological wonder. Hallways are blinking with lights, holograms are everywhere, floors are tiled in intricate ways. Now, we get to the Silent Cartographer and it's coastal setting. It features both interior and exterior areas. The exterior areas are great, with the sun beaming down, huge pieces of an installation protruding out from the rock, and the water lapping along the beach. Compare that now to Assault on the Control Room, which features some interior environments that follow The Silent Cartographer's style, but also huge outdoor areas filled with snow.
I'll stop there. You see my point when it comes to lacking variety. I know what you're going to argue back, though - that everything is the same in style. All of the Covenant stuff, Forerunner, and Human...they all stick to the same distinct looks. Tell me exactly what's wrong with that? Using a setup like this, you can always tell exactly who built something, who is occupying it, and what has happened there in the past. It's quite common for things made by a particular ethnic group, people, etc. to have their own consistent theme. Were you to argue that, it'd be the same as claiming that Africa lacks variety because everyone there lives in mud huts (more or less, let's not get into specifics).
Now, if you're going to argue at the reuse of levels, you can, because I'll admit that they are reused, but not to a huge extent. In fact, only two of them are reused in any way, and they all feature massive changes. Take Two Betrayals. Not only is the time of day different, there are enemies battling throughout the area. There are many new areas which could not previously be accessed as well. Now, let's look at The Maw. It features the same style as the original Pillar of Autumn mission, but is also vastly different. The ship is quite destroyed, with sand and dust caking many of the surfaces. Nearly half of the thing is destroyed as well. In addition, there are also tons of new areas.
You claim the AI in Medal of Honor is so great? I've played a few of those games, and it isn't. Nearly every single thing in the entire game is scripted, including how the enemies react, how they move, etc.. Halo, on the other hand, features some of the best AI seen in a game. You ever played Legendary mode? It's damn hard. And they don't make it hard by increasing damage enemies take and making you take more damage - no, they do it by improving the artificial intelligence. If you think that Normal is somewhat difficult, you haven't seen anything. Enemies outflank, create distractions, dodge, run away, seek backup, wait in ambush, charge, and more. I didn't see anything like that in Medal of Honor, and when I did, most of the time, it was either a coincidence or a scripted behaviour.
AI in multiplayer - they could have done it, most likely, but not only would the game have most likely slowed to a crawl with people + bots, but it would have also most likely taken quite a bit of time to implement it. After all, the AI would have to be completely different than what is in the game right now. In the single player game, enemies wait for you, generally. They don't go around looking for you, using vehicles, etc.. They don't need to. Because the way the game works, it's unnecessary. Now, if they had implemented AI, it most likely wouldn't have been good due to time constraints. It would also put lots of strain on the CPU of the machine - one that is already greatly burdened with four other players. Look at Perfect Dark - the framerate with Simulants was awful, no matter how good they were. Now, to offset this, you could either reduce the CPU power that the AI characters require, but would also mean having the AI making less decisions at a time, resulting in stupider enemies.
As for the melee attack - it speaks for itself. I consider it to be a revolutionary feature. It's one of the most useful tools in the game - being able to sneak up behind an enemy, hear the satisfying thunk of your Pistol butt on the back of their head, and watch them sink to the ground without a sound is one of the best things about the game. It really adds a lot to it. Now you don't have to use bullets for everything, and wake up the entire neighbourhood. Sure, games have had an unarmed attack in the past before, as well as melee attacks with guns, but they have never, ever been as useful or as fun as they are in Halo.
Vehicles? They're pretty revolutionary-seeming to me. After all, there's no other game that really has them so well implemented. The game literally switches from an FPS to a vehicular combat game in no time at all. Not only that, but the way they handle, as well as how each one has it's own strengths and weaknesses make them quite revolutionary indeed.
Quote
Halo was not revolutionary, evolutionary at best and in no way deserving of all the hype it got. An unfinished game.
While I agree that some things weren't perfect about the game, it was certainly not unfinished. It was finished. In the sense you're referring to, in that it could have been better had they had more time, well, that's the same for every other single game ever developed. Wind Waker? Yeah, they had to cut significant portions from the game for that one. What about Half-Life? Even VALVe has admitted to it being not as good as they intended. They had wanted to do so much more to the game, but couldn't due to technology limitations.
Really, even though there were some things that the game doesn't do perfectly doesn't stop it from being one kickass and original game.
-------------------------------------------------------
I usually don't spend that long making a response, so try to come up with some valid and interesting arguments, m'kay?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 18, 2004, 08:04:19 PM
Post by: oohhboy on January 19, 2004, 03:23:01 AM
Melee attack, though welcome, becomes mostly unusable after invading the convent cruiser the first time.
Human artitechture, Convent, outdoors and halos buildings. A total of four different enviroments. The ship you arrive on is nicely details with the armory and the mess hall and what not you find on a ship with the damaged variant already aparent before you even leave the ship. Outdoors, generally a North American look to it, nice and big with a snow variation to it. Covent, gravity lift, hallways, hanger, more hall ways, bridge, more hall ways, prison cells then more hall ways that mostly link back to the hanger. great stuff there with the hallways. Halo's native buildings, concrete, plenty of hallways, open rooms with no identifyable funtion or tactical sense, copied and past rooms. In general, no detail. Besides the human ship, tere arn't any texts or culture detail or alein signs saying bridge readable or not. A couple of holograms you mentioned on the convent cruiser in the hallway. Just no detail.
AI in multiplayer, I had a blast playing PD with four players and max AI. Sure there were slow downs, but your saying the the Xbox doesn't have the power to run AI in multiplayer even though it has atleast a dozen ememy and friendly running about killing each other running this super AI it has? How about those face huging things that come in swarms that come? What about the lack of options?
The weapons in Halo are forced into class differences unnesserearably like with the shotgun agints the flood and convent weapons agints the convent. You figure that the convent would make thier weapons effective againsts humans more than it's effective against themselfs right? and why the shotgun Vs zombie thing? And what? no effective head shots excpet for the sniper rifle? question able weapon physics with the assult rifle. Why so weak? Why not use larger caliber rounds for far more damage at reduced clip size. If it is an SMG, why the massive spray? Shotgun, why does the bullets seem to disappear after 15 meters? Why no follow the mormal shotgun physics model where they don't disappear and continue to travel doing less damage?
I never said the AI in MOH was great, you said that. And without scrpiting, what is an AI? Do you really think that we really do have AI? or a set of weighted courses of action which once decided on because of the change in weighting goes on through with the script? If the Halo AI wasn't scripted into the levels, then they would have been used in multi with the addition of hidden markers in the map to allow the AI to know that is a rock and that is cover if I need it. How come CS AI bots when dropped into an unfimiliar level be able to anylanlize the level and decide on which what to do? About ledgenary mode, they do increase the damage you take. They shoot more and are more accurate. That seems pretty standard to me. They still use the same tactics when playing normal, just more often.
I will explain in greater detail why Halo is an unfinished game. Look at the beginning levels. Nice to look at in general? Yes? then comes to the two alien enviroments, only one that looks alien and one that looks like a prefab concrete you find in the subway. Reusing levels, no alternate routes, or illuison of having alternate routes, no exploration of levels for extra weapons, zero puzzels, no bosses or anything even simliar to one, nothing extra, no unlockables, zip. Bare bones and with repeating bones. If that is not unfinshed I don't know what is. Bungie/MS had a choice while Valve may not have.
Oh I played the game and I don't know why everyone sems to be wetting thier pants everytime someone mentions the game.
Although one thing I do enjoy about Halo is Red Vs Blue. Go figure.
