Viewing Thread:
"Gamecube games,,,,true sequels?"

Ok, let's clear this up.
Out of this list let's see if GC Sequels can be compared or not to the Playstation Sequel's.
Maybe people will understand it better.
Here Goes:

Pikmin

All-Star Baseball 2002- True Annual Nintendo Sequel, also a PS2 Port with superior GC Visuals.

Animal Forest
Batman Dark Tomorrow- A sequel?
Crazi Taxi
Extreme G3- A Nintendo sequel yes, but not annual, appearing roughly updated every two years.
Madden NFL. True Annual Sequel.
NFL Blitz 2002. True Sequel????
NFL Quarterback Club 2002. True Nintendo Annual sequel.
NHL Hitz. Er...has this appeared on N64???Sequel then...No!
Rogue Spear. Sequel yes, last one appeared about 2 years back.
Simpson's Road Rage.
Spyro the Dragon. Ex-PS Joint Mascot. Not a sequel on the Nintendo scene.
StarWars Rogue Leader. Sequel Yes. Not PS Type annual.
Super Monkey Ball.
UniversalStudios.
Wave Race Blue Storm. Sequel but how long did the last one appear? 4 YEARS.
18 Wheeler.
Eternal Darkness.
Golden Sun.
Super Smash Bros Melee. Sequel, 3 year gap.
SSX Tricky. NO sequel for the Nintendo side.
Virtua Striker 3. NO Sequel regardless of the number, for the Nintendo side of things.
Resident Evil 0.
Resident Evil 1. NO SEQUEL, pure update.
Resident Evil 2. Sequel, updated port.
Resident Evil 3. Sequel, updated port.
Resident Evil: Code Veronica. Sequel, Updated port.
Resident Evil 4. Sequel, New game.
Rave: The groove adventure.
Dave Mirra Freestyle 2. No sequel for Nintendo.
Galleon.
Luigi's Mansion.
NBA Courtside 2002. 4 Year wait update sequel.
Phantasy Star Online Version 2. NO Nintendo sequel.

StarFox Adventures: Dinosaur Planet. Not a sequel, I don't care what people say, the SF Character's where added at the last minute replacing the original characters, different game and style to the previous SF Games.

Mario Sunshine. Sequel yes. But the prequel Mario 64 first appeared in 1996.
NBA Street.
Turok Evolution. Sequel, Not Annual.
Die Hard: Next Gen. No sequel for Nintendo.
Creatures.
Donald Duck.
Hot Wheels.
Jeremy McGarth Supercross.
Jimmy Neutron Boy Genius.
Kameo Elements of Power.
Largo Winch.
Legend of Zelda. True Sequel. Released 2 years since last. Very Rare Nintendo Franchise though to appear.
Legend's of Wrestling.
Perfect Dark Zero.
Conkers Bad Fur day 2. Sequel. 3 Years supposedly since last.
Rally Simulation.
Rayman 3. Sequel.
Robocop.
Rugrats.
Scooby Doo.
Spider Man the Movie.
Star Wars RPG.
Tarzan.
The land before time.
The road to Eldorado.
Tony Hawks 3. True Sequel for Nintendo.
1080 Snowboarding. Sequel.
Bomberman Generations. Sequel.
Crash Bandicoot. EX- PS Mascot. No Nintendo Sequel.
Crouching Tiger Hidden dragon.
Donkey Kong Racing.
Doshin the Giant.
Duke Nukem Forever. True Sequel?
Safire FPS.
Jurassic Park 3.
Mario Kart. Sequel. does not appear often.
Metroid Prime. When did we see the prequel last?
Mickey Mouse.
Mortal Kombat 5.
Pokemon Adventure.
Ridge Racer 6. Last to appear was RR64 2 years back.
Rune.
Saffire RPG.
Sonic Adventure 2. Definately NOT an Nintendo Sequel.
Soul Calibur 2.
Thornado.

> Turbonutter wrote:
> It's strange how you consider ports on the GC not to
> be
> sequels, yet on the PS2 they are...


Did I mention any 'supposed' Thing about PS2????

Wookie:
Also strange that, for someone
> claiming to be a neutral, unbiased, multi-platform gamer, almost every original
> post made is pro-Nintendo, anti-Sony, or in many cases - both.

And so I am, I do make my opinions clear, I own Every system- Back to the days of the Colecovision. Is stating that a certain console is better than another wrong? I'm not a Single format gamer.

The Sony
> handheld:

http://vic20.reserve.co.uk/discussions/
> display_messages.php?threadid=22389&forumid=416

Possibly a valid
> argument, but largely irrelevant

Erm,... I was speaking of something that was 'relevant' and certainly a valid argument yes at that time. Squaresoft stated recently that they would love to create for GBA, however, they did say that if Sony were to release a handheld, they would certainly abandon Nintendo in favour of a Sony Handheld, due of course to Sony's investment.

Comaprisons:

http://vic20.reserve.co.uk/discussions/
> display_messages.php?threadid=22057&forumid=416

Claimed to be "a
> valid argument to say the least". Cites "superior features" in
> GC versions of games. While this may or may not be the case, it's backed only
> with a list of a few games and no facts to verify the claim, other than
> "Well developers have said" with no indication of what they said, and
> then that the features "could be...". Complete lack of evidence
> provided, and therefore not a valid argument.

Oh but it is. Put it this way. Take ALL the games lined up for GC which are PS2 Ports, now look at the GC Description's of those PS2 Port's, Notice how each developer state's that the GC version of the game will be superior??
Also, if you want to go further, take the similtaneous releases for both system's, you will see the same pattern emerging there too; and yes I know there is the odd game which will be identical, however so slim.



A true
> genius:

http://vic20.reserve.co.uk/discussions/
> display_messages.php?threadid=22609&forumid=185

"These games were
> key to Nintendo becoming a leading producer of video games, making for a lively
> competition with archrival Sony."

While I don't question the sales
> figures of the games, the simple fact is that in the home console market, there
> has been no serious competition for Sony in the last 6/7 years.

No serious competition? N64 was serious enough although not truly serious enough, granted. But you have over looked one thing, or really 'Two' things.
1. The Game Boy, in all it's shapes and forms. I don't care, it was a competition for Sony, after all they did say the gave their employer's a right telling off for not coming up with a Handheld console, didn't they. And of course not to mention the re-release of the system and the wiping (And general pasting) of Sony's Playstation in the sales figures and topping console charts.

2. Game Boy Advance. The FASTEST and BIGGEST selling console of all time. Out-stripping the supposedly 'Groundbreaking' Playstation 2. Another Console that Sony could have done without.

This
> obviously doesn't include posts which are in other threads, and which I can't be
> bothered to locate. There were at least two other PS2-negative arguments which
> I shot down in flames:

In Flames????? LOL!!!

>1) That Nintendo invented the analogue joystick. When
> I disproved that, he claimed that Nintendo were the first to use one on a home
> console, which I also disproved.

Excuse me? (I couldn't be bothered to search back, but your welcome to)
Did I mention anything of the sort? I stated something on the lines of: Nintendo were the FIRST to fully 'Revolutionise' the Analogue stick in Console gaming. And so they where, every Major title was put to use with the set-up. And great it was too.

2. That no PS2 games had yet been released
> on the DVD-ROM format, which again was completely untrue. I listed the seven or
> so that I had, and directed him to his nearest games store to check for
> himself.

Ok I'll admit, the system had a few DVD's(Notice the 'few')
I am only Human. 'But', I was answering a previous argument about someone saying about the Gamecube being at a Disadvantage with the 1.8 GB Disks to the PS2 games, which I was right at saying. How can anyone say that the GC Is at a Disadvantage when the Majority of the PS2 Games released so far are on the Inferior CD format, compared to the superior GC Mini-DVD's??

Though credit where it's due, there is something about the PS2 he
> likes...

I Like the PS2, I told people that, although, 'Just' like. I wouldn't have bought one if I didn't.
Although it didn't live up to what people had it out to be, for a start the games I have and the game's Iv'e played, are basically no different to what the Dreamcast can handle or offer.
But get this, Iv'e seen and own games on Dreamcast that look better and play better than most on PS2.
Look out for my review of PS2,for my full opinion. That should be worth reading.
And oh, Skies of Arcadia would put many PS2 Title's to shame, let alone Shenmue.

http://vic20.reserve.co.uk/discussions/
> display_messages.php?threadid=22520&forumid=185

...so he's not a
> completely hopeless case! :-)

No, Im not at all. Just because I say something about about the 'Precious' PS2, People go buck mad.

No, I don't care that he prefers Nintendo, and
> the Gamecube over the PS2.

I also prefer Dreamcast over PS2, So......


The only objections I have are to the uninformed,
> inaccurate and - on occasion - blatently false claims made about Sony and the
> PS2.

What a load of Nonsense, Live up to it, the PS2 Isn't the Bees Knees, nor radically superior to the Dreamcast, likeable system or not.


As I've said before, though I do lean heavily towards PS2,
you won't
> find me starting threads about how great PS2 life is and how every other format
> sucks. But I'll sure as hell put right any mistakes.


Every Format Sucks??? Did I say that too???
I'm a Multi Format gamer and that's that.

Meka_Dragon wrote:
> a-man5150 wrote:
> Dragon, I will not come into your porn shed but in honour
> , I will erect one
> myself !
Sorry, that is terrible isn't it ?

Yep!
> :-)

My Shed is now full. Everyone that I invited has come.....Right, I am stopping there before I get thrown off !

a-man5150 wrote:
> Dragon, I will not come into your porn shed but in honour , I will erect one
> myself !
Sorry, that is terrible isn't it ?

Yep! :-)

Dragon, I will not come into your porn shed but in honour , I will erect one myself !
Sorry, that is terrible isn't it ?

a-man5150 wrote:
> It should also be added that we feel comfortable with sequels.

We enjoy it
> when someone says that there will be a sequel of a game we loved on a previous
> console.

Exactly.

Once people finish a new, original game, they say "Can't wait for the sequel!"

I don't know why everyone says the PS2 is a sequelstation, mybe it's because of the launch.

Tekken tag-Tekken 3 with better visuals
Super bust a move-updated even has the old puzzles on
Fifa 2001-plain update
Ridge Racer 5-similar to ridge racer 4


least we had something to play although most launch titles were brand new SSX,Timsplitters,fantavision,wild wild racing etc

It should also be added that we feel comfortable with sequels.

We enjoy it when someone says that there will be a sequel of a game we loved on a previous console. Metal Gear 2 has been waited for ever since the first one existed. Before the demo was available, we all wanted it to be the same fantastic experience that the first one was and we could not wait. You cannot not hype an unknown game without demos, movies or stills.

Half of the enjoyment comes in the partially knowing what will happen in the sequel. Our Hero bound to meet up with his/her arch villan or against a similar foe. The anticipation has us now. GT3 was the same. We knew what the format would be. We loved the previous ones and we wanted more of the same.

Sports sequels will always occur as we wait for the new updated teams and stats but when a real orignal game comes out which moves and motivates us to those higher states of excitement, we cannot wait for another. Software companies love the fact that so many people will buy a sequel whether it is good or not.

I know that I will buy Silent Hill 2 because I loved the first one so much. It does not matter if all the reviews tell me that it is rubbish. Some people said the first one was. I will buy it regardless and that is why it is being released as Silent Hill 2 and not some new name.

Am I gulible or am I the same as everyone else ?

Turbonutter wrote:
> It's strange how you consider ports on the GC not to be
> sequels, yet on the PS2 they are...


Also strange that, for someone claiming to be a neutral, unbiased, multi-platform gamer, almost every original post made is pro-Nintendo, anti-Sony, or in many cases - both.

If you haven't already noticed this, check it out for yourself.

The Sony handheld:

http://vic20.reserve.co.uk/discussions/ display_messages.php?threadid=22389&forumid=416

Possibly a valid argument, but largely irrelevant as Sony aren't planning a handheld. Even so, the possibility success shouldn't be ruled out as they have the resources and marketing to make it work. After all, no-one had successfully rivalled Nintendo OR Sega in the home console market, until Sony appeared with the PlayStation.


Comaprisons:

http://vic20.reserve.co.uk/discussions/ display_messages.php?threadid=22057&forumid=416

Claimed to be "a valid argument to say the least". Cites "superior features" in GC versions of games. While this may or may not be the case, it's backed only with a list of a few games and no facts to verify the claim, other than "Well developers have said" with no indication of what they said, and then that the features "could be...". Complete lack of evidence provided, and therefore not a valid argument.



A true genius:

http://vic20.reserve.co.uk/discussions/ display_messages.php?threadid=22609&forumid=185

"These games were key to Nintendo becoming a leading producer of video games, making for a lively competition with archrival Sony."

While I don't question the sales figures of the games, the simple fact is that in the home console market, there has been no serious competition for Sony in the last 6/7 years.


This obviously doesn't include posts which are in other threads, and which I can't be bothered to locate. There were at least two other PS2-negative arguments which I shot down in flames:

1) That Nintendo invented the analogue joystick. When I disproved that, he claimed that Nintendo were the first to use one on a home console, which I also disproved.

2. That no PS2 games had yet been released on the DVD-ROM format, which again was completely untrue. I listed the seven or so that I had, and directed him to his nearest games store to check for himself.

Though credit where it's due, there is something about the PS2 he likes...

http://vic20.reserve.co.uk/discussions/ display_messages.php?threadid=22520&forumid=185

...so he's not a completely hopeless case! :-)

No, I don't care that he prefers Nintendo, and the Gamecube over the PS2. The only objections I have are to the uninformed, inaccurate and - on occasion - blatently false claims made about Sony and the PS2.

As I've said before, though I do lean heavily towards PS2, you won't find me starting threads about how great PS2 life is and how every other format sucks. But I'll sure as hell put right any mistakes.

But what does it matter if they're sequels, true sequels, or not?

Look at the way Nintendo handle their franchises, characters appear here there and everywhere, some might say all of the games with Mario in are sequels, but who really cares what they are, as long as they are decent games?

I guess the problem with sequels only comes from the 'lazy' sequels, when the gameplay is very similar, and you just get some extra levels, with no new features. Nintendo don't do this type of sequel.

Let's look at the evolution of the Mario games.

We'll start with Donkey Kong, though it's not exactly a MArio game in name, it was the first to feature the character. It's a game in which you climb platforms, and jump over stuff, single screen action.

Next up was Mario Bros, in which Mario had to jump on creatures that came out of pipes. All part of a plumbers job! Again, single screen stuff, with lots of jumping, but very different in gameplay to Donkey Kong as there was no specific point on the screen you had to get to, just squish bugs!

This was eventually followed by Super Mario Bros. The series had moved on again, with side scrolling levels, but it stuck with the basics, jumping on stuff, and plenty of pipes!

Anyone that has played Super Mario Allstars will be aware of 'The Lost Levels'. This was supposed to be the follow-up to Super Mario Bros, but was pulled at the last minute, as it was too similar to it's predecessor, and the difficulty level was said to be too tough.

So another game had a bit of a makeover and became Super MArio Bros 2. I love this game. You could choose one of 4 characters, and you could pick up and throw your enemies. It was great fun, and very different from the other Mario games.

So I suppose you could say that Super Mario 3 is the TRUE sequel to Super Mario Bros. Super Mario Bros 3 is awesome. It introduced the map in which you could select which levels to do, you could miss some, and there were plenty of hidden secrets, like ghost ships. Plus you had a huge inventory of items. You could fly, swim, throw hammers, turn to stone - there was just so much to this game!

The next follow up came on the SNES, with Super Mario World (note, I'm ignoring the Gameboy games here, as they're spin-offs from the series, rather than a part of). Super MArio World Expanded on the maps of Mario3, with multiple different routes, dozens of hidden levels, (remember the heavily rumoured level 97?) and again, new features. Yoshi was introduced, the flying was developed, and the levels were much more open.

Next was a huge step - Super Mario 64. True 3D gaming. It was awesome. Levels hidden in a castle, six different missions on each of the levels, and you didn't have to do them all to progress, so it allowed gamers of all ages to play the game without getting frustrated. This may have lead to the misconception thatnthe N64 was a kids machine, but those that took on the challenge of finding all 120 stars knew quite differently.

Mario featured in loads of other games on the N64, but we still haven't seen what the TRUE sequel to Super Mario 64 will offer. Could it be another giant leap, like Super Mario Bros compared to Super Mario Bros 3? From the early video it seems apparent that there's something very different about it, Mario has something on his back, that reminds me of one of those 'drinking birds' (that always seem to feature on The Simpsons). Plus there's a water level indicator of some kind in the corner of the screen. Yet still the basic jumping around concept of the game remains.

Nintendo don't do sequels without really developing the game, so to their credit, another Mario game (or Zelda, or Metroid or Star Fox) game is something to really look forward to.

But you can't blame the likes of EA for updating their games every year - they have the license to use official player names, so you want a game with correct data, don't you? If FIFA was only released every 3 years, and you bought a console, woudl you want to get a copy that was 2 years out of date, with players on the wrong teams?

No, you wouldn't.

EA don't expect you to buy each version of the game, just get a new one when YOU feel you need an update, but they have to have an up to date version on the shelves, it's good business sense!

It's just the standard Ninty reply to us saying that their machine is for kids.

We know the truth just as much as they do.