The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Turbonutter wrote:
I need SonicRav...
Well, here I am...
On the point of comparing GBAs and PS1s, this is absurd! As someone said, the Xbox and DC are both 128 bits, but to say they are equally as powerful is useless.
When it comes to consoles, the power comes from the mixture of CPU clock speed (or MIPS are better), and the architecture being used!
You see, the PS1 and GBA both have 32 bit CPUs, BUT the PS1 has it's own soundboard, vector processors, 3d graphics chips... all of which the GBA doesn't.
It's like saying, I'm a photographer, let's compare a £10 disposable camera with a £3000 IRS APS Cannon Super-good camera... after all, they both just takes photos and stivk them on a negative....
Sonic
I need SonicRav...
Well, here I am...
On the point of comparing GBAs and PS1s, this is absurd! As someone said, the Xbox and DC are both 128 bits, but to say they are equally as powerful is useless.
When it comes to consoles, the power comes from the mixture of CPU clock speed (or MIPS are better), and the architecture being used!
You see, the PS1 and GBA both have 32 bit CPUs, BUT the PS1 has it's own soundboard, vector processors, 3d graphics chips... all of which the GBA doesn't.
It's like saying, I'm a photographer, let's compare a £10 disposable camera with a £3000 IRS APS Cannon Super-good camera... after all, they both just takes photos and stivk them on a negative....
Sonic
Dringo wrote:
> Turbonutter wrote:
> So? The Xbox and Dreamcast are still 128bit but they're
> like dogs and
> horses.
Also, I bet you don't even know what bits means.
> It only denotes the
> console's ability to display colours. A 128 bit
> console can show 3.40282e38
> colours, whereas a 16 bit console can only
> show 65536 colours. However, seeing
> as a TV can only show 24bit colour
> maximum, it all seems a little pointless!#
Still 32 Bit.
Turbonutter, isn't that kind of rubbishing your own statement, you say we cannot compare the GBA with 128 consoles. But nearly all TV's (few exceptions) can handle 32bit maximum....
> Turbonutter wrote:
> So? The Xbox and Dreamcast are still 128bit but they're
> like dogs and
> horses.
Also, I bet you don't even know what bits means.
> It only denotes the
> console's ability to display colours. A 128 bit
> console can show 3.40282e38
> colours, whereas a 16 bit console can only
> show 65536 colours. However, seeing
> as a TV can only show 24bit colour
> maximum, it all seems a little pointless!#
Still 32 Bit.
Turbonutter, isn't that kind of rubbishing your own statement, you say we cannot compare the GBA with 128 consoles. But nearly all TV's (few exceptions) can handle 32bit maximum....
Turbonutter wrote:
> er-no wrote:
> Well considering you are
> making a lot of that up.. I
> would say you are. Sony are not leaders of the
> market in professional film
> equipment, that would go to Linhof or Shneider of
> Germany, and for
> selling, I would doubt some of the other ones.
My family is very film
> orientated. My muj was a film editor, my Dad directs television programmes and
> my godfather is MD of Chameleon films ltd. I have spent a lot of time in
> film-related buildings and I can tell YOU that almost every sing part of
> electrical equipment, from televisions to cameras to VTR editing studios, is
> made by Sony. It's like a Sony showroom or something.
And my dad is Europes best estate photographer. The award would go to Linhof or Shneider. Not Sony, people who use the Sony equipment if they are photographers are just little not important people in the industry. Sony don't make very good lighting or cameras at all.
> er-no wrote:
> Well considering you are
> making a lot of that up.. I
> would say you are. Sony are not leaders of the
> market in professional film
> equipment, that would go to Linhof or Shneider of
> Germany, and for
> selling, I would doubt some of the other ones.
My family is very film
> orientated. My muj was a film editor, my Dad directs television programmes and
> my godfather is MD of Chameleon films ltd. I have spent a lot of time in
> film-related buildings and I can tell YOU that almost every sing part of
> electrical equipment, from televisions to cameras to VTR editing studios, is
> made by Sony. It's like a Sony showroom or something.
And my dad is Europes best estate photographer. The award would go to Linhof or Shneider. Not Sony, people who use the Sony equipment if they are photographers are just little not important people in the industry. Sony don't make very good lighting or cameras at all.
Turbonutter wrote:
> Drew wrote:
> what do camera's and film equipment got to do with the
> nintendo?
We were talking about the liklihood of Nintendo, Sont an
> Microsoft going into the financial red.
I need SonicRav...
No you don't none of them will none are in any finaical difficulty Nintendo have a lot of cash to spend.
They are giving millions to small companies for a start.
> Drew wrote:
> what do camera's and film equipment got to do with the
> nintendo?
We were talking about the liklihood of Nintendo, Sont an
> Microsoft going into the financial red.
I need SonicRav...
No you don't none of them will none are in any finaical difficulty Nintendo have a lot of cash to spend.
They are giving millions to small companies for a start.
Turbonutter wrote:
> So? The Xbox and Dreamcast are still 128bit but they're like dogs and
> horses.
Also, I bet you don't even know what bits means. It only denotes the
> console's ability to display colours. A 128 bit console can show 3.40282e38
> colours, whereas a 16 bit console can only show 65536 colours. However, seeing
> as a TV can only show 24bit colour maximum, it all seems a little pointless!#
Still 32 Bit.
> So? The Xbox and Dreamcast are still 128bit but they're like dogs and
> horses.
Also, I bet you don't even know what bits means. It only denotes the
> console's ability to display colours. A 128 bit console can show 3.40282e38
> colours, whereas a 16 bit console can only show 65536 colours. However, seeing
> as a TV can only show 24bit colour maximum, it all seems a little pointless!#
Still 32 Bit.
Drew wrote:
> what do camera's and film equipment got to do with the nintendo?
We were talking about the liklihood of Nintendo, Sont an Microsoft going into the financial red.
I need SonicRav...
> what do camera's and film equipment got to do with the nintendo?
We were talking about the liklihood of Nintendo, Sont an Microsoft going into the financial red.
I need SonicRav...
er-no wrote:
> Well considering you are
> making a lot of that up.. I would say you are. Sony are not leaders of the
> market in professional film equipment, that would go to Linhof or Shneider of
> Germany, and for selling, I would doubt some of the other ones.
My family is very film orientated. My muj was a film editor, my Dad directs television programmes and my godfather is MD of Chameleon films ltd. I have spent a lot of time in film-related buildings and I can tell YOU that almost every sing part of electrical equipment, from televisions to cameras to VTR editing studios, is made by Sony. It's like a Sony showroom or something.
> Well considering you are
> making a lot of that up.. I would say you are. Sony are not leaders of the
> market in professional film equipment, that would go to Linhof or Shneider of
> Germany, and for selling, I would doubt some of the other ones.
My family is very film orientated. My muj was a film editor, my Dad directs television programmes and my godfather is MD of Chameleon films ltd. I have spent a lot of time in film-related buildings and I can tell YOU that almost every sing part of electrical equipment, from televisions to cameras to VTR editing studios, is made by Sony. It's like a Sony showroom or something.
Sibs wrote:
> Salevaa wrote:
> "The GBA and regular consoles like the PS2, GC and
> Xbox just can't be
> compared. If you offer a 100 people to choose betwen a
> free GBA or a PS2, GC or
> Xbox, seriously how many people would choose a
> GBA? It's be a miricle if it went
> into double figures."
I hate to
> sound like the progtagonist or deciding
> factor here, but I must agree with
> that excerpt. I haven't read the entire
> topic, so there's probably things
> I've missed, but more people would choose a GC
> or X-Box over a GBA - why?
> Because it costs more. *Sigh* It's all about what's
> more expensive these
> days - damn the public!
OKay... you can choose a £300 console or any
> two £200 consoles or a handheld that costs around £80. Which do you
> choose? Get the most expensive one... and then sell it to buy the one you
> actually want (and then you have a tidy profit left over, unless of course you
> want the most expensive one, an Xbox). So there's my logic. Now if you weren't
> allowed to sell the one you chose, then still the consoles would be chosen over
> the handheld, yes, because they cost more. If you don't have ANY of those 4
> choices, but you do actually want a home console, why choose a GBA even if you
> want one of those too? You can get something you want FREE that would normally
> cost you £200-300 or you can get something you want, for FREE that would
> only set you back about £80. You do the math.
Um, how would it be free if you have to pay £300 for it? Explain. It could just be me, as I am dang hungover from last night.
> Salevaa wrote:
> "The GBA and regular consoles like the PS2, GC and
> Xbox just can't be
> compared. If you offer a 100 people to choose betwen a
> free GBA or a PS2, GC or
> Xbox, seriously how many people would choose a
> GBA? It's be a miricle if it went
> into double figures."
I hate to
> sound like the progtagonist or deciding
> factor here, but I must agree with
> that excerpt. I haven't read the entire
> topic, so there's probably things
> I've missed, but more people would choose a GC
> or X-Box over a GBA - why?
> Because it costs more. *Sigh* It's all about what's
> more expensive these
> days - damn the public!
OKay... you can choose a £300 console or any
> two £200 consoles or a handheld that costs around £80. Which do you
> choose? Get the most expensive one... and then sell it to buy the one you
> actually want (and then you have a tidy profit left over, unless of course you
> want the most expensive one, an Xbox). So there's my logic. Now if you weren't
> allowed to sell the one you chose, then still the consoles would be chosen over
> the handheld, yes, because they cost more. If you don't have ANY of those 4
> choices, but you do actually want a home console, why choose a GBA even if you
> want one of those too? You can get something you want FREE that would normally
> cost you £200-300 or you can get something you want, for FREE that would
> only set you back about £80. You do the math.
Um, how would it be free if you have to pay £300 for it? Explain. It could just be me, as I am dang hungover from last night.
Salevaa wrote:
> "The GBA and regular consoles like the PS2, GC and Xbox just can't be
> compared. If you offer a 100 people to choose betwen a free GBA or a PS2, GC or
> Xbox, seriously how many people would choose a GBA? It's be a miricle if it went
> into double figures."
I hate to sound like the progtagonist or deciding
> factor here, but I must agree with that excerpt. I haven't read the entire
> topic, so there's probably things I've missed, but more people would choose a GC
> or X-Box over a GBA - why? Because it costs more. *Sigh* It's all about what's
> more expensive these days - damn the public!
OKay... you can choose a £300 console or any two £200 consoles or a handheld that costs around £80. Which do you choose? Get the most expensive one... and then sell it to buy the one you actually want (and then you have a tidy profit left over, unless of course you want the most expensive one, an Xbox). So there's my logic. Now if you weren't allowed to sell the one you chose, then still the consoles would be chosen over the handheld, yes, because they cost more. If you don't have ANY of those 4 choices, but you do actually want a home console, why choose a GBA even if you want one of those too? You can get something you want FREE that would normally cost you £200-300 or you can get something you want, for FREE that would only set you back about £80. You do the math.
> "The GBA and regular consoles like the PS2, GC and Xbox just can't be
> compared. If you offer a 100 people to choose betwen a free GBA or a PS2, GC or
> Xbox, seriously how many people would choose a GBA? It's be a miricle if it went
> into double figures."
I hate to sound like the progtagonist or deciding
> factor here, but I must agree with that excerpt. I haven't read the entire
> topic, so there's probably things I've missed, but more people would choose a GC
> or X-Box over a GBA - why? Because it costs more. *Sigh* It's all about what's
> more expensive these days - damn the public!
OKay... you can choose a £300 console or any two £200 consoles or a handheld that costs around £80. Which do you choose? Get the most expensive one... and then sell it to buy the one you actually want (and then you have a tidy profit left over, unless of course you want the most expensive one, an Xbox). So there's my logic. Now if you weren't allowed to sell the one you chose, then still the consoles would be chosen over the handheld, yes, because they cost more. If you don't have ANY of those 4 choices, but you do actually want a home console, why choose a GBA even if you want one of those too? You can get something you want FREE that would normally cost you £200-300 or you can get something you want, for FREE that would only set you back about £80. You do the math.
Page: