Viewing Thread:
"My Gamegear has just as good a screen as the GBA."

Playing a GBA demonstration model in Curry's the other day I could not help, but laugh at what people class as a good hand-held the GBA is rubbish when playing yet another Mario game it appeared to me that the screen was exactly the same quality as my Gamegear infact take away the Ninty badge and you would not be able to tell the difference.

I mean are Ninty really saying that this a a next gen hand-held when the screen technology is a decade old, if you had a modern PDA with a screen like that you would take it back for a refund.

Then there are the games they look like SNES games not the PSone games we were promised. What a rip-off, and they expect you to pay £34.99 for a GBA game.

But this is a bit diffrent becuase snes was one of the best, if not the best, console ever.

So releaseing them for new gamers to play is a good idea.

Also the GBA is handheld and the snes was a home console and both are nearly the same.

While ps1 and PS2 are both home consoles and a big diffrence in power between them.

Also is it true that if sony didnt make the playstation Nintendo would of stuck with carts and we would be using 256bit?

I wouldnt think do as cds are cheaper and easyer to make games on.
And would it even be possible?

But they may want to play a brand new game on the GBA, but they can't because Nintendo keep re-releasing the same old thing.

Imagine if Sony would have released Crash Bandicoot 1 on the PS2? There would be uproar if they did.

I dont know what i meant too.

But the thing is people who didnt play that game on the system before could then play it on the new one.

For people who had played it they could just buy another game which was "brand new".

Well, I didn't really understand what you said so I'll tell you what I dislike most about Nintendo.

First we had the NES, they brought out Super Mario World 1, Super Mario World 2 and Super Mario World 3. That's fair enough, different games, and all have there own unique attributes which make them special.

Then the SNES came along, they brought out Super Mario World 1, Super Mario World 2, Super Mario World 3 and Super Mario World, each seperate. Slight graphic change, but the same game. THEN, they released Super Mario All Stars. Why didn't they do this at the start?

Now the GBA has released Super Mario World 2 under the name 'Mario Advance'. Firstly, it's the worst out of the series and secondly, why have they released the exact same game on three different consoles?

What about people who are just starting to play computer games who never played mario on the snes now they get a chance, if you dont like it theres other games that arnt nintendo.

So what everyone is saying is that if they took out mario in super mario sunshine and put in a new character, but did the same things, it would be better?

i think not mario has a reputation so it will sell, if you dont like mario any more still buy the games its still good.

plus super bob sunshine hasnt got that certian ring to it.



As for the GBA thing maybe you should be moaning becuase it has no compition it could put a gameboy color, or colour if you prefer it, in a diffrent box and call it a diffrent name it would stil sell.
Plus putting a new screen in would cost more and its far too much as it is.

I've sorta felt that way ever since they released Mario Kart 64. Fair enough, do up a game that was extremely popular on an earlier console, but what don't do is just think that sprucing the graphics up a tad will keep everyone happy. I played that game in Comet I think, and it was the sole reason why I decided not to buy an N64.

Don't get me wrong, I like Nintendo. I had a NES, SNES and a Gameboy. I also enjoyed Zelda (me and my mate swapped consoles for a week) and think it's a brilliant game. How they got away with some of their re-releases is beyond me. Another example is Mario Advance. They could make up a new Mario game but no, just reproduce one that was on the NES how many years ago. I don't know what's worse, re-releasing a game under a different one, or choosing the worst out of the series. The cowin' Lost Levels was better that Mario 2.

Gabbo wrote:
> Meh, I've played on both and I would say the Gamegear is better. The
> graphics are about equal, but the two games I've had a real play on
> are Sonic Chaos and Mario Advance. If you gave these two handhelds to
> someone who was dense and not up to speed with the whole market, would
> he know that there is about seven years between the two, me thinks
> not.
>
> I do think Mario Advance sucks, so maybe if I played a few more games.
> I've played Mario Kart Advance as well, and that was beyond crap. I
> loved it on the SNES as well.

Congratulations someone who recognises the fact that Ninty are no more than rehashers of the same old rubbish in terms of hardware and software. The problem being the Ninty have lived off the same old plumbers reputation for far to long, put it to bed Ninty and come up with something original.

Meh, I've played on both and I would say the Gamegear is better. The graphics are about equal, but the two games I've had a real play on are Sonic Chaos and Mario Advance. If you gave these two handhelds to someone who was dense and not up to speed with the whole market, would he know that there is about seven years between the two, me thinks not.

I do think Mario Advance sucks, so maybe if I played a few more games. I've played Mario Kart Advance as well, and that was beyond crap. I loved it on the SNES as well.

I am sorry in this age of PS2 and GC the GBA graphics and in particular screen do not cut the mustard.

There is better screen technology outhere I mean lets not beat about the bush here most colour mobiles have better resolution screens than the GBA.

As for the games I don't want to keep playing old rehashed games like Doom that were designed to run on PC's and more sophisicated hardware than the GBA possesses. Let's face it my old 486 PC doom game looked a site better then that c**p version on GBA.