The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
As time progresses, it's becoming more and more apparent that developers are preferring to port their previous titles to Gamecube than to develop new, original ones.
Companies such as Electronic Arts, Sega and Acclaim will be contributing a large percentage on these ports which, alone, stand for over half the total number of launch titles. Is this a problem? Should developers spend more time and resources creating original titles rather than giving Gamecube owner’s games that they may already own on a different console? Well, let's investigate a little further!
To be honest, porting games over to other consoles is merely a way of developers making quick, easy money. If the game has already been highly acclaimed on it’s home console, chances are people are going to buy it.
One thing which people constantly complained about with the N64 was the lack of titles for it, good or otherwise. Every six months, along would come an absolute classic from the likes of Nintendo or Rare and then a sort of games drought would occur. So, does this mean that loads of ports on Gamecube, which take very little time to develop, will eradicate these game droughts? Probably. So is this a good thing? Again, probably.
The chances are, developers (or publishers, rather) are only likely to publish a game on multiple platforms if it was successful on the first console it hit (as previously stated). And, I think it’s reasonable to say that games are only likely to be popular with the gaming masses if they’re at least a half-decent game in the first place (let’s forget about Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, here).
So, what I’ve established is this – ports are likely to create a steady flow of games, giving your average punter plenty of variety throughout the year. What’s more, these titles are most probably enjoyable titles than are at least half your moneys-worth. So does this mean that ports are a good thing and should be heavily supported by Nintendo? Not necessarily. Read on…
Firstly, if a game is ported from PS2 to Gamecube (for example), the Gamecube owner expects more than a ‘direct port’. They want extra levels, new modes, improved graphics etc. Not only to make it seem as though the developer has actually put some effort into porting this game onto their beloved platform, but also so that they can say “look here, PS2 owners – the game is better on my platform than yours.”
This however, is not necessarily the case will all ports coming over to the Gamecube. Crazy Taxi, for example, is a direct port of the same PS2 title which was, in turn, a direct port of Dreamcast version which was a port of the arcade original! Yes, it’s all very well and good if your Gamecube punter has never seem or played Crazy Taxi before, as it’s a highly respectable title. However, chances are that the potential customer has already played the game previously. So, why could they possibly want to spend £40 (or more) on a game they’ve already played? For them, the title may as well not even exist on the platform!
Also, wave upon wave on ports on the Gamecube can make the console develop a bad reputation of mainly having games that PS2 and X-Box owners will of already experienced. Or am I getting a little carried away here? Would a company like Nintendo actually let their console get bogged down with port upon port? Probably not. Although in recent times, Nintendo have actively encouraged more and more developers to pile aboard S.S. Gamecube and if this issue goes without restrictions, things could turn sour for Nintendo.
So, to summarise – lots of ports on Gamecube could be a good thing IF:
1) The title in question is already worthy-enough to be put on sale under the Gamecube brand.
2) Is enhanced substantially enough to practically make it a worthy purchase for owners of previous versions.
3) The number of ports on Gamecube is far out-numbered by the number of original titles. After all, it’s these original titles that will really capture Gamecube’s massive potential and advance gaming as we know it, just the N64 did.
Thanks for you time, if you bothered to read.
Uncle Albert
Companies such as Electronic Arts, Sega and Acclaim will be contributing a large percentage on these ports which, alone, stand for over half the total number of launch titles. Is this a problem? Should developers spend more time and resources creating original titles rather than giving Gamecube owner’s games that they may already own on a different console? Well, let's investigate a little further!
To be honest, porting games over to other consoles is merely a way of developers making quick, easy money. If the game has already been highly acclaimed on it’s home console, chances are people are going to buy it.
One thing which people constantly complained about with the N64 was the lack of titles for it, good or otherwise. Every six months, along would come an absolute classic from the likes of Nintendo or Rare and then a sort of games drought would occur. So, does this mean that loads of ports on Gamecube, which take very little time to develop, will eradicate these game droughts? Probably. So is this a good thing? Again, probably.
The chances are, developers (or publishers, rather) are only likely to publish a game on multiple platforms if it was successful on the first console it hit (as previously stated). And, I think it’s reasonable to say that games are only likely to be popular with the gaming masses if they’re at least a half-decent game in the first place (let’s forget about Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, here).
So, what I’ve established is this – ports are likely to create a steady flow of games, giving your average punter plenty of variety throughout the year. What’s more, these titles are most probably enjoyable titles than are at least half your moneys-worth. So does this mean that ports are a good thing and should be heavily supported by Nintendo? Not necessarily. Read on…
Firstly, if a game is ported from PS2 to Gamecube (for example), the Gamecube owner expects more than a ‘direct port’. They want extra levels, new modes, improved graphics etc. Not only to make it seem as though the developer has actually put some effort into porting this game onto their beloved platform, but also so that they can say “look here, PS2 owners – the game is better on my platform than yours.”
