Author Topic: Tell me why Cube gets so few RPGs (Read 13558 times)

Clock Nova · « **on:** July 15, 2003, 06:35:32 PM »

So I finally got back into the console scene after years of PC only (actually, Mac only) gaming. The last console I owned before my 'Cube was a Sega Genesis. After that was stolen, I abandoned consoles because I got a new computer and found the games were better. But consoles finally seem to have caught up to my standards and, remembering how incredible Nintendo's games are, I bought the GameCube. I have not regretted this decision in the slightest.

But here's my question: why is the GameCube, and even the N64 before it, so devoid of good RPGs? There seems to be a huge demand for them- so why don't we get them? Granted, there are some really good ones, but the truly great ones always seem to go to PS2 or XBox, or both. Why doesn't Nintendo get games like Morrowind or Knights of the Old Republic? I mean "real" RPGs like those, not silly "Action-RPG" Diablo clones like Dark Alliance. It can't be the whole "kiddie" nonsense, because the existence of games like Resident Evil and Eternal Darkness don't fit that mold. And the technical specs of the 'Cube are no problem, either.

Now, as long as I have a computer, I'll always be able to play the best RPGs. So I have no desire to purchase an XBox. But it would be nice to get some games like those on my console of choice. I'm sure this topic is old news to most of you, but I'm still in the dark. So, help me out. What's the logic behind all of this?

DrForester · « **Reply #1 on:** July 15, 2003, 06:45:05 PM »

sorry, but no person who even gave a second thought to their purcahse woudl ahve gotten a GC for RPG's. If you wanted RPG's, should have gotten a PS2.

As to the why i think the big problem is PS2 has all the big guns of RPG's in its corner. Companies may not want to try making RPG's becasue they don't want to go against those "big guns" and when a company does decide to test the RPG waters, they'd rather that test be on a system with 50 million users than a system with only 10 million users.

Gup · « **Reply #2 on:** July 15, 2003, 06:50:41 PM »

Since you never owned a N64, I won't cover that. The GCN gets little RPGs mainly because of high development costs. It's risky for developers to spend so much and not get what they used back, so they usually turn to PS2's larger audience. That's why I respect Namco for producing both Tales of Symphonia and Baten Kaitos, but it seems you're into PC RPGs so stick to the PC.

Clock Nova · « **Reply #3 on:** July 15, 2003, 06:50:53 PM »

But I didn't want a PS2, dummy. I wanted to play Zelda and Metroid. My post simply asked why the 'Cube got so few RPGs.

Next!

Zeth · « **Reply #4 on:** July 15, 2003, 07:27:59 PM »

edit: er, I misread your post... nice job me.

Infernal Monkey · « **Reply #5 on:** July 15, 2003, 07:59:00 PM »

Seems to me, by RPGs, you mean Western RPGs.
Developers have always thrown them on PC. They often desire a mouse (Ever tried Diablo on PSone with the Dual Shock? BLEH) or they're online. It seems to me Nintendo have something against online games.

Developers are turning to the Xbox as their choice platform to port their Western PC RPGs. Hard drive, online, Windows, all that. It's easy.
The GameCube is indeed lacking in RPGs, both Western and Japanese... But there is hope in the form of Phantasy Star Online and the upcoming big exclusive RPGs from SquareEnix and Namco.

I'm guessing some developers are still bitter over the Nintendo 64, too. I mean, wow, that had like, one true RPG on it (Quest) and it was rubbish. Because hey, Zelda isn't an RPG as such....

Clock Nova · « **Reply #6 on:** July 15, 2003, 08:36:46 PM »

Yeah. I guess it's Western RPGs that I prefer. I never liked the Final Fantasy-style games. My favorites have always been games like Baldur's Gate and Fallout. And like I said, I can play those on my computer, but it would be nice to play some on my console, especially since there are some good RPGs (Morrowind) that don't make it to the Macintosh.

SC5 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 15, 2003, 09:11:22 PM »

Baldur's Gate = Best RPG ever. But never will a game like that be made for consoles.

But Bioware seems pretty friendly with Xbox now. And does rumors of MS purchasing Bioware still send chills down my back.

Sorry, but the cube's the place for western RPGs. Stick with the PC or get an Xbox (Kotor + A very buggy Morrowind)

Skies of Arcadia Legends is the best CONSOLE RPG I've played in a long time though, and I know even some of my PC gamer buddies really like it.

Grey Ninja · « **Reply #8 on:** July 16, 2003, 02:48:22 AM »

You might like Phantasy Star Online. It's got a lot of things in common with a western RPG. But seriously, if western RPGs are your thing, you can't go wrong with a good PC. Console gamers for the most part don't really like western RPGs.

DRJ · « **Reply #9 on:** July 16, 2003, 04:08:29 AM »

For me I prefer turn based RPGs. Something like Final Fantasy 7. When N64 came out Nintendo lost some good RPG developers to Sony. Basically the games would not fit on the cartridge. Look at FF7 it was three disks on playstation. So developers went to Sony to release their games. Now there is the GCN, but these developers are probably very happy with Sony and they make a lot of money, so why risk money to make a game for GCN when you have a guaranteed money maker if you release on PS2? We are starting to see some support returning to Nintendo. We get FF:CC and ToS and if they sell well we will get more, if they dont we probably wont see another RPG.

On a side not I hear people talking about SoA and I have never played it on DC or GCN. It sounds good, why isnt it for sale anywhere? Best Buy, Toys R Us etc. don't seem, to have it. Did Sega only ship like 1000 of them?

PIAC · « **Reply #10 on:** July 16, 2003, 04:52:44 AM »

less than 1000 to australia :\ super rare get, i have it though

on the subject of western RPG's, has anyone played Arcanum of Steamworks and Magick Obscura (i had to go for the full name

) im playing it now, and having alot of fun

Grey Ninja · « **Reply #11 on:** July 16, 2003, 05:04:25 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: DRJ
For me I prefer turn based RPGs. Something like Final Fantasy 7. When N64 came out Nintendo lost some good RPG developers to Sony. Basically the games would not fit on the cartridge. Look at FF7 it was three disks on playstation.

This is simply a myth. Final Fantasy VII would have fit on a single CD without FMV. There was actually a hack a while back that would allow you to play through Final Fantasy VII in its entirety on a single CD, but the FMV would be cut. This still wouldn't fit on a single N64 cart as is, but if the game was properly programmed, it would have. Make no mistake there. It would have been very different from the PSX version that came out, but it wouldn't have neccessarily been any worse.

The N64 was rejected by Square for whatever reasons. They had a falling out with Nintendo over something. That's pretty clear. Square acnowledged that they were in error when they came back to Nintendo though, and publicly apologized to Nintendo.

Nintendo lost Enix because they no longer controlled the largest userbase on consoles. It was that simple.

Ymeegod · « **Reply #12 on:** July 16, 2003, 06:22:11 AM »

"This still wouldn't fit on a single N64 cart as is, but if the game was properly programmed, it would have. Make no mistake there"

No it wouldn't. Even if you converted the FMV to in-game cut scenes you'll still have the audio do deal with.

Hell the biggest cart that was released on the N64 was for RE2 and that was 512megaBITS (64MB's), which was an utter joke and hell no, FF VII wouldn't have fit even without the audio/FMV. The 3D textures alone were 130MBs.

And it's actually nintendo's fault. It stated it was going cd-based therefore developers (square) began developing for a CD system. So why would square who invested 30 Million into a game not try to find another system to release the game on?

Nintendo's ex pres, Yamauchi is the one that made a big issue with it and basically pulled Squaresoft from developing on Nintendo systems. Enix sooned followed square then nintendo followed up with another BRILLIANT move and canned the Mother series.

So in reality Nintendo's the one that killed itself in the RPG market. Now since the new president Iwata is taking over, square and nintendo seemed to have worked out a new arrangement. :0

Nephilim · « **Reply #13 on:** July 16, 2003, 06:31:12 AM »

final fantasy 7 was orginal being made for nintendo 64, Nintendo magazine in Australia showed the beta pics. which looked alot like zelda, just really rough and bland.
Sony offerd them money to make the game for the playstation, and they went with sonys better offer

even since then everyone flocked to sony, It might of been a different story back now if Nintendo made Sqaure a good offer for the game

Grey Ninja · « **Reply #14 on:** July 16, 2003, 07:04:37 AM »

Deadly D, Footage from Final Fantasy 64 still exists. It wasn't anything mroe than a test level really. It featured 3D versions of Final Fantasy VI characters attacking a huge boss. It was pretty cool.

Ymeegod, I said that FF7 wouldn't have been the same as the PSX version. It would have been programmed specifically for the N64, which means that the 130MB of textures would have been programmed for the N64, using the N64's hardware compression techniques. Carts don't look very big, but they hold a whole lot of stuff. You would really be surprised. Look at Zelda: OoT. Total size of the cart? 256Mb (32MB).

Square's CD based games were scrapped with the SNES. They were developing CD based games for a 16 bit system known as a SNES, not a PSX. In fact, one of them still exists, and was known as Seiken Densetsu 3 (Secret of Mana 2) in Japan. Nintendo 64 being cart based had NOTHING to do with Square's WIP games on a CD medium.

Square was the one who left Nintendo. Get your facts straight. When they left, they made a big deal of it, saying that they couldn't make games on the N64 as the hardware was insufficient, and they would NEVER make games for another Nintendo system. Nintendo responded by saying that "It couldn't be helped." A simple phrase that totally underplayed the importance of Square's departure. Square was insulted at being treated so lightly, and responded with an ad campaign trashing the N64. Years later, when Square wanted to develop for Nintendo systems again, Nintendo demanded demotions of the people responsible. Square accepted, and became a liscensed Nintendo developer again. The people responsible were publicly humiliated by having their job title changed to a lower form.

Enix left Nintendo because they didn't sell enough consoles. I thought I made that clear earlier. Besides, Nintendo makes Mother, not Enix. PLEASE get your facts straight.

Darc Requiem · « **Reply #15 on:** July 16, 2003, 07:05:57 AM »

If you ask me there just haven't been that many RPGs this generation at all. I mean even the PS2 is lacking in RPGS IMO. Its just has more than the GC and X-box. Seriously how many quality RPGS have been released for console this generation? Maybe a dozen?

Darc Requiem

Grey Ninja · « **Reply #16 on:** July 16, 2003, 07:08:44 AM »

Darc, I know what you mean. The only RPGs of worth that I can think of are Star Ocean 3, Wild Arms 3, Xenosaga Ep 1, and Skies of Arcadia.

Final Fantasy of course is a thorough dissapointment, and unfortunately, it seems that my beloved Breath of Fire series is going down the drain too.

The Omen · « **Reply #17 on:** July 16, 2003, 07:15:56 AM »

I think it is directly related to the N64, and Square situation, which has already been covered. If you remember, the SNES had a ridiculous amount of RPGS. I still play them a lot . When Nintendo stuck with cartridges, that was it for many developers, and it takes a while to get it back...like being number 1 in system sales, which seems to be the way developers go nowadays.

Clock Nova · « **Reply #18 on:** July 16, 2003, 07:23:41 AM »

Well, I guess my question has been answered pretty suficiently. Thanks. It's a good thing I don't rely on my GameCube for RPGs, though.

Clock Nova · « **Reply #19 on:** July 16, 2003, 09:45:48 AM »

Hey, I have another question. Is there any point in my buying Phantasy Star On-line if I don't play on-line? From what I've read, it does have a single-player, off-line mode, but I can't figure out if it is any good that way. I'm really not interested in an on-line RPG, but the game sounds pretty cool. So, what do you think? Is it worth buying just for single-player gaming? Perhaps if I get a good deal on it?

ThePerm · « **Reply #20 on:** July 16, 2003, 02:14:24 PM »

yeah its not like xbox gets alot of rpgs either....the only oen i can think of is the upcoming fable...and thats more of a zelfda style action rpg rather then a traditional turned based one...regardless i am looking forward to it and htat was the only real reason i let my friend decide to get an xbox.

Grey Ninja · « **Reply #21 on:** July 16, 2003, 02:19:00 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Clock Nova
Hey, I have another question. Is there any point in my buying Phantasy Star On-line if I don't play on-line? From what I've read, it does have a single-player, off-line mode, but I can't figure out if it is any good that way. I'm really not interested in an on-line RPG, but the game sounds pretty cool. So, what do you think? Is it worth buying just for single-player gaming? Perhaps if I get a good deal on it?

From what I hear, the single player mode will quickly grow very unfun. I have also heard though, that if you are able to get 3 friends, the 4 player offline mode can be quite enjoyable. I don't have the game myself, as I am not really a fan of those types of RPGs, but I am sure that it would be right up your alley.

There is a trial version[/l of the PC version for you to sample though, and see how you like it. From what I hear from PSO fans, it's vastly inferior to the GCN version, but it should give you a sample of what to expect. It's even online!

CrEEpEr · « **Reply #22 on:** July 16, 2003, 02:36:20 PM »

I think its well worth it for single player. I only play it offline. So far ive enjoyed it. You should check it out. Quite an addicting game. Im hooked trying to find all them rares.

Ymeegod · « **Reply #23 on:** July 16, 2003, 04:33:22 PM »

"nintendo followed up with another BRILLIANT move and canned the Mother series"

I never said Enix created or developed the mother series :0. I stated nintendo ****-canned there own turn-based RPG which left N64 gamers with ZIP. Even if Square/Enix left, Nintendo should have created it's own RPGS for the N64. It's not like it couldn't since it has plenty of funding.

And just because the hardware was available at a certain time doesn't mean the game wasn't in developement longer than that. 4-6 years for some of these games and right now and usually the specs on systems can change a few months prior to them launching.

For example, right now there's developers right now who are working on next generation of software without the hardware even being finalized. What happens when the manufactures changes specs? Do you just ****-can what you're done or simply convert it to another format?

Grey Ninja · « **Reply #24 on:** July 16, 2003, 05:06:16 PM »

I don't believe that Nintendo ever claimed the successor to the SNES would be CD based. They claimed that there would be a CD add-on to the SNES, which was ultimately scrapped. Regardless, neither you nor me actually knows what went on between Square and Nintendo. You can't claim that Square had games in development for a CD based N64 without proof. That proof does not exist.

Earthbound 64 was cancelled because the 64DD never took off. From the very beginning, the game was planned as a 64DD game. It's possible that we might see it on GameCube as an SD-card game, but don't hold your breath. Fire Emblem 64 however, was in fact released IIRC.

News:

Author Topic: Tell me why Cube gets so few RPGs (Read 13558 times)