The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Just read this on GamesRadar.com
http://gamesradar.msn.co.uk/news/default.asp? subsectionid=160&articleid=65198&pagetype=2
Seems they also have concerns about the lacking number of quality titles on the machine, which I feel is a valid point.
Thoughts/opinions?
-----
Gamecube online gaming is years away... at best
[17/04/2003: 15:28]
Straight from the horses mouth we get the news that comes as no surprise whatsoever
Promises, failed hopes, unrealised dates and titles, it seems if you're a Nintendo fan (as we most definitely are), you just get used to these usual suspects after the new console hits town. And now online gaming has finally been given the thumbs down for quite some time by Nintendo.
Unsurprising news, granted, seeing as Ninty's online gaming plans has been an enigma since they first mentioned it. Well, now we have the official word on the matter, as spoken by George Harrison (senior vice president of marketing in America) in an interview with CNN.
In short, Ninty online gaming is "probably a few years away. It really depends on the success of the GameCube and whether people think it's worth the investment."
Nintendo are wary of online gaming and it's likely success, and if you couple that with the disappointing sales of Gamecube plus the comment above, do you really think online gaming on your Cube is likely to happen - ever?
Of course, if quality Gamecube titles are coming at you left, right and centre, you won't care too much. Further, Nintendo may be right in waiting, console online gaming is an untested market and might fall well short of expectations.
The problem for Ninty is that quality titles are few and far between and Gamecube lost the current number two console slot to Xbox in fairly quick fashion. Wrap all this up with the fact they're shunning online gaming (which many consider to be the future of games) and Nintendo starts to look less and less a main player in the games industry.
Hopefully, time will prove that thought very wrong...
http://gamesradar.msn.co.uk/news/default.asp? subsectionid=160&articleid=65198&pagetype=2
Seems they also have concerns about the lacking number of quality titles on the machine, which I feel is a valid point.
Thoughts/opinions?
-----
Gamecube online gaming is years away... at best
[17/04/2003: 15:28]
Straight from the horses mouth we get the news that comes as no surprise whatsoever
Promises, failed hopes, unrealised dates and titles, it seems if you're a Nintendo fan (as we most definitely are), you just get used to these usual suspects after the new console hits town. And now online gaming has finally been given the thumbs down for quite some time by Nintendo.
Unsurprising news, granted, seeing as Ninty's online gaming plans has been an enigma since they first mentioned it. Well, now we have the official word on the matter, as spoken by George Harrison (senior vice president of marketing in America) in an interview with CNN.
In short, Ninty online gaming is "probably a few years away. It really depends on the success of the GameCube and whether people think it's worth the investment."
Nintendo are wary of online gaming and it's likely success, and if you couple that with the disappointing sales of Gamecube plus the comment above, do you really think online gaming on your Cube is likely to happen - ever?
Of course, if quality Gamecube titles are coming at you left, right and centre, you won't care too much. Further, Nintendo may be right in waiting, console online gaming is an untested market and might fall well short of expectations.
The problem for Ninty is that quality titles are few and far between and Gamecube lost the current number two console slot to Xbox in fairly quick fashion. Wrap all this up with the fact they're shunning online gaming (which many consider to be the future of games) and Nintendo starts to look less and less a main player in the games industry.
Hopefully, time will prove that thought very wrong...
Page:
Whitestripes wrote:
> Of course it's the best option, but it isn't the only one.
> It's also an option unavaliable to 70% of the UK.
Which is what Microsoft have failed on, drasticcly. They've brought out a an excellent online gaming package thats not actually accessable to everyone in this country. Only 30% of gamers get to use the service, which is a real shame.
I think Microsoft only had America on the brain when they thought of Xbox live.
But its not all MS's fault, BT/NTL/Telewest are to blame aswell, Britain needs broadband everywhere, these companys need to modernisde the UK and fast!
> Of course it's the best option, but it isn't the only one.
> It's also an option unavaliable to 70% of the UK.
Which is what Microsoft have failed on, drasticcly. They've brought out a an excellent online gaming package thats not actually accessable to everyone in this country. Only 30% of gamers get to use the service, which is a real shame.
I think Microsoft only had America on the brain when they thought of Xbox live.
But its not all MS's fault, BT/NTL/Telewest are to blame aswell, Britain needs broadband everywhere, these companys need to modernisde the UK and fast!
Of course it's the best option, but it isn't the only one.
It's also an option unavaliable to 70% of the UK.
It's also an option unavaliable to 70% of the UK.
Put it this way.
Games nowadays are extrememly techniccly advanced, requring your console to do vast loads of mathmatical calculations and processes to make it work. Now imagine sending this information down a 56k telephone line, and recieving others back, simultaneously.
It just would'nt work properly, there'd be vast amounts of lag, Broadband is the best option in my opinion.
Games nowadays are extrememly techniccly advanced, requring your console to do vast loads of mathmatical calculations and processes to make it work. Now imagine sending this information down a 56k telephone line, and recieving others back, simultaneously.
It just would'nt work properly, there'd be vast amounts of lag, Broadband is the best option in my opinion.
I think you'll find in the vast majority of cases, you will get your behind kicked every time if using 56K against broadband users, not because they are much better, but the speed gaives them the advantage and its no fun. At least on Xbox Live its a level playing field.
True, annoying chimps on live could be a problem, but there is a mute button so you only have to listen and talk to the people you want to. But once you add a few good players to you're friends list, that won't be a problem at all.
True, annoying chimps on live could be a problem, but there is a mute button so you only have to listen and talk to the people you want to. But once you add a few good players to you're friends list, that won't be a problem at all.
Mantis wrote:
> Xbox has done online gaming right. Look at the innovations MS has
> done with voice communication in games
Yeah, its great being called a f****t by a 13 year old american implimenting a voice changer.
> I firmly belive that online gaming HAS to be broadband only. Try
> playing any PC FPSer using 56k modem and you are screwed before you
> even join the server. Its too slow and lag ridden its unplayable.
> Broadband, currently pricy I know, is the only way to do it.
Not true, developers who have some competency can make games very playable on 56k, C&C generals is a fine example, theres very little lag at all during normal play.
> Xbox has done online gaming right. Look at the innovations MS has
> done with voice communication in games
Yeah, its great being called a f****t by a 13 year old american implimenting a voice changer.
> I firmly belive that online gaming HAS to be broadband only. Try
> playing any PC FPSer using 56k modem and you are screwed before you
> even join the server. Its too slow and lag ridden its unplayable.
> Broadband, currently pricy I know, is the only way to do it.
Not true, developers who have some competency can make games very playable on 56k, C&C generals is a fine example, theres very little lag at all during normal play.
Well, no, I used to have 56k and used to play Counter-strike and it was playable on a crap server, if I was on a decent server it played pretty good with hardly any lag.
Xbox has done online gaming right. Look at the innovations MS has done with voice communication in games, optmatch and friends list. Nintendo are too late now, by the time it gets sorted about online, if ever, MS will be storming with more Xbox Live titles, features, downloadable content etc not to mention Halo 2- which will be killer. MS will make sure of it.
I firmly belive that online gaming HAS to be broadband only. Try playing any PC FPSer using 56k modem and you are screwed before you even join the server. Its too slow and lag ridden its unplayable. Broadband, currently pricy I know, is the only way to do it.
I firmly belive that online gaming HAS to be broadband only. Try playing any PC FPSer using 56k modem and you are screwed before you even join the server. Its too slow and lag ridden its unplayable. Broadband, currently pricy I know, is the only way to do it.
Even if Nintendo did make a Zelda online game how it would be implemented is beyond me. Even if you had a system like WS said where you choose a race and clothing and that lot and can then choose to team up with people, there's the problem that even a Zelda sized world would seem crowded with very many players in that environment, so you'd have to have a PSO style where you have a lobby and can then enter a small game with a limit of maybe 10-15 'Player' characters. The only other option to make it seem less crowded would be allowing some players to take on roles traditionally an NPC would perform (shop keepers, the owner of a ranch, whatever...) but I think I'm right in thinking that would be pretty dull. Also, the whole point of most online RPGs is character progression (levelling up, getting a 'Longsword + 4 "Icecleaver"', collecting gold, etc.) but in Zelda you have no levelling up (unless you count getting an extra heart as going up a level...), no 'weapons+3' and a limit on rupees at 999... unless any of these were changed (all of which would ruin the Zelda style apart from the cap on rupees) the game could get boring very quickly as you're playing the same quests over again, just with different people. Fighting other players could always be fun for a quick bash, but Zelda isn't meant to be a 'quick bash' game, it's meant to be an epic adventure...
Anyway, enough of my negativity. If they could make it work it could indeed sell online gaming to many, but I still maintain that with online costs too high and not enough people with faster net connections (ISDN, ADSL) online gaming on consoles will not be taken up by the majority of gamers.
Anyway, enough of my negativity. If they could make it work it could indeed sell online gaming to many, but I still maintain that with online costs too high and not enough people with faster net connections (ISDN, ADSL) online gaming on consoles will not be taken up by the majority of gamers.
An aspect of Zelda that I REALLY enjoyed was the 'happy book' system in Majora's Mask. Going around and interacting with all the townsfolk was, for me, easily as enjoyable as the main quest and could easily have been released as a separate game. If Nintendo made an Online Zelda where offline you fulfilled your happy book and online joined in gangs to protect the town from enemies the like, that would be a real hit in my eyes. However not even Nintendo would sacrifice so much money on one game, no matter how fun it would be.
The only way it work would be like this:
It wouldn't actually be called The Legend of Zelda, more like something along the lines of Hyrule Online or Zelda Worlds (only not crap).
Second thing, no one could actually play as Link, instead you could create a character, choosing either Hylian, Kokiri etc., and then choose a set of clothes and a name etc.
Then it would be like a Phantasy Star affair, only with decent quests and proper fighting (sticking with the current Zelda method).
There would be no set cooperation, but you can always find some friends and just go through the dungeons with them, and you could go to an options menu to change the people you are with to 'friendly' mode, which means you can't L target them by acciedent in the heat of battle.
Now that would rule, but to be honest I'm not that bothered. Online games like these are for the next generation of consoles.
It wouldn't actually be called The Legend of Zelda, more like something along the lines of Hyrule Online or Zelda Worlds (only not crap).
Second thing, no one could actually play as Link, instead you could create a character, choosing either Hylian, Kokiri etc., and then choose a set of clothes and a name etc.
Then it would be like a Phantasy Star affair, only with decent quests and proper fighting (sticking with the current Zelda method).
There would be no set cooperation, but you can always find some friends and just go through the dungeons with them, and you could go to an options menu to change the people you are with to 'friendly' mode, which means you can't L target them by acciedent in the heat of battle.
Now that would rule, but to be honest I'm not that bothered. Online games like these are for the next generation of consoles.
Page: