People are going away from stuff like Mario now. The market has moved on, and people are now "getting used" to games like GTA-VC, The Getaway, even Quake3 and Halo. This is what many people look for now.
Both the other consoles have DVD (bigger games, and can pay DVD movies). People do want this on a console. It's handy for playing movies, since not everyone has a standalone dvd player, and even in homes with such a machine, the games console may often be kept in a different room, so the dvd capability is still useful. Even if dvd is not for you, since it's so popular, whenever there is a review of consoles, they will always say the Gamecube is not so good because "it aint got DVD".
The Gamecube is some what limited in terms of upgrades. It's 2 high speed serial sockets can't compare with the internal expansion bay of the PS2, or the USB, or FireWire. And Xbox even has a hard disc and broadband already in there.
Nintendo has the wrong image. The appearance of the unit generally is "toy like", and appears to have been designed with younger kids as the target audience.
If indeed Nintendo are/were trying to make the GC appeal to the younger audience, then they got that wrong. Everyone knows by now, that it's the older ones who are more likely to spend the money on products such as this.
You always wander way off topic.
Every discussion I've had with you goes like this.
I also remember the conversion of Reckless had more in it (being able to run people over being one of the extras) on the ported PS2 version than was present on the XBox original, even though people originally said that Reckless could never make it onto PS2.
Acclaim have a good relationship with Nintendo. They wouldn't allow a port to be flawed.
> You're wrong, Updated. Criterion specifically made each game
> specifically optimised to the host platform rather than a simple
> "port over".
> Citing other examples won't help in this case as the developer did an
> excellent thing - they made each version of the game to respond to the
> power of the console they were using.
> Which is why the PS2 version is graphically inferior. For some reason
> it also handles a tad worse than the other versions (I've played all 3
> versions). I don't know why, though. The Xbox version is the best (you
> can listen to your own "ripped" tracks) while you speed
> along, followed by the GC and lastly, the PS2.
> Don't try and argue this one. I know I'm right.
Trying to convince people like that doesn't work. A game is designed for a specific console. This should produce the best result from that console (assuming the developers do a good job). To get the best results from the same game on a different console requires the code to be rewritten to precisely match that console. Effectively building the game for a second time, eg: Native. However, ports are different. Port games retain as much as possible from the original. So, for example, image files which are in a common format can be reused without modification on the other console. Some things in port games have to be converted, such as handling of a car. It's during such conversions that mistakes can occur, and the port game may not match the original in those specific area's. Some developers do try and do a good job on port games. During the conversion process, they take various aspects of the game and try to match them to the host console. This can mean better details such as lighting effects. This can make those parts of the game Native or partially Native. While the conversion is being done, extra things such as extra levels can be added. The more the conversion process goes down this route of "improvements" - the more expensive and time consuming it becomes. So, there is always a balance to be struck between what can be done to enhance a port game during conversion and the need to publish the game in an acceptable time frame and start making money back from it. Minor improvements such as sharper shadows introduced during conversion can take time, yet don't make a big difference to the end result. Such an improvement is only on a specific detail, and visibly does not look hardly any different than the original.
> I win
Did you say that earlier?
Citing other examples won't help in this case as the developer did an excellent thing - they made each version of the game to respond to the power of the console they were using.
Which is why the PS2 version is graphically inferior. For some reason it also handles a tad worse than the other versions (I've played all 3 versions). I don't know why, though. The Xbox version is the best (you can listen to your own "ripped" tracks) while you speed along, followed by the GC and lastly, the PS2.
Don't try and argue this one. I know I'm right.