This however, is not necessarily the case will all ports coming over to the Gamecube. Crazy Taxi, for example, is a direct port of the same PS2 title which was, in turn, a direct port of Dreamcast version which was a port of the arcade original! Yes, it’s all very well and good if your Gamecube punter has never seem or played Crazy Taxi before, as it’s a highly respectable title. However, chances are that the potential customer has already played the game previously. So, why could they possibly want to spend £40 (or more) on a game they’ve already played? For them, the title may as well not even exist on the platform!
Also, wave upon wave on ports on the Gamecube can make the console develop a bad reputation of mainly having games that PS2 and X-Box owners will of already experienced. Or am I getting a little carried away here? Would a company like Nintendo actually let their console get bogged down with port upon port? Probably not. Although in recent times, Nintendo have actively encouraged more and more developers to pile aboard S.S. Gamecube and if this issue goes without restrictions, things could turn sour for Nintendo.
So, to summarise – lots of ports on Gamecube could be a good thing IF:
1) The title in question is already worthy-enough to be put on sale under the Gamecube brand.
2) Is enhanced substantially enough to practically make it a worthy purchase for owners of previous versions.
3) The number of ports on Gamecube is far out-numbered by the number of original titles. After all, it’s these original titles that will really capture Gamecube’s massive potential and advance gaming as we know it, just the N64 did.
Thanks for you time, if you bothered to read.
Uncle Albert
Page:
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
PS, before some PS2 fanboy replies, I'd like to say that I
> OWN a PS2!
Heh...that's usually how I have to conclude my PS2-related posts!
Although you made a fair point, I'd say the PS2 actually had quite a few original titles at launch (Timesplitters, SSX, Fantasvision, etc), it's just that they weren't very good!
PS, before some PS2 fanboy replies, I'd like to say that I
> OWN a PS2!
Heh...that's usually how I have to conclude my PS2-related posts!
Although you made a fair point, I'd say the PS2 actually had quite a few original titles at launch (Timesplitters, SSX, Fantasvision, etc), it's just that they weren't very good!
I disagree- ports are ALWAYS a big part of any console launch... ports and quick updates of course.
The reason is that publishers want to make a quick buck on release, and have tight deadlines to make games for- so they can't make a whole new one.
Original titles come later.. in the PS2's case, much, much later!
Sonic
PS, before some PS2 fanboy replies, I'd like to say that I OWN a PS2!
The reason is that publishers want to make a quick buck on release, and have tight deadlines to make games for- so they can't make a whole new one.
Original titles come later.. in the PS2's case, much, much later!
Sonic
PS, before some PS2 fanboy replies, I'd like to say that I OWN a PS2!
Ports are good because it means we get the cream of the PS2/Xbox crop as well as Shigsy's Specialties.
As for the crap ones, we don't HAVE to buy them...
As for the crap ones, we don't HAVE to buy them...
As time progresses, it's becoming more and more apparent that developers are preferring to port their previous titles to Gamecube than to develop new, original ones.
Companies such as Electronic Arts, Sega and Acclaim will be contributing a large percentage on these ports which, alone, stand for over half the total number of launch titles. Is this a problem? Should developers spend more time and resources creating original titles rather than giving Gamecube owner’s games that they may already own on a different console? Well, let's investigate a little further!
To be honest, porting games over to other consoles is merely a way of developers making quick, easy money. If the game has already been highly acclaimed on it’s home console, chances are people are going to buy it.
One thing which people constantly complained about with the N64 was the lack of titles for it, good or otherwise. Every six months, along would come an absolute classic from the likes of Nintendo or Rare and then a sort of games drought would occur. So, does this mean that loads of ports on Gamecube, which take very little time to develop, will eradicate these game droughts? Probably. So is this a good thing? Again, probably.
The chances are, developers (or publishers, rather) are only likely to publish a game on multiple platforms if it was successful on the first console it hit (as previously stated). And, I think it’s reasonable to say that games are only likely to be popular with the gaming masses if they’re at least a half-decent game in the first place (let’s forget about Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, here).
So, what I’ve established is this – ports are likely to create a steady flow of games, giving your average punter plenty of variety throughout the year. What’s more, these titles are most probably enjoyable titles than are at least half your moneys-worth. So does this mean that ports are a good thing and should be heavily supported by Nintendo? Not necessarily. Read on…
Firstly, if a game is ported from PS2 to Gamecube (for example), the Gamecube owner expects more than a ‘direct port’. They want extra levels, new modes, improved graphics etc. Not only to make it seem as though the developer has actually put some effort into porting this game onto their beloved platform, but also so that they can say “look here, PS2 owners – the game is better on my platform than yours.”
