The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Being a die-hard Nintendo fan is not easy you know. Every morning I get up, bow to my Gamecube, kiss all my joy pads and religiously study the manuals of all my Nintendo games (SNES. NES, N64, Gamecube and Gameboy). Every piece of negative news I spin into a positive light, I do it so well, Nintendo should hire me as their PR wizard.
But I’ve had enough. Nintendo you are one ******* stupid bloody piece of ****. That’s right it is I, the legendary Dringo, he who can not be slain by Playstation and starves off the threat of the X-box who is saying this you proud ******. What the hell are you playing at? I’m a WESTERN NINTENDO FAN, I don’t get all those ******* titles from Japan with the words Giftipia or Animal Forest printed on the side. And the ones I do get, Doshin the ******* Giant, turns out to be a pile of utter toss.
Every time I spin some negative news article into a positive light but why? Who’s the idiot now ah? You cut second party ties with a certain Left Field, Left Field (NBA courtside and Excitebike 64) are your sports developer; they make your sports games. But oh look you don’t REALLY need them now SEGA has gone multi-format with their sports range. So remove them, who cares. Oh well look at that, less than a year later and SEGA cancel all their sports titles for the Gamecube. WOOPS! Now whom can you turn to? That’s right NO ONE, I have noticed you are now making your own mature sports games (the upcoming Legend of Golfer) but it’s too late.
Ah yes Nintendo, now onto Rare Ware. My previous status was that “they’re crap anyway” and that “they lost Nintendo money”. ********, you ARE dumb aren’t you Nintendo? Want to know why they didn’t make you much money in the year before you sold them? Because they didn’t ACTUALLY release any bloody games! Rare Ware are an unresponsive developer but they were your other half, they are more than Silicon Knights, Left Field, HAL etc... put together. They made Banjo, Conker, Killer Instinct, Donkey Kong and Perfect Dark… all of these are BIG Nintendo releases, well they would have been if you hadn’t ******* sold them! Look at this, your sales aren’t up to scratch! Could this be down to a certain absence of a company that made half your AAA titles? It nearly forced me away, but then that was okay, at least you have Retro Studios and Silicon Knights.
Oh Sympathy where have you gone.
First off you crush Retro Studio’s. A bit of a re-shuffle was needed, EAD’s help was appreciated on Metroid Prime. BUT did you really need to destroy the 4 teams that were there into 1? Raven Blade, that racer and that football game WAS exactly what Nintendo Gamecube lacks. A decent footy game, a decent exclusive racing title and a mature action RPG. But you cancelled them. Did you really have to scrap all those games?
And now modern day. The one that made me snap. I love Silicon Knights. True they are hardly a true example of Nintendo (prefer cinematic gameplay and adult games) but that was the point. Nintendo you’ve told me time and time again how you want to be more “adult” and Eternal Darkness and Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes are YOUR most mature games. And you cut ties with the company behind them? Too Human can now return to the PS2, which it was originally coded for, and you’ve lost yet another special western developer.
I know Nintendo. You have loads of second parties, some I never even knew about including that new sports developer SETA (ever heard of them? No neither have I). But Rare, Silicon Knights, the full Retro team and Left Field could have all pushed Nintendo in both Europe and America. You would have defeated Microsoft and competed more fiercely. But instead you try to get exclusives from other companies that simply do not sell. Capcom are having to cancel their plans to keep Viewtiful Joe and Killer 7 exclusive and cannot wait for the Resident Evil deal to expire. Namco are doing okay but that’s because they hardly support Nintendo as much as they support Sony. SEGA have been drifting away ever so slowly, remember the Virtual Fighter RPG and the sonic series were once exclusive to Nintendo. They are both now lost.
So tell me Nintendo, who do you have left to sell your product to the western world? You don’t have Rare, you don’t have Silicon Knights, you don’t have Left field. Christ you don’t even have Capcom anymore. And in fact you’ve even lost Dringo, your most avid supporter. Sure I love Zelda and Mario, but I’m a western gamer, I have western needs and the only western game you actually make is Metroid Prime, and I don’t even like it.
Maybe one day you’ll acquire some killer, high profile companies such as Capcom, Midway or Free Radical Design. But in the mean time I need to raise funds for an X-box. After all a western Nintendo fan needs his Rare.
Dringo.
But I’ve had enough. Nintendo you are one ******* stupid bloody piece of ****. That’s right it is I, the legendary Dringo, he who can not be slain by Playstation and starves off the threat of the X-box who is saying this you proud ******. What the hell are you playing at? I’m a WESTERN NINTENDO FAN, I don’t get all those ******* titles from Japan with the words Giftipia or Animal Forest printed on the side. And the ones I do get, Doshin the ******* Giant, turns out to be a pile of utter toss.
Every time I spin some negative news article into a positive light but why? Who’s the idiot now ah? You cut second party ties with a certain Left Field, Left Field (NBA courtside and Excitebike 64) are your sports developer; they make your sports games. But oh look you don’t REALLY need them now SEGA has gone multi-format with their sports range. So remove them, who cares. Oh well look at that, less than a year later and SEGA cancel all their sports titles for the Gamecube. WOOPS! Now whom can you turn to? That’s right NO ONE, I have noticed you are now making your own mature sports games (the upcoming Legend of Golfer) but it’s too late.
Ah yes Nintendo, now onto Rare Ware. My previous status was that “they’re crap anyway” and that “they lost Nintendo money”. ********, you ARE dumb aren’t you Nintendo? Want to know why they didn’t make you much money in the year before you sold them? Because they didn’t ACTUALLY release any bloody games! Rare Ware are an unresponsive developer but they were your other half, they are more than Silicon Knights, Left Field, HAL etc... put together. They made Banjo, Conker, Killer Instinct, Donkey Kong and Perfect Dark… all of these are BIG Nintendo releases, well they would have been if you hadn’t ******* sold them! Look at this, your sales aren’t up to scratch! Could this be down to a certain absence of a company that made half your AAA titles? It nearly forced me away, but then that was okay, at least you have Retro Studios and Silicon Knights.
Oh Sympathy where have you gone.
First off you crush Retro Studio’s. A bit of a re-shuffle was needed, EAD’s help was appreciated on Metroid Prime. BUT did you really need to destroy the 4 teams that were there into 1? Raven Blade, that racer and that football game WAS exactly what Nintendo Gamecube lacks. A decent footy game, a decent exclusive racing title and a mature action RPG. But you cancelled them. Did you really have to scrap all those games?
And now modern day. The one that made me snap. I love Silicon Knights. True they are hardly a true example of Nintendo (prefer cinematic gameplay and adult games) but that was the point. Nintendo you’ve told me time and time again how you want to be more “adult” and Eternal Darkness and Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes are YOUR most mature games. And you cut ties with the company behind them? Too Human can now return to the PS2, which it was originally coded for, and you’ve lost yet another special western developer.
I know Nintendo. You have loads of second parties, some I never even knew about including that new sports developer SETA (ever heard of them? No neither have I). But Rare, Silicon Knights, the full Retro team and Left Field could have all pushed Nintendo in both Europe and America. You would have defeated Microsoft and competed more fiercely. But instead you try to get exclusives from other companies that simply do not sell. Capcom are having to cancel their plans to keep Viewtiful Joe and Killer 7 exclusive and cannot wait for the Resident Evil deal to expire. Namco are doing okay but that’s because they hardly support Nintendo as much as they support Sony. SEGA have been drifting away ever so slowly, remember the Virtual Fighter RPG and the sonic series were once exclusive to Nintendo. They are both now lost.
So tell me Nintendo, who do you have left to sell your product to the western world? You don’t have Rare, you don’t have Silicon Knights, you don’t have Left field. Christ you don’t even have Capcom anymore. And in fact you’ve even lost Dringo, your most avid supporter. Sure I love Zelda and Mario, but I’m a western gamer, I have western needs and the only western game you actually make is Metroid Prime, and I don’t even like it.
Maybe one day you’ll acquire some killer, high profile companies such as Capcom, Midway or Free Radical Design. But in the mean time I need to raise funds for an X-box. After all a western Nintendo fan needs his Rare.
Dringo.
Page:
Hedfix wrote:
> Yes, there's a lot of Nintendo-tinted spectacles being worn in this
> thread.
Welcome to the Nintendo forum.
Is Super Monkey Ball better than Halo? Yes... ask another 20 Nintendo fans, they'll come out with a similar answer.
> Yes, there's a lot of Nintendo-tinted spectacles being worn in this
> thread.
Welcome to the Nintendo forum.
Is Super Monkey Ball better than Halo? Yes... ask another 20 Nintendo fans, they'll come out with a similar answer.
Hedfix wrote:
> and like I said, the exclusives I had got old quicly and the
> mulitformat ones are better either because of the HD or the Xbox
> extras.
To be fair, a fair few decent multi-format multiplayer titles are best on the GameCube. TimeSplitters 2 for the four-player option, R: Racing for the superb Pacman Vs., Soul Calibur 2 for the best secret character and control set-up and others. I accept multi-format titles, on the whole, tend to be better on Xbox but the generalisation has its exceptions - especially with multiplayer orientated titles.
> and like I said, the exclusives I had got old quicly and the
> mulitformat ones are better either because of the HD or the Xbox
> extras.
To be fair, a fair few decent multi-format multiplayer titles are best on the GameCube. TimeSplitters 2 for the four-player option, R: Racing for the superb Pacman Vs., Soul Calibur 2 for the best secret character and control set-up and others. I accept multi-format titles, on the whole, tend to be better on Xbox but the generalisation has its exceptions - especially with multiplayer orientated titles.
Hedfix wrote:
> and like I said, the exclusives I had got old quicly and the
> mulitformat ones are better either because of the HD or the Xbox
> extras.
How does having a harddrive and perhaps an online leaderboard make the game better? From what I've played (a lot), Ninty's multiplayer titles, along with their exclusives, are much better than multiformat titles. TS2 is up there with the best of them, but other than that Nintendo's multiplayer line-up is brilliant.
> Having 10+ makes it worth while but
> Live is still the main reason for me getting a second Xbox and it's
> nice to have the option of online to go with the multiformat titles.
> The exclusive cube multiplayer games don't cut it IMO which is why I
> sold my cube.
Have you actually played Cube multiplayer? Monkey Ball, Pac-man, Kirby, 1080... they're brilliant, brilliant games and much better than I've found on the XBox. having 16 or so players can make virtually any game good in multiplayer; look at XIII, splitscreen it's awful, probably one of the worst multiformat titles played on my Cube for multiplayer, yet I hear nothing but good thigns about 16-player. The fact that it needs so many players to be good says a lot about it. Like I said you can save a lot of money and have much more fun on splitscreen games.
> £40 for Live if you already have broadband? Oh that's A LOT of
> money. I think you'll find that a lot of people consider Live to be a
> bit more than 'a little extra'.
I was talking about getting another XBox, not Live. Paying £100 for each player to have their own screen is pointless when you can play the same game on splitscreen for no extra money.
Oh, and 'Nintendo-tinted spectacles'? I have and enjoy all three consoles, I'll happily admit that PGR2 kicks the Cube's and PS2's racing games right up the ass, and when it comes to FPS', the XBox is obviously the outright winner. But multiplayer is always going to go to the Cube.
If I have all 3 consoles, what, exactly, would be the point in lying about which I think is the best? I can get games for any, but the Cube's games are better for offline multiplayer. In my opinion of course. I could say the same about people here looking at Cube and because they use GBA connectivety of don't have system link, are disregarded. The Cube has something for everyone when it comes to multiplayer. Yes, there's a lack of FPS', but do you really need more than 1? TimeSplitters 2 has given me a lot of entertainment (100's of hours worth) since I got, and I still play it today. Of course if that doesn't appeal, there's Geist to come which could perhaps be good in multiplayer. The Cube isn't exactly spoilt for choice, but what it does have is good enough.
Racing games? Well there are 3 that offer very different things; ultimate speed (F-Zero), fun, simple racing (Kirby Air Ride) and classic, crazy multiplay (Mario Kart), now, like I said, PGR2 kicks these games a*ses, but when it coems to multiplayer I'd much rather be playing them. Saying Nintendo's multiplayer games are bad is complete crap.
I'm not being bias, I just happen to enjoy original and fun games, and Nintendo deliver time after time. Of course if there's an outstanding title like Halo 2 or Half Life 2 released, I'll get it, but beyond the real killers, the XBox offers very little.
> and like I said, the exclusives I had got old quicly and the
> mulitformat ones are better either because of the HD or the Xbox
> extras.
How does having a harddrive and perhaps an online leaderboard make the game better? From what I've played (a lot), Ninty's multiplayer titles, along with their exclusives, are much better than multiformat titles. TS2 is up there with the best of them, but other than that Nintendo's multiplayer line-up is brilliant.
> Having 10+ makes it worth while but
> Live is still the main reason for me getting a second Xbox and it's
> nice to have the option of online to go with the multiformat titles.
> The exclusive cube multiplayer games don't cut it IMO which is why I
> sold my cube.
Have you actually played Cube multiplayer? Monkey Ball, Pac-man, Kirby, 1080... they're brilliant, brilliant games and much better than I've found on the XBox. having 16 or so players can make virtually any game good in multiplayer; look at XIII, splitscreen it's awful, probably one of the worst multiformat titles played on my Cube for multiplayer, yet I hear nothing but good thigns about 16-player. The fact that it needs so many players to be good says a lot about it. Like I said you can save a lot of money and have much more fun on splitscreen games.
> £40 for Live if you already have broadband? Oh that's A LOT of
> money. I think you'll find that a lot of people consider Live to be a
> bit more than 'a little extra'.
I was talking about getting another XBox, not Live. Paying £100 for each player to have their own screen is pointless when you can play the same game on splitscreen for no extra money.
Oh, and 'Nintendo-tinted spectacles'? I have and enjoy all three consoles, I'll happily admit that PGR2 kicks the Cube's and PS2's racing games right up the ass, and when it comes to FPS', the XBox is obviously the outright winner. But multiplayer is always going to go to the Cube.
If I have all 3 consoles, what, exactly, would be the point in lying about which I think is the best? I can get games for any, but the Cube's games are better for offline multiplayer. In my opinion of course. I could say the same about people here looking at Cube and because they use GBA connectivety of don't have system link, are disregarded. The Cube has something for everyone when it comes to multiplayer. Yes, there's a lack of FPS', but do you really need more than 1? TimeSplitters 2 has given me a lot of entertainment (100's of hours worth) since I got, and I still play it today. Of course if that doesn't appeal, there's Geist to come which could perhaps be good in multiplayer. The Cube isn't exactly spoilt for choice, but what it does have is good enough.
Racing games? Well there are 3 that offer very different things; ultimate speed (F-Zero), fun, simple racing (Kirby Air Ride) and classic, crazy multiplay (Mario Kart), now, like I said, PGR2 kicks these games a*ses, but when it coems to multiplayer I'd much rather be playing them. Saying Nintendo's multiplayer games are bad is complete crap.
I'm not being bias, I just happen to enjoy original and fun games, and Nintendo deliver time after time. Of course if there's an outstanding title like Halo 2 or Half Life 2 released, I'll get it, but beyond the real killers, the XBox offers very little.
Mav wrote:
> Well I own a GameCube and an Xbox with Live, and my opinion
> still stands that getting mates over is far better than online, and
> therefore the GameCube is the best console for multiplayer.
Multiformat titles.... bored of the Ninty multi exclusives.... Best of both worlds: mates round+Live.... yadda yadda yadda....
> Well I own a GameCube and an Xbox with Live, and my opinion
> still stands that getting mates over is far better than online, and
> therefore the GameCube is the best console for multiplayer.
Multiformat titles.... bored of the Ninty multi exclusives.... Best of both worlds: mates round+Live.... yadda yadda yadda....
Rickoss wrote:
>
> Yes that makes... little sense.
That's what I was trying to point out to you.
>
> Like I said, when it comes to basic multiplayer, the GameCube is the
> best. Not online, not LAN. Just multiplayer, and if you do want to
> get more out of multiplayer, you only have to pay £5 for a
> link-up cable.
and like I said, the exclusives I had got old quicly and the mulitformat ones are better either because of the HD or the Xbox extras.
MK, MB and the like are the best
> splitscreen multiplayer titles I've played for current consoles, and
> you don't need to spend £100+ to get the most out of them,
> either.
No because MB doesn't have the option for system link, well MK has something similar but like you say further on having one game for link up really isn't worth it. Having 10+ makes it worth while but Live is still the main reason for me getting a second Xbox and it's nice to have the option of online to go with the multiformat titles. The exclusive cube multiplayer games don't cut it IMO which is why I sold my cube.
>
> Most games are better with 16 or 8 players, but unless you're willing
> to pay a lot of money for very little extra,
£40 for Live if you already have broadband? Oh that's A LOT of money. I think you'll find that a lot of people consider Live to be a bit more than 'a little extra'.
it's not really much of
> an option. I could set up LAN and play Mario Kart and Kirby with 7
> other people (or however many can play), but what's the point in
> spending that much money when your basic set up is just as good.
Remember what I said about having a PC style setup where you can't see the other player's screen? THAT'S BETTER THAN THE BASIC SETUP .
System link was a bonus and spending money on 2 pc's to get a control system I don't want and a load of upgrades I Shouldn't need isn't worth it.
>
> Anyway, 16-player Mario Kart would kick 16-player Halo's ass any day
> :-P
Actually I'd say they'd be about equal. Which one's going to come sooner though? Oh THAT'D be Halo 2 on Live then...
>
> Yes that makes... little sense.
That's what I was trying to point out to you.
>
> Like I said, when it comes to basic multiplayer, the GameCube is the
> best. Not online, not LAN. Just multiplayer, and if you do want to
> get more out of multiplayer, you only have to pay £5 for a
> link-up cable.
and like I said, the exclusives I had got old quicly and the mulitformat ones are better either because of the HD or the Xbox extras.
MK, MB and the like are the best
> splitscreen multiplayer titles I've played for current consoles, and
> you don't need to spend £100+ to get the most out of them,
> either.
No because MB doesn't have the option for system link, well MK has something similar but like you say further on having one game for link up really isn't worth it. Having 10+ makes it worth while but Live is still the main reason for me getting a second Xbox and it's nice to have the option of online to go with the multiformat titles. The exclusive cube multiplayer games don't cut it IMO which is why I sold my cube.
>
> Most games are better with 16 or 8 players, but unless you're willing
> to pay a lot of money for very little extra,
£40 for Live if you already have broadband? Oh that's A LOT of money. I think you'll find that a lot of people consider Live to be a bit more than 'a little extra'.
it's not really much of
> an option. I could set up LAN and play Mario Kart and Kirby with 7
> other people (or however many can play), but what's the point in
> spending that much money when your basic set up is just as good.
Remember what I said about having a PC style setup where you can't see the other player's screen? THAT'S BETTER THAN THE BASIC SETUP .
System link was a bonus and spending money on 2 pc's to get a control system I don't want and a load of upgrades I Shouldn't need isn't worth it.
>
> Anyway, 16-player Mario Kart would kick 16-player Halo's ass any day
> :-P
Actually I'd say they'd be about equal. Which one's going to come sooner though? Oh THAT'D be Halo 2 on Live then...
Well I own a GameCube and an Xbox with Live, and my opinion still stands that getting mates over is far better than online, and therefore the GameCube is the best console for multiplayer.
Yes, there's a lot of Nintendo-tinted spectacles being worn in this thread.
Oh come on, this seems to of become petty.
Most people are mentioning that they prefer to thrash their mates in the same room on a game, Fair enough. But others are giving off the vibe like "xbox live is just a load of bull, I prefer to socialise with REAL people, i'm not sad you see, bling!"
Just imagine if the Gamecube featured an online service, with most of its game's using the feature. What would you be saying then?
"Nintendo online is great, Much better then xbox LIVE an all, I can play my mates on a game at any time!!!"
Does it honestly matter? You are playing against people either way, you can have special "system link" gaming sessions or have loads of mates over and play others on Live.
Most people are mentioning that they prefer to thrash their mates in the same room on a game, Fair enough. But others are giving off the vibe like "xbox live is just a load of bull, I prefer to socialise with REAL people, i'm not sad you see, bling!"
Just imagine if the Gamecube featured an online service, with most of its game's using the feature. What would you be saying then?
"Nintendo online is great, Much better then xbox LIVE an all, I can play my mates on a game at any time!!!"
Does it honestly matter? You are playing against people either way, you can have special "system link" gaming sessions or have loads of mates over and play others on Live.
Strafio wrote:
> I loved my four player splitscreen gaming, but you can't always get
> the opponents you need so Live is better than not Live.
>
> Besides, as good as four players are, I want more. :-)
> I want to work with my 3 friends and play against someone who can't
> see my Sniper crosshair. :-)
>
>
> I mean, I wouldn't go as far as to choose online over splitscreen,
> but having both? Can only give you the very best of both worlds,
> which are even better combined! :-)
This post pretty much sums up the general opinion I have on this subject. If I ever had to choose between offline splitscreen gaming and online gaming, I'd really have to go with the former. I'd much rather whip my mates at Mario Kart, Super Monkey Ball or TimeSplitters 2 right in front of their faces rather than over a speaker. You feel so much more involved, and having mates around is surely a more sociable way of playing.
However, for games like Conflict Desert Storm (if it ever does go online), this is where the online aspects would pay off. The screen wouldn't be too clustered, yet you could all still work as a team against the computer/possibly other enemy players. Sure, playing through it on four-player with your mates in the same room is better, but playing it this way online would be flawed, in the way that all would be too cramped up and it would feel unnecessarily claustrophobic.
Splitscreen multiplayers still continue to dominate for me, but I wouldn't mind the extra online option for games like Rainbow Six 3 in which it feels better to have a whole screen to yourself where you can hide with ease. Nintendo really need to put more into online gaming. If they're trying to be different, then they're idiots: it's as simple as that. Online gaming is obviously the way forward, as Xbox Live has plainly shown, and by now Nintendo should have realised that, as innovative and interesting their GC-GBA link-up system is, people don't really enjoy using it as much as they could enjoy the game if online features were included.
> I loved my four player splitscreen gaming, but you can't always get
> the opponents you need so Live is better than not Live.
>
> Besides, as good as four players are, I want more. :-)
> I want to work with my 3 friends and play against someone who can't
> see my Sniper crosshair. :-)
>
>
> I mean, I wouldn't go as far as to choose online over splitscreen,
> but having both? Can only give you the very best of both worlds,
> which are even better combined! :-)
This post pretty much sums up the general opinion I have on this subject. If I ever had to choose between offline splitscreen gaming and online gaming, I'd really have to go with the former. I'd much rather whip my mates at Mario Kart, Super Monkey Ball or TimeSplitters 2 right in front of their faces rather than over a speaker. You feel so much more involved, and having mates around is surely a more sociable way of playing.
However, for games like Conflict Desert Storm (if it ever does go online), this is where the online aspects would pay off. The screen wouldn't be too clustered, yet you could all still work as a team against the computer/possibly other enemy players. Sure, playing through it on four-player with your mates in the same room is better, but playing it this way online would be flawed, in the way that all would be too cramped up and it would feel unnecessarily claustrophobic.
Splitscreen multiplayers still continue to dominate for me, but I wouldn't mind the extra online option for games like Rainbow Six 3 in which it feels better to have a whole screen to yourself where you can hide with ease. Nintendo really need to put more into online gaming. If they're trying to be different, then they're idiots: it's as simple as that. Online gaming is obviously the way forward, as Xbox Live has plainly shown, and by now Nintendo should have realised that, as innovative and interesting their GC-GBA link-up system is, people don't really enjoy using it as much as they could enjoy the game if online features were included.
Hedfix wrote:
> Oh good Monkey Ball vs Halo. Hmmm but I can't play CTF on Monkey
> Ball, nor can I play a 16 player deathmatch. But of course it's a
> 'better' game, just not to me or a hell of a lot of other people. :S
Yes that makes... little sense.
> Two Xboxes... Same room... System Link... Live... Signal split for
> games...
Like I said, when it comes to basic multiplayer, the GameCube is the best. Not online, not LAN. Just multiplayer, and if you do want to get more out of multiplayer, you only have to pay £5 for a link-up cable.
> Ha ha your friend is your cube? :D
:-D
> Also the fact that I still have my two Xboxes and no longer have my
> Cube kind of disproves what you're saying that the Cube is best for
> all. I'm afraid you're wrong, 'freedom of choice' and all that.
Like I've said many times before, plain old splitscreen multiplayer is where Ninty's console excels. MK, MB and the like are the best splitscreen multiplayer titles I've played for current consoles, and you don't need to spend £100+ to get the most out of them, either.
Most games are better with 16 or 8 players, but unless you're willing to pay a lot of money for very little extra, it's not really much of an option. I could set up LAN and play Mario Kart and Kirby with 7 other people (or however many can play), but what's the point in spending that much money when your basic set up is just as good.
I'm not wrong, we've just obviously got very different tastes. If you wanted system link, though, why did you bother getting a console in the first place? Surely that kind of thing is what a PC is for, and from what you've said, your taste in games is obviously aimed towards PC gaming what with you going on about FPS' so much.
Anyway, 16-player Mario Kart would kick 16-player Halo's ass any day :-P
> Oh good Monkey Ball vs Halo. Hmmm but I can't play CTF on Monkey
> Ball, nor can I play a 16 player deathmatch. But of course it's a
> 'better' game, just not to me or a hell of a lot of other people. :S
Yes that makes... little sense.
> Two Xboxes... Same room... System Link... Live... Signal split for
> games...
Like I said, when it comes to basic multiplayer, the GameCube is the best. Not online, not LAN. Just multiplayer, and if you do want to get more out of multiplayer, you only have to pay £5 for a link-up cable.
> Ha ha your friend is your cube? :D
:-D
> Also the fact that I still have my two Xboxes and no longer have my
> Cube kind of disproves what you're saying that the Cube is best for
> all. I'm afraid you're wrong, 'freedom of choice' and all that.
Like I've said many times before, plain old splitscreen multiplayer is where Ninty's console excels. MK, MB and the like are the best splitscreen multiplayer titles I've played for current consoles, and you don't need to spend £100+ to get the most out of them, either.
Most games are better with 16 or 8 players, but unless you're willing to pay a lot of money for very little extra, it's not really much of an option. I could set up LAN and play Mario Kart and Kirby with 7 other people (or however many can play), but what's the point in spending that much money when your basic set up is just as good.
I'm not wrong, we've just obviously got very different tastes. If you wanted system link, though, why did you bother getting a console in the first place? Surely that kind of thing is what a PC is for, and from what you've said, your taste in games is obviously aimed towards PC gaming what with you going on about FPS' so much.
Anyway, 16-player Mario Kart would kick 16-player Halo's ass any day :-P
Page: