The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
For the first time in years, there are more than two serious consoles hitting the market. Even more amazingly, two of these consoles are launching head-to-head, and the other is extremely well established... both with brand name and games.
So, not only has Nintendo got to compete with Sony (again!), but this time Microsoft have joined the scene. Add to that, the PS2 has had two Christmases worth of sales, and a huge repetoire of games, and the Xbox has a huge marketting budget (and a strong launch to go).
Clearly, Nintendo cannot compete with Microsoft on the TV screens- they simply don't ahve the money for that.
Oh no... Ninty have a far greater weapon at their disposly- games. And lots of them. With characters and franchises ranging from Mario and Zelda to Metroid and Kirby you wouldn't be suprised if Nintendo launched the Gamecube with the best line up of AAA titles seen...
In fact, I thought Nintendo had gone one better when they announced, a while back, that they had given the rights to many of their games away. Metroid, Smash Brothers and Starfox, amongst others, were to have sequals made by developers outside Nintendo. This would then enable Nintendo to concentrate on making some of the most spectacular games ever. Maybe a new Zelda for launch? Maybe something totally new!
But alas, things seem to be crumbling. First we hear news of Ninty's in house games. It turns out that Mario and Zelda will be absent from launch, to be replaced by a couple of weaker games. Ok, so the in house games are good fun, no doubt, BUT will these attract gamers to buy the Gamcube. Methinks not.
Nor will the news of a new Zelda wet gamers appetites- 90% of gamers are the casual sort who will buy a console on brandname alone, and don't read multiformat mags. How are Nintendo going to get these gamers to part with their PS2s, and buy a console that looks like a kids toy? (Sorry, but the console doesn't look "serious".)
OH! And things get worse!...
Those franchised games Ninty have given out aren't all they were promised to be.
At Spaceworld, there was a big absence of Metroid clips- only 8 seconds of the game were shown. Asked why this was, Mr. Miyamoto had to admit that he'd only got the code for the game just before the show, and he wasn't impressed by what he saw. The game had bad pop-up, no sound, was not interactive, and certainly wasn't worth the months of work that had been spent on it. (I believe the game was 8 months into developent at this time!). In fact, the whole future of the game looked on a knife edge.
The other games Ninty had handed out were all good, but many were so far from ready that you wonder why Nintendo didn't just make one of these games themselves to get it out at launch.
Before Nintendo fans throw a riot, let me just saya few things:
1) I am only talking about launch titles
2) I'm a huge Miyamoto fan and will be buying a GC myself
3) This topic is MEANT to cause discussion.
Oh, and remember, all the titles that miss release will come out eventually. So those Zeldas and Marios will certainly mean the console is a great piece of kit. That;s not what I'm arguing about.
I just want to know where all of Ninty's time has gone? They've given away many of their big games, has ages to make a killer titles, and instead they come out with Pikmin... fun, but not AAA by any means.
Sonic
So, not only has Nintendo got to compete with Sony (again!), but this time Microsoft have joined the scene. Add to that, the PS2 has had two Christmases worth of sales, and a huge repetoire of games, and the Xbox has a huge marketting budget (and a strong launch to go).
Clearly, Nintendo cannot compete with Microsoft on the TV screens- they simply don't ahve the money for that.
Oh no... Ninty have a far greater weapon at their disposly- games. And lots of them. With characters and franchises ranging from Mario and Zelda to Metroid and Kirby you wouldn't be suprised if Nintendo launched the Gamecube with the best line up of AAA titles seen...
In fact, I thought Nintendo had gone one better when they announced, a while back, that they had given the rights to many of their games away. Metroid, Smash Brothers and Starfox, amongst others, were to have sequals made by developers outside Nintendo. This would then enable Nintendo to concentrate on making some of the most spectacular games ever. Maybe a new Zelda for launch? Maybe something totally new!
But alas, things seem to be crumbling. First we hear news of Ninty's in house games. It turns out that Mario and Zelda will be absent from launch, to be replaced by a couple of weaker games. Ok, so the in house games are good fun, no doubt, BUT will these attract gamers to buy the Gamcube. Methinks not.
Nor will the news of a new Zelda wet gamers appetites- 90% of gamers are the casual sort who will buy a console on brandname alone, and don't read multiformat mags. How are Nintendo going to get these gamers to part with their PS2s, and buy a console that looks like a kids toy? (Sorry, but the console doesn't look "serious".)
OH! And things get worse!...
Those franchised games Ninty have given out aren't all they were promised to be.
At Spaceworld, there was a big absence of Metroid clips- only 8 seconds of the game were shown. Asked why this was, Mr. Miyamoto had to admit that he'd only got the code for the game just before the show, and he wasn't impressed by what he saw. The game had bad pop-up, no sound, was not interactive, and certainly wasn't worth the months of work that had been spent on it. (I believe the game was 8 months into developent at this time!). In fact, the whole future of the game looked on a knife edge.
The other games Ninty had handed out were all good, but many were so far from ready that you wonder why Nintendo didn't just make one of these games themselves to get it out at launch.
Before Nintendo fans throw a riot, let me just saya few things:
1) I am only talking about launch titles
2) I'm a huge Miyamoto fan and will be buying a GC myself
3) This topic is MEANT to cause discussion.
Oh, and remember, all the titles that miss release will come out eventually. So those Zeldas and Marios will certainly mean the console is a great piece of kit. That;s not what I'm arguing about.
I just want to know where all of Ninty's time has gone? They've given away many of their big games, has ages to make a killer titles, and instead they come out with Pikmin... fun, but not AAA by any means.
Sonic
Page:
Where on eartndid you hear it could do 2D better than a PSX??!?!?!?
Clearly the PSX has more processing power, as well as separate chips for sound etc... OH, and it displays the picture on the TV screen!
The GBA has one processor, and some reasonable secondary processors.... and shows the pic on a small screen
Sonic
Clearly the PSX has more processing power, as well as separate chips for sound etc... OH, and it displays the picture on the TV screen!
The GBA has one processor, and some reasonable secondary processors.... and shows the pic on a small screen
Sonic
Or in other words: "I made it up"
Erm it is i would tell you the site i got the info from but SR wouldnt be pleased if you appeared on msn i might just be able to tell you but you wont be doing that so ahhh well.
Dringo wrote:
> Although all they say is it can do better 2D graphics than a
> Playstation which might i add it can.
Er, methinks that is not true.
> Although all they say is it can do better 2D graphics than a
> Playstation which might i add it can.
Er, methinks that is not true.
Smeagol, that was part of my point!
Simple fact is that the "bit power" of a console means NOTHING
Sonic
Simple fact is that the "bit power" of a console means NOTHING
Sonic
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> Meka has proved my point!
The Jaguar was "64 bit" but certainly no
> where near the power of the N64!
Comparing machines based on "bits"
> is like comparing TV screens on Size!
Sonic (AHHHH there you go again signin' off!!!)
Anyway The Atari Jaguar consisted of 2 32 Bit processing not one singular board of 64 because as you may well knoww.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> Meka has proved my point!
The Jaguar was "64 bit" but certainly no
> where near the power of the N64!
Comparing machines based on "bits"
> is like comparing TV screens on Size!
Sonic (AHHHH there you go again signin' off!!!)
Anyway The Atari Jaguar consisted of 2 32 Bit processing not one singular board of 64 because as you may well knoww.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
OMG, my topic has run away!
Anyway, if you're still talking about the old PSX vs GBA, dringo, even if the GBA could render better 2D games, it won't be able to show them in very high detail on it's tiny screen anyway!
Sonic
Anyway, if you're still talking about the old PSX vs GBA, dringo, even if the GBA could render better 2D games, it won't be able to show them in very high detail on it's tiny screen anyway!
Sonic
Turbonutter wrote:
> Sadly not! Damn those dirty Ninty PR monkeys!
Although all they say is it can do better 2D graphics than a Playstation which might i add it can.
I'm not saying 32 bit is the same as the PS1 im just saying its 32 bit stop arguing be it better or not it is still 32 bit shesh.
> Sadly not! Damn those dirty Ninty PR monkeys!
Although all they say is it can do better 2D graphics than a Playstation which might i add it can.
I'm not saying 32 bit is the same as the PS1 im just saying its 32 bit stop arguing be it better or not it is still 32 bit shesh.
Didn't you know? The whole Nintendo corporation is a result of a secret Japansese "2000 monkeys and a telephone" experiment :)
Page: