johnnyboy asks, Are there any really good racing

games coming to the GameCube, like Spy Hunter, or Mario Kart, SOON?

Jonathan Says: It looks like Spy Hunter will be

out around March, although whether that counts as a racing game just depends on your

definition. Don't expect Mario Kart on GameCube before Q1 2003, although it'll probably be

online. Donkey Kong Racing looks great on paper and may, MAY, make it out by this

Christmas...but don't hold your breath. There's also the mysterious F-Zero for GameCube

that we spotted back at E3, but who knows what has happened to it since then. Nintendo

never even acknowledged what that footage was. And, of course, you've got 1080

Snowboarding 2, which supposedly is still in development, but who knows where. That's not

even including third-party stuff; off the top of my head, Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2

will probably go multi-platform, and Sega's Amusement Vision likely has plans for a

Daytona title on GameCube eventually. Overall I'd say racing is one of the least worrisome

genres for GameCube, if only because the N64 was SO strong in that category. You're

probably still going to see far more kart- and arcade-style racers on GameCube

though...truly realistic racing games are fairly rare, and most of them suck horribly to

boot (Gran Turismo notwithstanding, although I personally find it 100% unentertaining).

TYP Says: Many (possibly most) Nintendophiles love

the kart-style racer, and Nintendo's systems have ALWAYS been the place for this. If

Jonny's right about the 2003 Mario Kart prediction (as I think he is) there is probably someone

out there trying to fill the gap in as best possible. I have no idea who it is, but there

is BOUND to be someone... I'm sure you'll see a few "realistic" (Hah) racers

come out in 2002 for GameCube.

Billy Says: Well XG3 is already out, and we'll see

Smashing Drive and Spy Hunter in the month or so. Yes, there will be plenty of Racing type

games (arcade/cart) coming to the GameCube.

As far as when Mario Kart will make it's debut, I'm hoping Jonathan's wrong. I think we'll

get DK Racing or Mario Kart before the end of 2002. If the Mario Kart is online as we

predict (for the love of god), I do doubt well see it this year. It's rather unfortunate.

E3 could hold the key to our Mario Kart needs. Keep them fingers crossed boy!

Y2Jeremy asks, With the PS2, the release date difference in America and Europe are very

minimal. Do you know any reasons why the GameCube games WON'T follow the same kind of

schedule? It was terrible with the N64. U.S. got Banjo Tooie in November 2000 and we had

to wait until about April 2002!

Jonathan Says: Probably more than anything, it's a

matter of production speed. Most PAL versions aren't even started until after the NTSC

releases. Although PAL conversion doesn't take very long (usually less than two weeks from

what I've heard), production of the PAL games can't start until that task is complete.

With N64, cartridge production schedules were always planned out many weeks in advance,

and there was often a long waiting list for each title's next print run. The America to

Europe time gap should, in theory, be a lot shorter now that Nintendo is using a disc

format. Let's hope, eh?

TYP Says: The gap has been closing between Japan

and US...I don't see why a similar pattern would develop between US and European releases.

If the downtime doesn't decrease, I'm sure Mr. Pants will be giving Ken Lobb a kick in the

trousers.

Billy Says: It truly is a shame how Europe and

other countries get games so much later. It makes our complaining about game delays rather

trivial in comparison. Regardless if Europe does get games like Kuru...Europe, and many

other countries get screwed time and time again. It's understandable why many import

hardware and games.

Zosha Says: Wait for Milia. 5 March isn't so far

away.

JConrad asks, For years now, we've heard rumors that Nintendo has several 2nd party

developers that they've yet to announce. IGN has even ran articles and rumor reports

acting like they know something about it. I know that Camelot, Flagship, and Factor 5 have

been the main candidates talked about, I was hoping you might share your insight on the

subject. Beyond what you are hoping for, do you know any info on this, or of any other

possible companies in the running?

I thought of asking IGN about this (since they pretend to know something), but getting a

straight answer to a question from them is even rarer than them updating their site on

time.

Jonathan Says: Camelot is technically not a

second-party, but lately they've been acting like one and many people think the deal will

probably be formalized in the near future. Let's put it this way: Nintendo let Camelot use

Mario, so the two companies are obviously VERY close.

Factor 5, although very instrumental in the GameCube hardware's development, has expressed

some interest in Xbox development lately. In addition, they obviously have a very

lucrative publishing relationship with LucasArts that would be difficult to maintain if

too much of Nintendo's money entered the situation. Becoming a second-party offers great

financial stability, but there are downsides as well; for now, Factor 5 seems to value

their freedom too much to be controlled by Nintendo.

As for Flagship: I won't pretend to know a great deal about this small company (though I'm

sure Dragona can fill in the gaps), but as I understand it, Flagship is a wholly-owned

subsidiary of Capcom. In other words, they aren't even for sale. The reason Flagship got

to handle one of Nintendo's most beloved franchises for the recent GBC Zelda games is that

ol' Shigeru Miyamoto apparently is very good friends with the guy in charge. It wouldn't

surprise me to see several Flagship employees end up at Nintendo, but I don't think the

company as a whole is going anywhere.

Billy Says: I would have to agree with J00ny on Camelot. If they get to touch

Mario, they're pretty damn close. Nintendo should nab them while they can.

Who's a second party is a very interesting game you can play with Nintendo. There's

obviously third party companies like Factor 5 or Camelot that aren't second party, but

they seem to get second party attention.

TYP Says: If Camelot becomes 2nd party, a new

venture in the Shining Force series will become little more likely than a Mario &

Sonic game.... And we wouldn't want that, now, would we?

Rize Says: TYP, you do know that there is a new

Shining title coming to the Game Boy Advance? It's not a strategy RPG like Shining Force

though. It's more of an action-adventure game. Perhaps we'll see more of that at E3.

Zosha Says: Heh, Camelot might have

"gotten" Mario, but Capcom/Flagship got Zelda. So why isn't Capcom a second

party, eh? Heheh.

Seriously though, NCL tends to gloss over these things, never really letting the outside

world know of its internal second party dealings. Groups like Quest (creators of the Ogre

Battle Saga) and Camelot may not be "officially" 2nd parties but you damn

well know they're NCL partners and for all intents and purposes, as good as a "2nd

party". The games are exclusive. Hell, Nintendo published TO: Gaiden. That gives a

pretty clear indication.

As for Flagship, they're partially owned by Sega/Nintendo but Capcom has the majority

stake. (I believe Sega and Nintendo both have something around 10% ownership.) It was

founded by Okamoto, a big Nintendo supporter.

So you see, it's not very cut and dry.

John asks, I want to hear an informed opinion or as factual as can be, on the Cube's

gaming abilities against the PC. It sounds to me from what little pieces I have gathered,

the Cube is actually more tailored for gaming, and the power (specs) is not an issue. From

what I've seen in Eternal Darkness so far, there are no better textures out there, and the

detail and and effects are top notch.

We have seen many comparisons on the consoles, I want a break down on the PC side. Higher

specs on a PC, but bottlenecks and not tailored for games. Cube is lower in specs, but

made for easier programming and streamlined for it. There has to be somebody who can give

fair comparisons even if every little thing is not known, all I know is they seem really

close, despite the specs.

Mike S. Says: When it comes down

to Console vs. PC it's quite simple. For the PC, developers have to guess at what kind of

hardware the many different users of their products have. For consoles, the hardware is

uniform. The uniform nature of consoles makes them MUCH easier to develop for, and the

developer can tailor a game to work at it's best on a console.

As for specs, you really cannot judge them against each other. They are two totally

different beasts. The PCs have monster specs today. Consoles are spec'ed much lower but

offer equal or more performance in most cases because of the uniform hardware.

But really, in the end it all comes down to the games. Games are important in the end.

Games like Worms most certainly do NOT have mind-blowing graphics but they have managed to

capture millions of rabid fans because they are flat-out awesome.

Mike H. Says: All of the consoles are more

tailored for gaming... well, obviously. To take the other Mike's comments a step

further... what PC do you have in mind? A 600MHz Celeron? 2.2GHz Pentium4? 800MHz Apple

G4? 64 megs of RAM? 128? 256?

A lot of developers aim low with their system requirements (thus lowering the capabilities

of their games) to attract as many people as possible. There are literally millions of

different setups out there. Comparing GameCube to any one setup wouldn't come close to

answering your question. Not an issue with console platforms. However, there's no question

a 2.2GHz Pentium4 or an Athlon XP 2000+ with a Geforce TI card would have killer gaming

power over any of the current consoles... If you have $1500+ (U.S.) to spend for mostly

less than stellar games (IMO).

If you care, developers have compared the power of the GameCube to that along the lines of

an 800MHz PC. What that means, spec-wise, I don't know (RAM, graphics card, etc). It was

too vague a comment. They might just be referring to the CPU, which leaves out the Flipper

altogether, and means even less.

In more general terms, PCs aren't built from the ground up as game boxes. They just happen

to do be able to play them. They generally don't come out of the box with controllers,

much less more than one controller, or even more than one controller PORT (unless you

consider USB ports or something). Many think the keyboard is great for their PC gaming...

I say, err, whatever, more power to ya. No, I don't believe PCs are the least bit

gamer-friendly. It's just one of the many functions a PC can do.

If PCs could be tailored to games specifically, you could remove the current import

devices, create more uniform imports, strip the cards out, sell it grossly under cost and

call it an Xbox... and I just made that name up, too.

Jonathan Says: Comparing the GameCube's

performance to PC performance is like trying to compare the 1982 Ford Thunderbird's

performance to Chevrolet's performance. It simply doesn't make sense. I'll stick my neck

out and make a ballpark estimate here...GameCube is probably slightly more capable than

the average stock $2000 consumer PC from Dell or Gateway, including an OEM graphics

accelerator. Sure, you can easily build a PC that is considerably more powerful than

GameCube, PS2, and Xbox all put together...it just depends on how much you want to spend.

For what a console costs, its gaming value is far over and above anything you can get with

a PC... that's simple economics. Of course, the flipside to that argument is that a PC has

many other useful functions that can justify its price. It doesn't really make sense to

spend $2000 or $3000 on a heavily souped-up, hardcore gaming PC though... not when you can

have almost comparable performance and arguable superior software on a console for

one-tenth the cost.

Rize Says: I like to look at the Xbox which has a

souped up GeForce3 chip in it (with 2x the T&L power). Many developers have implied

that the Cube is nearly neck and neck with the Xbox in terms of graphics potential. Now,

with that, you might find it easier to compare the Xbox to a PC current PC. While it's

only got a 733 MHz PIII (with half the cache), the graphics chip can still be considered

top of the line and that doesn't even consider the much better memory architecture that

Xbox and GameCube have over just about all PCs. Add to this the fact that Console games

are tweaked and optimized to take full advantage of the system, and I think it's clear

that the best console games will easily outpace the graphics of any PC game for months to

come.

Daniel Says: I agree with Jonathan and Rize on

this. Since their is such a variety in system set-ups, the X-Box is really the best

example of what a streamlined gaming PC could do.

One of the difficulties that hinders PC games is that developers need to stay compatible

with the lower-range of specs to get decent sales. Most people don't bother to upgrade

their computers unless they have to do work that requires it.

DylTyl asks, Nintendo said their "proprietary discs" were going to be a

lot cheaper than cartridges to make, which is a fact. So why are all the newly released

GameCube games the same price as newly released Nintendo 64 games?

Mike S. Says: Actually, they are cheaper. N64

games usually retailed at about $60. GameCube games are priced at $50. As for why we

aren't seeing a drastic price drop, well that is simple. Companies know they can

charge $50 a game and it will still be sold. Also, if the game prices went down to

something like $30, we would see a LOT less good games. Games cost a lot of money to make

today, the good ones at least. If developers don't make enough money on sales, they simply

won't make expensive games anymore. They will start making bad games that can be sold for

$30 and the market will be flooded with titles like "Army Men."

Mike H. Says: Larger profit margins, silly.

Jonathan Says: I promise you that the average

price of GameCube titles is $10-15 cheaper than the average price of N64 titles back when

they were new. People have a tendency to underestimate the price of games in younger days;

third-party N64 games at $70 were not terribly unusual, and Street Fighter 2 for SNES

originally retailed for $80. Come to think of it, that's also how much I paid for Chrono

Trigger...five years later, the brand new Chrono Cross was only $40. Too bad it

stank...but that's another story.

Billy Says: Yeah, $50 games really aren't bad.

Hell Atari games back in the day we're $35-$40 bucks.

N64 games at launch we're very expensive. I paid 69.99 for both Mario 64 and Pilotwings.

Heh, I paid $89.99 for Shadows of the Empire when that was released. I turned around and

sold it for $95 a week later due to a shortage of the game.

TYP Says: On a related note, Nintendo claimed

production costs (or was that royalties) for GBA carts would be going down sometime this

year. Hopefully we'll see 3rd party titles at the $35 mark soon. And maybe a few of the

1st party games with lower production costs (read short or ports) will come to market at

$25, if Nintendo would be so kind :-)

Rize Says: Final Fantasy III = 90 US dollars at

WAL-MART back in the SNES days. The N64's greatest hits were routinely 40 dollars. I

expect that GameCube hits will be 30 dollars max. I think we have it great right now.

Games haven't been this inexpensive since the NES was popular; especially if you factor

inflation into the mix. Game Boy Advance games are worse than ever though. I almost feel

bad when Nintendo charges 30 bucks for their games while 3rd parties have to charge 35 or

40 (since Nintendo gets a cut). Cartridges are hell.

Zosha Says: Feel sorry for PAL gamers, dammit!

Especially gamers in the UK. Most of the time, companies just pretend USD = Pound

Sterling. Games being 60£! Sixty bloody quid! Take into account that 1£ is the

equivalent of about 2$ USD...

That's right. OUCH.

The GC will probably be 199£ spot on. I dread to think of how many Euros it'll go for the

rest of Europa...

Daniel Says: I don't know where you guys shop, but

I never saw a SNES game over $60 and the only N64 game I ever saw above $70 was Hey You!

Pikachu!

Considering how N64 games eventually dropped down to the $40 - $50 range, I won't be too

surprised if GC games make it into the $30 - $40 range or even less.

TYP Says: £199/€319 (my GCN price guess)

isn't as bad as £299/€479 for Xbox! As far as GCN game pricing goes, I suspect

£45/€69 ($60), as that's what the Xbox games are going for. It's interesting: Xbox

is much cheaper in Japan (well...maybe not for the Japanese thanks to the recession), and

I suspect M$ can get away with the EVEN BIGGER losses because of high European prices! But

at roughly $425 for an Xbox system, you'll see many Europeans holding tight to their PS2s

or going for the $285 GCN instead (once again, my guestimate). It's understandable why the

industry charges more in Europe: the cost of language/format translations and the higher

European prices in general contribute to this... but I'm not sure $10 more a piece is

warranted.