This however, is not necessarily the case will all ports coming over to the Gamecube. Crazy Taxi, for example, is a direct port of the same PS2 title which was, in turn, a direct port of Dreamcast version which was a port of the arcade original! Yes, it’s all very well and good if your Gamecube punter has never seem or played Crazy Taxi before, as it’s a highly respectable title. However, chances are that the potential customer has already played the game previously. So, why could they possibly want to spend £40 (or more) on a game they’ve already played? For them, the title may as well not even exist on the platform!
Also, wave upon wave on ports on the Gamecube can make the console develop a bad reputation of mainly having games that PS2 and X-Box owners will of already experienced. Or am I getting a little carried away here? Would a company like Nintendo actually let their console get bogged down with port upon port? Probably not. Although in recent times, Nintendo have actively encouraged more and more developers to pile aboard S.S. Gamecube and if this issue goes without restrictions, things could turn sour for Nintendo.
So, to summarise – lots of ports on Gamecube could be a good thing IF:
1) The title in question is already worthy-enough to be put on sale under the Gamecube brand.
2) Is enhanced substantially enough to practically make it a worthy purchase for owners of previous versions.
3) The number of ports on Gamecube is far out-numbered by the number of original titles. After all, it’s these original titles that will really capture Gamecube’s massive potential and advance gaming as we know it, just the N64 did.
Thanks for you time, if you bothered to read.
Uncle Albert
Companies such as Electronic Arts, Sega and Acclaim will be contributing a large percentage on these ports which, alone, stand for over half the total number of launch titles. Is this a problem? Should developers spend more time and resources creating original titles rather than giving Gamecube owner’s games that they may already own on a different console? Well, let's investigate a little further!
To be honest, porting games over to other consoles is merely a way of developers making quick, easy money. If the game has already been highly acclaimed on it’s home console, chances are people are going to buy it.
One thing which people constantly complained about with the N64 was the lack of titles for it, good or otherwise. Every six months, along would come an absolute classic from the likes of Nintendo or Rare and then a sort of games drought would occur. So, does this mean that loads of ports on Gamecube, which take very little time to develop, will eradicate these game droughts? Probably. So is this a good thing? Again, probably.
The chances are, developers (or publishers, rather) are only likely to publish a game on multiple platforms if it was successful on the first console it hit (as previously stated). And, I think it’s reasonable to say that games are only likely to be popular with the gaming masses if they’re at least a half-decent game in the first place (let’s forget about Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, here).
So, what I’ve established is this – ports are likely to create a steady flow of games, giving your average punter plenty of variety throughout the year. What’s more, these titles are most probably enjoyable titles than are at least half your moneys-worth. So does this mean that ports are a good thing and should be heavily supported by Nintendo? Not necessarily. Read on…
Firstly, if a game is ported from PS2 to Gamecube (for example), the Gamecube owner expects more than a ‘direct port’. They want extra levels, new modes, improved graphics etc. Not only to make it seem as though the developer has actually put some effort into porting this game onto their beloved platform, but also so that they can say “look here, PS2 owners – the game is better on my platform than yours.”
This however, is not necessarily the case will all ports coming over to the Gamecube. Crazy Taxi, for example, is a direct port of the same PS2 title which was, in turn, a direct port of Dreamcast version which was a port of the arcade original! Yes, it’s all very well and good if your Gamecube punter has never seem or played Crazy Taxi before, as it’s a highly respectable title. However, chances are that the potential customer has already played the game previously. So, why could they possibly want to spend £40 (or more) on a game they’ve already played? For them, the title may as well not even exist on the platform!
Also, wave upon wave on ports on the Gamecube can make the console develop a bad reputation of mainly having games that PS2 and X-Box owners will of already experienced. Or am I getting a little carried away here? Would a company like Nintendo actually let their console get bogged down with port upon port? Probably not. Although in recent times, Nintendo have actively encouraged more and more developers to pile aboard S.S. Gamecube and if this issue goes without restrictions, things could turn sour for Nintendo.
So, to summarise – lots of ports on Gamecube could be a good thing IF:
1) The title in question is already worthy-enough to be put on sale under the Gamecube brand.
2) Is enhanced substantially enough to practically make it a worthy purchase for owners of previous versions.
3) The number of ports on Gamecube is far out-numbered by the number of original titles. After all, it’s these original titles that will really capture Gamecube’s massive potential and advance gaming as we know it, just the N64 did.
Thanks for you time, if you bothered to read.
Uncle Albert
Page: