The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
"I'll believe it when I see somthing official!" said those Ninties with cotten wool in their ears when the whole Rare/MS buyout thing was happening.
Well...he it is.
Taken from ign.com
"September 20, 2002 - Last week IGNcube reported that Nintendo had cut its stake in UK-based development studio Rare, and that Rare had inked a deal to become a first-party software house for Microsoft. Today Nintendo made its half of the story totally official.
Earlier this morning Nintendo issued a press release stating that it had cut all development ties with Rare. The firm said it had sold its 49-percent share in the former second-party. Nintendo further explained that the decision reflected a restructuring move and a new partnership philosophy.
"Nintendo had the ability to continue its exclusive relationship with Rare, but in looking at the company's recent track record, it became clear that its value to the future of Nintendo would be limited," said Peter MacDougall, executive vice president, sales and marketing, Nintendo of America. "In other words, we passed on this opportunity for very good business reasons."
The Nintendo release went on to reiterate the fact that Rare software sales accounted for only 9.5-percent of Nintendo sales in fiscal year 2001 and only 1.5-percent in fiscal 2002.
Nintendo stated that it would retain the rights for all original properties including Donkey Kong, Diddy Kong and Star Fox. It made no comment on whether or not Rare would retain the Perfect Dark and Conker's Bad Fur Day licenses.
The company said that game development is ever changing and that the selling of Rare will afford Nintendo more opportunities with other studios. "The disposition of this investment leaves us in a position to become even more aggressive in expanding our development capacity, both internally and externally," MacDougall noted. "Aside from several partnerships already announced over the past year, we are currently in similar talks with several other prospective partners around the world."
Finally, the release noted that though Nintendo's relationship with Rare has come to an end, Nintendo still respects the giant software house. "Although we declined the opportunity to continue our exclusive agreement with Rare, this announcement does not diminish our respect for their work or the past contributions they have made to Nintendo," stated MacDougall.
More as it develops."
BooHooNinties, WayHeyUs. :P
I can't wait for the "Nintendo don't need Rare/Rare are actally pretty crap" noncence that will spill from outraged nintendo fans.
Well...he it is.
Taken from ign.com
"September 20, 2002 - Last week IGNcube reported that Nintendo had cut its stake in UK-based development studio Rare, and that Rare had inked a deal to become a first-party software house for Microsoft. Today Nintendo made its half of the story totally official.
Earlier this morning Nintendo issued a press release stating that it had cut all development ties with Rare. The firm said it had sold its 49-percent share in the former second-party. Nintendo further explained that the decision reflected a restructuring move and a new partnership philosophy.
"Nintendo had the ability to continue its exclusive relationship with Rare, but in looking at the company's recent track record, it became clear that its value to the future of Nintendo would be limited," said Peter MacDougall, executive vice president, sales and marketing, Nintendo of America. "In other words, we passed on this opportunity for very good business reasons."
The Nintendo release went on to reiterate the fact that Rare software sales accounted for only 9.5-percent of Nintendo sales in fiscal year 2001 and only 1.5-percent in fiscal 2002.
Nintendo stated that it would retain the rights for all original properties including Donkey Kong, Diddy Kong and Star Fox. It made no comment on whether or not Rare would retain the Perfect Dark and Conker's Bad Fur Day licenses.
The company said that game development is ever changing and that the selling of Rare will afford Nintendo more opportunities with other studios. "The disposition of this investment leaves us in a position to become even more aggressive in expanding our development capacity, both internally and externally," MacDougall noted. "Aside from several partnerships already announced over the past year, we are currently in similar talks with several other prospective partners around the world."
Finally, the release noted that though Nintendo's relationship with Rare has come to an end, Nintendo still respects the giant software house. "Although we declined the opportunity to continue our exclusive agreement with Rare, this announcement does not diminish our respect for their work or the past contributions they have made to Nintendo," stated MacDougall.
More as it develops."
BooHooNinties, WayHeyUs. :P
I can't wait for the "Nintendo don't need Rare/Rare are actally pretty crap" noncence that will spill from outraged nintendo fans.
Page:
Savatt78 wrote:
> The same poor half of Rare that helped to make the apparently
> excellent Starfox game coming to GC?
That's the one. They're not bad, but they're not great either. I'm yet to see what they can do on their own, and as Nintendo are working closely with Rare and developing 50% of StarFox adventures, it doesn't really qualify as to 'what Rare can do'.
> You lot really like to emphasise this "poor members of Rare"
> ever since the news of them going to MS surfaced. ;-)
I've already given my answer to this question many times....
> I might try Timesplitters 2 on the X-Box and see what its like. It
> needs to be VERY different to the first game before I think highly of
> it though.
Believe me, it is. I've played number one and the demo extensively and Timesplitters 2 looks to be a worthy successor to Goldeneye's throne.
> As for the humans/aliens thing, I think it depends on what the aliens
> are like. Those little grey alien things (big eyes, big head, etc)
> are pretty lame, but I think the Covenant are good opposition.
I have absolutely no problem with blasting alien scum (that's why I'm looking forward to Metroid Prime so much) though it's nice to have humans.
> The same poor half of Rare that helped to make the apparently
> excellent Starfox game coming to GC?
That's the one. They're not bad, but they're not great either. I'm yet to see what they can do on their own, and as Nintendo are working closely with Rare and developing 50% of StarFox adventures, it doesn't really qualify as to 'what Rare can do'.
> You lot really like to emphasise this "poor members of Rare"
> ever since the news of them going to MS surfaced. ;-)
I've already given my answer to this question many times....
> I might try Timesplitters 2 on the X-Box and see what its like. It
> needs to be VERY different to the first game before I think highly of
> it though.
Believe me, it is. I've played number one and the demo extensively and Timesplitters 2 looks to be a worthy successor to Goldeneye's throne.
> As for the humans/aliens thing, I think it depends on what the aliens
> are like. Those little grey alien things (big eyes, big head, etc)
> are pretty lame, but I think the Covenant are good opposition.
I have absolutely no problem with blasting alien scum (that's why I'm looking forward to Metroid Prime so much) though it's nice to have humans.
The same poor half of Rare that helped to make the apparently excellent Starfox game coming to GC ?
You lot really like to emphasise this "poor members of Rare" ever since the news of them going to MS surfaced. ;-)
I might try Timesplitters 2 on the X-Box and see what its like. It needs to be VERY different to the first game before I think highly of it though.
As for the humans/aliens thing, I think it depends on what the aliens are like. Those little grey alien things (big eyes, big head, etc) are pretty lame, but I think the Covenant are good opposition.
You lot really like to emphasise this "poor members of Rare" ever since the news of them going to MS surfaced. ;-)
I might try Timesplitters 2 on the X-Box and see what its like. It needs to be VERY different to the first game before I think highly of it though.
As for the humans/aliens thing, I think it depends on what the aliens are like. Those little grey alien things (big eyes, big head, etc) are pretty lame, but I think the Covenant are good opposition.
It was also due to the fact that the good half of Rare went, leaving the poor half to finish it off.
Savatt78 wrote:
> Whats wrong with the foes being Aliens ? You got to shoot humans in
> Timesplitters - didn't stop the game being overated pants.
I much prefer shooting humans than stupid aliens. Doesn't mean if a game has humans then it's gonna be good but i'd rather play something like Goldeneye or Perfect Dark over a game with stupid aliens any day.
The last 2 levels of Perfect Dark where spoiled cause they where full of stupid Aliens.
> Whats wrong with the foes being Aliens ? You got to shoot humans in
> Timesplitters - didn't stop the game being overated pants.
I much prefer shooting humans than stupid aliens. Doesn't mean if a game has humans then it's gonna be good but i'd rather play something like Goldeneye or Perfect Dark over a game with stupid aliens any day.
The last 2 levels of Perfect Dark where spoiled cause they where full of stupid Aliens.
gamezfreak wrote:
> Timesplitters was made by Free Radical Design with a few ex Rare
> members.
As far as I know, Free Radical Design was set up by those who left Rare. Of course, other people would have been recruited too though.
> Timesplitters was made by Free Radical Design with a few ex Rare
> members.
As far as I know, Free Radical Design was set up by those who left Rare. Of course, other people would have been recruited too though.
Savatt78 wrote:
> As for Timesplitters 2 - I wouldn't be so sure about that being a Halo
> beater either. The first game was definatly overated and I haven't
> seen anything on this sequel that really makes it stand out as being
> much better than the first game.
I one hundred percent agree that Timesplitters was completely overated, and I couldn't see why to buy it (excluding the great multiplayer). However, after having played the Timesplitters 2 demo and Halo, I can say I'm leaning towards Timesplitters 2. The level was excellently put together, with elements of stealth, action and puzzle solving all thrown in. It was like a tribute to Goldeneye and is just as fun.
No wonder it's getting 10 in all the magazines.
> As for Timesplitters 2 - I wouldn't be so sure about that being a Halo
> beater either. The first game was definatly overated and I haven't
> seen anything on this sequel that really makes it stand out as being
> much better than the first game.
I one hundred percent agree that Timesplitters was completely overated, and I couldn't see why to buy it (excluding the great multiplayer). However, after having played the Timesplitters 2 demo and Halo, I can say I'm leaning towards Timesplitters 2. The level was excellently put together, with elements of stealth, action and puzzle solving all thrown in. It was like a tribute to Goldeneye and is just as fun.
No wonder it's getting 10 in all the magazines.
Whitestripes wrote:
> Well thats not entirely true is it. After Donkey Kong Arcade Nintendo
> didn't make any more game starring DK.
Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros, Mario Golf, Mario Party 1,2,3, Mario Tennis, Super Smash Bros. Melee... etc, etc. It just seemed like they were giving Rare all the credit when they didn't deserve it.
> Well thats not entirely true is it. After Donkey Kong Arcade Nintendo
> didn't make any more game starring DK.
Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros, Mario Golf, Mario Party 1,2,3, Mario Tennis, Super Smash Bros. Melee... etc, etc. It just seemed like they were giving Rare all the credit when they didn't deserve it.
Whats wrong with the foes being Aliens ? You got to shoot humans in Timesplitters - didn't stop the game being overated pants.
Lets just hope the Storyline is better than Timesplitters 1, Those types of games are more intended for multiplayer.
Savatt78 wrote:
> As for Timesplitters 2 - I wouldn't be so sure about that being a Halo
> beater either. The first game was definatly overated and I haven't
> seen anything on this sequel that really makes it stand out as being
> much better than the first game.
Well there's a much better single player for starters, story driven and all that malarky. I expect it to be in my opinion better than Halo, it looks like a Goldeneye beater and as far as I'm concerned no 1st person shooter on any system has come close to th magic that was Goldeneye.
Oh and you shoot humans not bloody aliens.
> As for Timesplitters 2 - I wouldn't be so sure about that being a Halo
> beater either. The first game was definatly overated and I haven't
> seen anything on this sequel that really makes it stand out as being
> much better than the first game.
Well there's a much better single player for starters, story driven and all that malarky. I expect it to be in my opinion better than Halo, it looks like a Goldeneye beater and as far as I'm concerned no 1st person shooter on any system has come close to th magic that was Goldeneye.
Oh and you shoot humans not bloody aliens.
Page: