The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Given the technological advantage that Gamecube supposedly has over the PS2, and its relative ease to program, don't you think that game ports would be at least as good on the Gamecube?
Take SSX Tricky as an example. Sure, it's almost the same looks-wise (slightly grainier textures), but the controls are clunky if you've ever played the excellent PS2 version. The XBox however, has got the best version of this game, with flashier graphics and sound.
Tony Hawks 3 is another, and it's the same story almost as with SSX Tricky (Gamecube version is pants), and the same with Dave Mirra BMX 2.
I know that Burnout for Gamecube is being enhanced, and I can only hope that other ports follow suit. I don't mind ports, but when they are on a better machine I expect them to be improved. This doesn't seem to be the case, unlike on XBox, where each port is well enhanced to take advantage of the hardware.
If this machine wasn't by Nintendo, it would flop instantly. It needs a lot of 3rd party games, but not shoddy conversions. Take away Mario, Zelda, Perfect Dark etc. and the game line-up is looking quite poor.
Take SSX Tricky as an example. Sure, it's almost the same looks-wise (slightly grainier textures), but the controls are clunky if you've ever played the excellent PS2 version. The XBox however, has got the best version of this game, with flashier graphics and sound.
Tony Hawks 3 is another, and it's the same story almost as with SSX Tricky (Gamecube version is pants), and the same with Dave Mirra BMX 2.
I know that Burnout for Gamecube is being enhanced, and I can only hope that other ports follow suit. I don't mind ports, but when they are on a better machine I expect them to be improved. This doesn't seem to be the case, unlike on XBox, where each port is well enhanced to take advantage of the hardware.
If this machine wasn't by Nintendo, it would flop instantly. It needs a lot of 3rd party games, but not shoddy conversions. Take away Mario, Zelda, Perfect Dark etc. and the game line-up is looking quite poor.
Page:
GpotterUK wrote:
If this machine wasn't by
> Nintendo, it would flop instantly.
If the X box wasnt by Microsoft it wold flop
If this machine wasn't by
> Nintendo, it would flop instantly.
If the X box wasnt by Microsoft it wold flop
Both the N64 and GC were made for Ninty to sell their games on. Now, here's the difference...
When Ninty made the N64, they wee arrogant. They refused to let anyone BUT themselves make games at first, and charged for the privilidge of making games on a ninty console.
On the GC Ninty are not being arrogant, happily letting people make games for the console cheaply.
When Ninty made the N64, they wee arrogant. They refused to let anyone BUT themselves make games at first, and charged for the privilidge of making games on a ninty console.
On the GC Ninty are not being arrogant, happily letting people make games for the console cheaply.
There are quite a few Nintendo-exclusives that many Sony fans would love to be able to play on their own consoles, rather than having to buy a Nintendo one.
Zelda is a good example, as it's a brilliant RPG.
Many Sony fans have taken to the Final Fantasy series very well, and are willing to play almost anything else with an RPG style!
This is a true fact! And even though many 'Sonys' critisise Nintendo and their games for their so-called 'kiddy image', deep down, many of them are desperate to play the likes of Zelda - and maybe even Mario!
But the port of a Nintendo game to a rival console would never happen. And the same applies to all Sony games, and almost all of the Microsoft ones (except maybe one or two?).
That'd be a stupid mistake - like simply giving away all their secrets and games that make them who they are!!
So it'll never happen.
Zelda is a good example, as it's a brilliant RPG.
Many Sony fans have taken to the Final Fantasy series very well, and are willing to play almost anything else with an RPG style!
This is a true fact! And even though many 'Sonys' critisise Nintendo and their games for their so-called 'kiddy image', deep down, many of them are desperate to play the likes of Zelda - and maybe even Mario!
But the port of a Nintendo game to a rival console would never happen. And the same applies to all Sony games, and almost all of the Microsoft ones (except maybe one or two?).
That'd be a stupid mistake - like simply giving away all their secrets and games that make them who they are!!
So it'll never happen.
GpotterUK wrote:
> Simply stating that apart from the AAAs from Nintendo and their first party
> developers, the game line up for Gamecube is very poor.
Resident Evil and Battle Housin are both doing incredibly well in Japan at the moment. Super Monkey Ball was the favourite title of many Gamecube owners in the USA.
The recently announced deal with Square will bring some top class RPG's to the Gamecube, and Sega are continuing to support the console too. Capcom would be foolish not to follow up their Resident Evil games with other games too.
The Gamecube has plenty of third party support, and a few shoddy ports can always be expected as developers will spend varying lengths of time dealing with the port.
I suppose the Xbox will be depending more on ports, especially SSX, as the exclusive snowboarding title, Amped, is rather disappointing.
> Simply stating that apart from the AAAs from Nintendo and their first party
> developers, the game line up for Gamecube is very poor.
Resident Evil and Battle Housin are both doing incredibly well in Japan at the moment. Super Monkey Ball was the favourite title of many Gamecube owners in the USA.
The recently announced deal with Square will bring some top class RPG's to the Gamecube, and Sega are continuing to support the console too. Capcom would be foolish not to follow up their Resident Evil games with other games too.
The Gamecube has plenty of third party support, and a few shoddy ports can always be expected as developers will spend varying lengths of time dealing with the port.
I suppose the Xbox will be depending more on ports, especially SSX, as the exclusive snowboarding title, Amped, is rather disappointing.
Meka's right, the GameCube was designed for Nintendo to sell their own games on.
As was the N64.
However, Nintendo know that they'll make more money with third party support, so they made it easier to program for and used 8cm discs which are cheaper than cartridges to produce and easier to copy games to.
The GameCube was made for Nintendo to make profits, and possibly because someone in Nintendo cares for gamers and wants to bring a bit more joy to their hearts. Nintendo make more profits by selling their own games than they do third pary games.
As was the N64.
However, Nintendo know that they'll make more money with third party support, so they made it easier to program for and used 8cm discs which are cheaper than cartridges to produce and easier to copy games to.
The GameCube was made for Nintendo to make profits, and possibly because someone in Nintendo cares for gamers and wants to bring a bit more joy to their hearts. Nintendo make more profits by selling their own games than they do third pary games.
Meka Dragon wrote:
> Take away Mario, Zelda, Perfect Dark etc. and the game
> line-up is
> looking quite poor.
Worst. Arguement. Ever.
Take away the Xbox's best
> games and it too looks poor. :-)
Do you think Nintendo make a console to sell
> ports on?
No, of course they don't they make a console to sell their own
> games on, as that's what makes them most money.
My reply...
Worst argument ever? I wasn't arguing. Simply stating that apart from the AAAs from Nintendo and their first party developers, the game line up for Gamecube is very poor.
So Nintendo only make a console to sell their own games on? They took that approach with the N64 and look what happened to that - a major flop. Nintendo made the Gamecube for ALL developers to make games on, and it just so happens that the ports it is getting are rubbish compared to what the XBox is getting.
> Take away Mario, Zelda, Perfect Dark etc. and the game
> line-up is
> looking quite poor.
Worst. Arguement. Ever.
Take away the Xbox's best
> games and it too looks poor. :-)
Do you think Nintendo make a console to sell
> ports on?
No, of course they don't they make a console to sell their own
> games on, as that's what makes them most money.
My reply...
Worst argument ever? I wasn't arguing. Simply stating that apart from the AAAs from Nintendo and their first party developers, the game line up for Gamecube is very poor.
So Nintendo only make a console to sell their own games on? They took that approach with the N64 and look what happened to that - a major flop. Nintendo made the Gamecube for ALL developers to make games on, and it just so happens that the ports it is getting are rubbish compared to what the XBox is getting.
GpotterUK wrote:
If this machine wasn't by
> Nintendo, it would flop instantly. It needs a lot of 3rd party games, but not
> shoddy conversions. Take away Mario, Zelda, Perfect Dark etc. and the game
> line-up is looking quite poor.
Worst. Arguement. Ever.
Take away the Xbox's best games and it too looks poor. :-)
Do you think Nintendo make a console to sell ports on?
No, of course they don't they make a console to sell their own games on, as that's what makes them most money.
Having a bunch of ports does help fill the shelves in a game shop though, and give the impression of lots of choice, and that's what Nintendo really want, as lots of games equals lots of potentail buyers.
If the console wasn't a Nintendo console it would have been made by another company, this company would also no doubt have 1st and/or 2nd party games, and they too would be the system sellers. Ports bolster up a line-up, they don't sell a system.
If this machine wasn't by
> Nintendo, it would flop instantly. It needs a lot of 3rd party games, but not
> shoddy conversions. Take away Mario, Zelda, Perfect Dark etc. and the game
> line-up is looking quite poor.
Worst. Arguement. Ever.
Take away the Xbox's best games and it too looks poor. :-)
Do you think Nintendo make a console to sell ports on?
No, of course they don't they make a console to sell their own games on, as that's what makes them most money.
Having a bunch of ports does help fill the shelves in a game shop though, and give the impression of lots of choice, and that's what Nintendo really want, as lots of games equals lots of potentail buyers.
If the console wasn't a Nintendo console it would have been made by another company, this company would also no doubt have 1st and/or 2nd party games, and they too would be the system sellers. Ports bolster up a line-up, they don't sell a system.
Gpotter, I both answered your questions and then you did too!
Just because developers have great technology doesn't mean the ports are automatically good. Even for 2 years old PS2 games, the amount of work needed just to get a port AS GOOD as the original is very large.
Oh, and which Sega ports have shoddy graphics? The only one I can think of is Crazy taxi... and that wasn't ported by Sega! In fact, before the DC died, Sega gave all their supporting developers kits to let them convert their DC games to the PS2 more easily. Good of them eh!
Just because developers have great technology doesn't mean the ports are automatically good. Even for 2 years old PS2 games, the amount of work needed just to get a port AS GOOD as the original is very large.
Oh, and which Sega ports have shoddy graphics? The only one I can think of is Crazy taxi... and that wasn't ported by Sega! In fact, before the DC died, Sega gave all their supporting developers kits to let them convert their DC games to the PS2 more easily. Good of them eh!
I know PC to XBox ports are easy, but I was talking about ports of PS2 games. XBox and Gamecube are both totally different to the PS2 in terms of architecture, yet XBox clearly has the better ports.
You are right, developers do have a lot to do with the quality of a port, but when you give someone pretty much state-of-the-art technology like the Gamecube, you expect better looking games than those on a 2 year old PS2.
I think the quality of a port shows how much they favour each particular console. SEGA have done very shoddy ports of their games for PS2 (lots of jaggies, slowdown, popup etc.), but on XBox SEGAs games are superb.
You are right, developers do have a lot to do with the quality of a port, but when you give someone pretty much state-of-the-art technology like the Gamecube, you expect better looking games than those on a 2 year old PS2.
I think the quality of a port shows how much they favour each particular console. SEGA have done very shoddy ports of their games for PS2 (lots of jaggies, slowdown, popup etc.), but on XBox SEGAs games are superb.
Simply put, ports are as good as developers make them.
Because of the massive gap in the console architecture, ports will need a fair bit more work done on them to get them up to scratch- mcuh unlike, say, PC to Xbox ports which are far easier.
So basically it depends how much the company cares about GC sales- if they are bothered they can back great ports, inprove graphics and add features. If not then the games will be just below their PS2 conterparts.
(Oddly enough, this happened with DOA2- the Dreamcast version looked better than the PS2 version because the porting wasn't optimised!... Oh, and the antialiasing stuff)
Because of the massive gap in the console architecture, ports will need a fair bit more work done on them to get them up to scratch- mcuh unlike, say, PC to Xbox ports which are far easier.
So basically it depends how much the company cares about GC sales- if they are bothered they can back great ports, inprove graphics and add features. If not then the games will be just below their PS2 conterparts.
(Oddly enough, this happened with DOA2- the Dreamcast version looked better than the PS2 version because the porting wasn't optimised!... Oh, and the antialiasing stuff)
Page: