The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Banjo Pilot = sh*t
It's Mr Pants = mmmm mediocracy
It's been, what, four years since they released a game worth playing?
It's Mr Pants = mmmm mediocracy
It's been, what, four years since they released a game worth playing?
Page:
I hold out little hope for Kameo. I don't think it can deliver the goods.
Whilst Conker Live and Uncut cannot fail, considering it's a bloody re-make.
Whilst Conker Live and Uncut cannot fail, considering it's a bloody re-make.
3 games every 2 years?
N64: 1996-2001
RARE games: KI Gold, Blast Corps, BK, BT, DK64, Jet Force Gemini, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Conker, Diddy Kong Racing, Mickeys Speedway USA.
Okay, 2 games a year, on average. Which games sold anything? Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Kazooie and DK64. Gemini, Speedway, Conker, Corps and Gold sold rather poorly. Tooie and DKR sold pretty average.
So that's what, 4 big hits, from a massive company, in 5 years.
And considering how long some of them spent in development.
RARE cost Nintendo an awful lot of money.
Once upon a time RARE were top of their game, the best in the bussiness. Even the casual gamers knew their name.
But a new generation comes and with it new names. SEGA, Rockstar and Ubi-Soft. Whilst the giants of the last generation, Konami, Namco and RARE. Have vanished from the face of the world.
N64: 1996-2001
RARE games: KI Gold, Blast Corps, BK, BT, DK64, Jet Force Gemini, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Conker, Diddy Kong Racing, Mickeys Speedway USA.
Okay, 2 games a year, on average. Which games sold anything? Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Kazooie and DK64. Gemini, Speedway, Conker, Corps and Gold sold rather poorly. Tooie and DKR sold pretty average.
So that's what, 4 big hits, from a massive company, in 5 years.
And considering how long some of them spent in development.
RARE cost Nintendo an awful lot of money.
Once upon a time RARE were top of their game, the best in the bussiness. Even the casual gamers knew their name.
But a new generation comes and with it new names. SEGA, Rockstar and Ubi-Soft. Whilst the giants of the last generation, Konami, Namco and RARE. Have vanished from the face of the world.
Dringo wrote:
> Retro release a game every 2 years (which is about RARE's standard)
> and the first game sold 1.4 million copies, their second game may
> still reach it. They are just one team, with a much less development
> cost.
Uh uh!
Rare released about 3 games every 2 years.
Also, Retro's second game was an evolution rather than a whole new game from scratch (other than the Banjo's and DK64, all the Rare games were entirely seperate and develloped from scratch).
Don't get me wrong.
Retro are a VERY talented team, but while they seem to be better than what Rare ARE (and that might be questionable once Kameo and Conker come out), but I doubt that they'll ever be what Rare WERE, back in that Golden Age.
Also, I know I'm kind of to Rare to what you are to Nintendo, but I've recently found a reason to be disgusted with both Rare AND Nintendo.
People who used to visit their site during the N64 "era", perhaps looking for info on Perfect Dark or whatever, might've noticed that during that time they had a new office built.
Some time later I heard from a friend that it was his Dad's business that did the job (I live in the same-ish county).
It turns out that because his Dad was late in finishing the offices, Rare refused to pay. They tried to take them to court to get their payment for the job, but Nintendo/Rare had unlimited resources so my friend's Dad couldn't sustain it.
The company went under.
Now perhaps there was more to it than that, after all, it was a biased version of te story I heard, but still...
It just brings it down that Nintendo (who obviously had some involvement atleast) and Rare are still corporate scumbags, even if we do admire the art they produce.
(It wouldn't be the first time that Nintendo had been "bad" either, but lets not get into that! :-))
> Retro release a game every 2 years (which is about RARE's standard)
> and the first game sold 1.4 million copies, their second game may
> still reach it. They are just one team, with a much less development
> cost.
Uh uh!
Rare released about 3 games every 2 years.
Also, Retro's second game was an evolution rather than a whole new game from scratch (other than the Banjo's and DK64, all the Rare games were entirely seperate and develloped from scratch).
Don't get me wrong.
Retro are a VERY talented team, but while they seem to be better than what Rare ARE (and that might be questionable once Kameo and Conker come out), but I doubt that they'll ever be what Rare WERE, back in that Golden Age.
Also, I know I'm kind of to Rare to what you are to Nintendo, but I've recently found a reason to be disgusted with both Rare AND Nintendo.
People who used to visit their site during the N64 "era", perhaps looking for info on Perfect Dark or whatever, might've noticed that during that time they had a new office built.
Some time later I heard from a friend that it was his Dad's business that did the job (I live in the same-ish county).
It turns out that because his Dad was late in finishing the offices, Rare refused to pay. They tried to take them to court to get their payment for the job, but Nintendo/Rare had unlimited resources so my friend's Dad couldn't sustain it.
The company went under.
Now perhaps there was more to it than that, after all, it was a biased version of te story I heard, but still...
It just brings it down that Nintendo (who obviously had some involvement atleast) and Rare are still corporate scumbags, even if we do admire the art they produce.
(It wouldn't be the first time that Nintendo had been "bad" either, but lets not get into that! :-))
Dringo wrote:
> and it has taken Nintendo a real long
> time to produce adult software as great as RARE's.
Any specific titles that spring to mind?
> and it has taken Nintendo a real long
> time to produce adult software as great as RARE's.
Any specific titles that spring to mind?
But that's it NB, the company was massive, a good 5 teams.
Not all games made that money, Jet Force Gemini and Conker were commercial flops.
They cost a lot of money to run and took ages to release a game.
Conker took 4 years to develop and was released to sales well under a million.
Nintendo knew they would still have the company for Gameboy output but RARE were taking so long making games. Development costs for that company was so high.
Retro release a game every 2 years (which is about RARE's standard) and the first game sold 1.4 million copies, their second game may still reach it. They are just one team, with a much less development cost.
Namco and Nintendo are sharing the weight of the new Starfox game, as did Nintendo and Konami with Twin Snakes, as will Nintendo and Capcom with Resident Evil 4 and Konami and Nintendo with DDR with mario.
RARE games are great. But to be honest they came at a price. Sadly loss of RARE meant loss of fans and it has taken Nintendo a real long time to produce adult software as great as RARE's.
Not all games made that money, Jet Force Gemini and Conker were commercial flops.
They cost a lot of money to run and took ages to release a game.
Conker took 4 years to develop and was released to sales well under a million.
Nintendo knew they would still have the company for Gameboy output but RARE were taking so long making games. Development costs for that company was so high.
Retro release a game every 2 years (which is about RARE's standard) and the first game sold 1.4 million copies, their second game may still reach it. They are just one team, with a much less development cost.
Namco and Nintendo are sharing the weight of the new Starfox game, as did Nintendo and Konami with Twin Snakes, as will Nintendo and Capcom with Resident Evil 4 and Konami and Nintendo with DDR with mario.
RARE games are great. But to be honest they came at a price. Sadly loss of RARE meant loss of fans and it has taken Nintendo a real long time to produce adult software as great as RARE's.
If a company that have average sales per title of 1.4 million wasn't making Nintendo money then there was something seriously wrong there.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Yeah in looking back, it was 49% but it was $375 million. In
> today's money Nintendos cut was almost exactly £100 million.
> And I still think an on form Rare would have been worth at least that
> to Nintendo.
No they wouldn't RARE wasn't making much money for Nintendo, they were costing a lot of money to run and they'd release a hit every so often. Getting exclusive deals with third parties were far cheaper. Hence the change. It also allowed Nintendo to expand EAD and buy Retro.
As for RARE and Nintendo's relationship breaking down that's not actually true. RARE made all the DKC ports to the GBA (and they were updated) and Nintendo published them. Sounds like a fair working relationship to me.
> Yeah in looking back, it was 49% but it was $375 million. In
> today's money Nintendos cut was almost exactly £100 million.
> And I still think an on form Rare would have been worth at least that
> to Nintendo.
No they wouldn't RARE wasn't making much money for Nintendo, they were costing a lot of money to run and they'd release a hit every so often. Getting exclusive deals with third parties were far cheaper. Hence the change. It also allowed Nintendo to expand EAD and buy Retro.
As for RARE and Nintendo's relationship breaking down that's not actually true. RARE made all the DKC ports to the GBA (and they were updated) and Nintendo published them. Sounds like a fair working relationship to me.
Hedfix wrote:
> Both have produced decidedly average games since the end of the '64.
I concur.
> Both have produced decidedly average games since the end of the '64.
I concur.
Hedfix wrote:
> Clazon wrote:
> 'poof'
>
> Double post
Yes.
> or are you questioning my manhood (it can't answer back,
> but it can poke you in the eye)?
Oh, there's no question over that one.
*Nice job last night, BTW.*
:D
> Clazon wrote:
> 'poof'
>
> Double post
Yes.
> or are you questioning my manhood (it can't answer back,
> but it can poke you in the eye)?
Oh, there's no question over that one.
*Nice job last night, BTW.*
:D
Clazon wrote:
> 'poof'
Double post or are you questioning my manhood (it can't answer back, but it can poke you in the eye)?
> 'poof'
Double post or are you questioning my manhood (it can't answer back, but it can poke you in the eye)?
Page: