The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 am not laughing at Rare, Rare were my third favourite company and my first favourite company kicked 'em out to you guys. Oh no I'm laughing at the fact that Microsoft expect Rare to release 5 games in 2 years....
Trust me it won't happen.
Trust me it won't happen.
Page:
Maverick42 wrote:
> That's a common wreckless assumption as the two price drops came at
> around the same time (GameCube's - 22nd April. X-Box - Sometime before
> then I presume?). Nintendo dropped their prices because they reached
> their target of four million units shipped worldwide before it even
> hit Europe. This meant that they had reached mass production, and
> could get the components much, much cheaper. They wanted us Europeans
> to have value for money from day one, and also for the GameCube to go
> off with a bang, so they lowered the price.
Of course they'd say that. Funny thing is, Ninties will follow this like gospel while if another company such as Microsoft do a similar thing, its laughed off as complete bull.
> Well, I've still got 47/59 blocks left on mine, and currently own
> three games. Admittedly, I will be using this up fairly quickly, but
> Nintendo have just released a HUGE Memory Card 251 for the same price
> (I think), which will last someone for a LONG time.
I doubt its the same price. Third party memory cards with similar space might be, but thats because they totally crap and unreliable. As far as it lasting a long time goes, it probably comes down to what games you buy. No doubt fully enjoying a game like Madden will soon chomp through space. Of course I'm not saying that everyone will buy Madden, but there are people that will want it and while one player gets good lasting value, another one might well be in a different boat.
> Indeed, but that was only because it was so expensive to manufacture!
> They had to make a profit, and seemingly expensive prices were the
> only way to do this. In relation, they weren't charging any more than
> Sony, but those bloody cartridges were just so much money. That said
> though, the MAJORITY of games were about £44.99 (give or take
> £5.00). I personally never had any problems with my one official
> memory card, and I owned 11 games!
Well the crap games were £45, most of the decent games were at least £50 when they came out. Cartridge is more expensive than CD to produce, but then other cartridge based systems never rocketed up prices like that.
You must have had better luck with your memory card than me - I saved one ghost on Mario Kart and that was my memory card full. Although it has to be said, at least some of the top games saved to the cartridge. I think you'll agree that Turok at £70 needing a memory card to save was a disgrace though. Hopefully those dark days of game pricing are left well in the past now. Some might remember the cost of Streetfighter 2 on the Snes on import too - £120 in some places !
Of course thats not Nintendo's fault - just what some complete gits had the cheek to charge.
> They want to make a profit, I agree, but they're not as money hungry
> as some companies, and make sure that customers are getting their
> money's worth. I respect them for this, unlike money grabbing
> companies such as EA, Sony and Microsoft (not so much, but they charge
> extortionate rates for Windows due to the lack of competition).
I wouldn't say that - Nintendo didn't mind charging those heavy prices on the N64 which I think was around the time before Sony managed to become extremely dominant. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised is some of Sony's success was down to Nintendo pricing themselves out of the competition.
Sometimes I don't understand Nintendo's quality seal of approval either. One minute they'll cancel a game on the GC (can't remember its name - it looked like a hack and slash game though), the next they'll let scum games like Superman through.
> Never heard about this. Care to elaborate?
Well theres the pricing in the past. It really started on the Snes with games such as Streetfighter 2 setting you back between £50 - £60. Then of course came the N64 and we've covered this already so I won't go into it again.
Another thing is regarding games. The way they dictated what we wouldn't like and held back quality RPG's such as the Secret Of Mana sequel (the first game taking something like 2 years behind Japan to come out). How the hell can a company come out with this, then go on to allow the release of some of the complete cack we were given ??
I'm not refering to games like Mario - I'm talking about other third party crap. They held back Paper Mario too which I wanted to play - still got the completely retarded Mario Paint and Mario Is Missing trash though.
> That's a common wreckless assumption as the two price drops came at
> around the same time (GameCube's - 22nd April. X-Box - Sometime before
> then I presume?). Nintendo dropped their prices because they reached
> their target of four million units shipped worldwide before it even
> hit Europe. This meant that they had reached mass production, and
> could get the components much, much cheaper. They wanted us Europeans
> to have value for money from day one, and also for the GameCube to go
> off with a bang, so they lowered the price.
Of course they'd say that. Funny thing is, Ninties will follow this like gospel while if another company such as Microsoft do a similar thing, its laughed off as complete bull.
> Well, I've still got 47/59 blocks left on mine, and currently own
> three games. Admittedly, I will be using this up fairly quickly, but
> Nintendo have just released a HUGE Memory Card 251 for the same price
> (I think), which will last someone for a LONG time.
I doubt its the same price. Third party memory cards with similar space might be, but thats because they totally crap and unreliable. As far as it lasting a long time goes, it probably comes down to what games you buy. No doubt fully enjoying a game like Madden will soon chomp through space. Of course I'm not saying that everyone will buy Madden, but there are people that will want it and while one player gets good lasting value, another one might well be in a different boat.
> Indeed, but that was only because it was so expensive to manufacture!
> They had to make a profit, and seemingly expensive prices were the
> only way to do this. In relation, they weren't charging any more than
> Sony, but those bloody cartridges were just so much money. That said
> though, the MAJORITY of games were about £44.99 (give or take
> £5.00). I personally never had any problems with my one official
> memory card, and I owned 11 games!
Well the crap games were £45, most of the decent games were at least £50 when they came out. Cartridge is more expensive than CD to produce, but then other cartridge based systems never rocketed up prices like that.
You must have had better luck with your memory card than me - I saved one ghost on Mario Kart and that was my memory card full. Although it has to be said, at least some of the top games saved to the cartridge. I think you'll agree that Turok at £70 needing a memory card to save was a disgrace though. Hopefully those dark days of game pricing are left well in the past now. Some might remember the cost of Streetfighter 2 on the Snes on import too - £120 in some places !
Of course thats not Nintendo's fault - just what some complete gits had the cheek to charge.
> They want to make a profit, I agree, but they're not as money hungry
> as some companies, and make sure that customers are getting their
> money's worth. I respect them for this, unlike money grabbing
> companies such as EA, Sony and Microsoft (not so much, but they charge
> extortionate rates for Windows due to the lack of competition).
I wouldn't say that - Nintendo didn't mind charging those heavy prices on the N64 which I think was around the time before Sony managed to become extremely dominant. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised is some of Sony's success was down to Nintendo pricing themselves out of the competition.
Sometimes I don't understand Nintendo's quality seal of approval either. One minute they'll cancel a game on the GC (can't remember its name - it looked like a hack and slash game though), the next they'll let scum games like Superman through.
> Never heard about this. Care to elaborate?
Well theres the pricing in the past. It really started on the Snes with games such as Streetfighter 2 setting you back between £50 - £60. Then of course came the N64 and we've covered this already so I won't go into it again.
Another thing is regarding games. The way they dictated what we wouldn't like and held back quality RPG's such as the Secret Of Mana sequel (the first game taking something like 2 years behind Japan to come out). How the hell can a company come out with this, then go on to allow the release of some of the complete cack we were given ??
I'm not refering to games like Mario - I'm talking about other third party crap. They held back Paper Mario too which I wanted to play - still got the completely retarded Mario Paint and Mario Is Missing trash though.
Maverick42 wrote:
> That's a little naive, Savatt. One Mario game has been released for
> the GameCube, with loads of other Nintendo games planned and already
> out that don't feature Mario as the dominant character. I wouldn't
> call that Mario game after Mario game. Hey, four controller ports is
> better than two and a £24.99 multitap, and as far as I knew, the
> GameCube could be linked up via a LAN or WAN network for online play
> or linked TVs.
So far, but with things such as Mario Party 4, Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, Mario Kart etc on the way, the number soon increases. When I say Mario, I mean the caharcters from that game series such as Luigi, Toad, etc as well. X-Box has 4 controller ports too, Sony not having that is one of its downsides. As for networking capabilities, I don't think GC has it as Nintendo were not interested.
> In my opinion, Nintendo have the best controller out, and with the
> highly anticipated Wavebird released soon, I think it's a good move by
> Nintendo. In fact, I really don't see your point.
My point is that innovation is more about pushing gaming forward, not releasing a new hand controller. I mean peripherals such as the light gun awhile back, the steering wheel and the new Capcom mech controller have innovation in them, but hand controllers are hardly a huge step nowadays - even infra red ones.
> Nintendo have always been a developer of games that everyone can play,
> not just people with access to the internet and I doubt the majority
> of gamers will actually benefit from online play. After the huge
> failure of FFXI in Japan, Nintendo realised that online gaming is not
> looking profitable at this point in time. Rather sensible, in my
> opinion.
I'm not saying games have to be online payable only, but its nice when you have the option of going online with your favourites instead of sitting on your lonesome or inviting the same friends over all the time, only to whip them because you play the game all the time while they only play it at your house.
Online only games are all well and nice, but I think games that can be played both on and offline are better.
> Again, very naive. If you took the time to read up and research the
> forthcoming Mario and Zelda games you'd see they're actually very
> fresh and innovative. Personally, I've yet to see a platformer planned
> or out now that can beat Mario Sunshine and I'm sure the majority will
> agree. Also, is there an Action/Adventure game that comes close to
> Ocarina Of Time? Not yet. The thing is Savatt, most people ARE into
> their games, which is why Nintendo do so well - they develop quality
> games for the largest market - everyone.
Whats so innovative about the new Mario and Zelda games ? Mario has a waterpack and Zelda is cell shaded - not exactly anything amazingly different other than Zelda doesn't look right now. Cell shading is good when done right, but I don't think Nintendo have on this one. Link basically looks like a kids crayon drawing thrown into a well done world.
I think Blinx looks a better game than Mario because it uses the fresh idea of time in the game.
As for a better adventure than Zelda, although I can't say for definate right now, I think Project Ego could turn out to be better.
> New and much improved controller plus Wavebird, the disc format which
> is easier, larger cheaper to develop for and prevents piracy,
> expansion ports for possible add-ons, an intricately thought out
> design that considers power, easiness of development and cost to the
> gamer, not to mention the amasing graphics.
A new controller and graphics go without saying. The discs don't make the games much cheaper (if at all) than other formats. Plus I heard it was more expensive for developers to purchase the smaller discs from Nintendo. As for the intricate design, its cheaper cause it basically has sod all in it compared to the other 2 consoles. It might have expansion ports, but how much they will consider the cost to the gamer when throwing out these expansions is yet to be seen.
> I have NEVER heard this before and at the time the GameCube was being
> developed, SEGA and Nintendo were still rivals! I think you've been
> lied to Savatt, as the GameCube was released completed in Japan only
> just after SEGA announced their plans to cease hardware production.
If I remember right - the online capability was a very late throw in.
> That's a little naive, Savatt. One Mario game has been released for
> the GameCube, with loads of other Nintendo games planned and already
> out that don't feature Mario as the dominant character. I wouldn't
> call that Mario game after Mario game. Hey, four controller ports is
> better than two and a £24.99 multitap, and as far as I knew, the
> GameCube could be linked up via a LAN or WAN network for online play
> or linked TVs.
So far, but with things such as Mario Party 4, Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, Mario Kart etc on the way, the number soon increases. When I say Mario, I mean the caharcters from that game series such as Luigi, Toad, etc as well. X-Box has 4 controller ports too, Sony not having that is one of its downsides. As for networking capabilities, I don't think GC has it as Nintendo were not interested.
> In my opinion, Nintendo have the best controller out, and with the
> highly anticipated Wavebird released soon, I think it's a good move by
> Nintendo. In fact, I really don't see your point.
My point is that innovation is more about pushing gaming forward, not releasing a new hand controller. I mean peripherals such as the light gun awhile back, the steering wheel and the new Capcom mech controller have innovation in them, but hand controllers are hardly a huge step nowadays - even infra red ones.
> Nintendo have always been a developer of games that everyone can play,
> not just people with access to the internet and I doubt the majority
> of gamers will actually benefit from online play. After the huge
> failure of FFXI in Japan, Nintendo realised that online gaming is not
> looking profitable at this point in time. Rather sensible, in my
> opinion.
I'm not saying games have to be online payable only, but its nice when you have the option of going online with your favourites instead of sitting on your lonesome or inviting the same friends over all the time, only to whip them because you play the game all the time while they only play it at your house.
Online only games are all well and nice, but I think games that can be played both on and offline are better.
> Again, very naive. If you took the time to read up and research the
> forthcoming Mario and Zelda games you'd see they're actually very
> fresh and innovative. Personally, I've yet to see a platformer planned
> or out now that can beat Mario Sunshine and I'm sure the majority will
> agree. Also, is there an Action/Adventure game that comes close to
> Ocarina Of Time? Not yet. The thing is Savatt, most people ARE into
> their games, which is why Nintendo do so well - they develop quality
> games for the largest market - everyone.
Whats so innovative about the new Mario and Zelda games ? Mario has a waterpack and Zelda is cell shaded - not exactly anything amazingly different other than Zelda doesn't look right now. Cell shading is good when done right, but I don't think Nintendo have on this one. Link basically looks like a kids crayon drawing thrown into a well done world.
I think Blinx looks a better game than Mario because it uses the fresh idea of time in the game.
As for a better adventure than Zelda, although I can't say for definate right now, I think Project Ego could turn out to be better.
> New and much improved controller plus Wavebird, the disc format which
> is easier, larger cheaper to develop for and prevents piracy,
> expansion ports for possible add-ons, an intricately thought out
> design that considers power, easiness of development and cost to the
> gamer, not to mention the amasing graphics.
A new controller and graphics go without saying. The discs don't make the games much cheaper (if at all) than other formats. Plus I heard it was more expensive for developers to purchase the smaller discs from Nintendo. As for the intricate design, its cheaper cause it basically has sod all in it compared to the other 2 consoles. It might have expansion ports, but how much they will consider the cost to the gamer when throwing out these expansions is yet to be seen.
> I have NEVER heard this before and at the time the GameCube was being
> developed, SEGA and Nintendo were still rivals! I think you've been
> lied to Savatt, as the GameCube was released completed in Japan only
> just after SEGA announced their plans to cease hardware production.
If I remember right - the online capability was a very late throw in.
Dringo wrote:
> Oh no, Sony was a company to help the small companies. Nintendo and
> SEGA overcharged for the use of their carts and CD's. Sony offered
> cheap console development. They sorta saved the industry... but
> because Sony are making DVD additions and linux etc... Microsoft
> realized they had to stop Sony damaging the PC world... In other words
> microsoft entered the market to stop sony so bought a load of
> developers to do it damaging the rest of the industry,
Actually, it was developers that took the idea of the X-Box to Microsoft. MS liked the console and gave them what they needed to get it built. From here they went to developers, asking what they'd like the X-Box to do as far as making games go. One of the most common answers was to be able to do large amounts of characters all acting individually from eachother. So for example you could have say 30 Oddworld characters on screen at once, doing their own thing right down to blinking at different times without the game being affected. This of course could also lead to large scale battles and characters developing individually without it being scripted by the game. This was given - hence the hard drive. Now before I say this, I'm not slating Zelda, but overall, as nice as it looks, its scripted, just like basically every RPG. Thanks to the X-Box, Project Ego, although having a storyline like anyother game, allows a lot more freedom to the player. Your character can get married and have kids, you can go upto any character in a village and say cut their face - as time goes on, you'll be able to return and that character will have a scar. Not only that, but they'll remember it was you who did it.
Basically, the X-Box is a console developed by developers for developers. Its easy to make games for and there are plenty of small developers working on it.
> Nintendo have online plans but they are being cautious... Pokemonline
> and Mario Kart online sound very promising. And Nintendo make hundreds
> of games that don't just feature Mario. SEGA deserve to still be
> around.
Hundreds ? Slightly over exagerated. As for Nintendo's online plans, its all well having Pokemon and Mario Kart online eventually, but will it be a dull lifeless affair ? I've heard a good number of Ninties slating online gaming as exactly this - and they're right if theres no headset. I played online on the DC and although the challenge was there, communication wasn't. Go beyond the PSO lobby area and it was very difficult to talk to other players without getting fragged or killed by enemies. For online gaming to really get you addicted, you really need to let players mingle as they play together so its really like a large scale multiplayer that you can't experience at home usually - or at least not very often.
Sony have this support on some of theirs games, but I think Microsoft are doing it best by insisting that all online games support the headset.
I can see good potential in Mario Kart online - especially if 8 players can race together. Pokemon though I think is a big question mark as it depends what it actually turns out to be that'll really decide how good it is. If its a massive online multiplayer RPG, then it'll be excellent, even without a headset. If its basically an online Pokemon stadium, I don't think it'll be as attractive and I think it'll need at least headset support to make it a different experience to what you'd usually get.
> Yep cause SEGA failed. Nintendo are cautious because online gaming is
> uncertain, you can already go online in Japan anyway. And i cannot
> believe you have the cheak to even consider Nintendos new console as
> not innovative... hardware like the wave bird and GBA link up proves
> you wrong there.
The wave bird ? All it is is an improved infra red controller - big wow. I'll give them the GBA link up though as that leaves some good potential. It'll be a case of seeing what developers do with it that decides if its a decent option. The reason online gaming is uncertain is because its never had enough attention given to it on a console. PC online gaming is very popular. Sega tried online gaming but probably due to their lack of experience in the field, they didn't do a great job of it. There was very little support for it too. But again, all credit to Sega for at least trying it.
> Are they now? Since when was F Zero, Excitebike, 1080, Wave Race,
> Smash Brothers all beating a blob with flowsers. Sure Mario, Kirby and
> Wario are all platformers and Zelda and Pokemon are adventure games
> but Nintendo produce hundreds of original titles that everyone can
> enjoy like Metroid Prime.
I was using Pikmin as an example. F-Zero is a game I like, but most of the others really don't appeal to me. I used to like playing the Zelda games, but practically playing through the whole Zeldas been kidnapped story everytime got very tedious. Mario titles seem to thrive on this kidnapping story most of the time as well and it really does get old fast. With Nintendo, it just seems that for every new game they do, they add 5 sequels that are practically the same as the title before it. Mario Sunshine is essentially Mario 64 with a waterpack. Metroid is taking a new direction, but of all the Nintendo titles, its Metroid I would have liked to see kept similar to its roots - basically a shooter/platformer.
Not saying its gonna be crap, but I think it would have been better as a 3D version of what it was - especially when its one of the few Nintendo titles that hasn't had an update recently.
When I play Sega games, they all have that special touch to them, but they feel more varied. When it comes to Nintendo's games, although they're different titles, they all have that same atmosphere to them that says they could all live in the same world. Hard to explain - its like everything always has to be bubbly and cute in some way. I can see why some older players can feel excluded when it comes to Nintendo games.
> Nintendo's hardware is going to help produce a twist in the Final
> Fantasy games of the future. so many future Nintendo titles and
> non-Nintendo titles use the GBA which will change the way we play
> games both dramatically and subtle. Nintendo don't deny that online
> gaming is the future, they just doubt the world is ready for it yet...
> and lets face it... it isn't.
How successful the GBA link is comes down to how developers use it. Afterall the GBA is only a limited handheld so theres only so much it'll be able to do. Of course some great ideas could come up, but I think its a case of wait and see.
> DVD based software, SD memory cards that can upload pictures, videos
> and even games! , GBA link up, more third party support, Online
> option. About the same the X-box has different to the N64.
DVD based software yes, but its not like it responsible for bringing anything new so far. The DC's memory card could upload games too - although only small things that ate up the space pretty quickly. Online option has yet to be really used or supported properly - Nintendo are severely lacking in this area, afterall, it was just chucked in after persuasion from Sega.
As for the X-Box compared to the N64 (compared to the GC) - hard drive, DVD playback capability, console link up, online play with full support for a headset and the chance to play your favourite music tracks in games. Oh and DVD based software and more third party support.
Not quite the same.
> No they persuaded to do it reacently. Nintendo always planned to with
> Pokemonline and Mario Kart Online planned for next year.
What I meant was that if not for Sega, Nintendo wouldn't have even added the online capability.
> Yep as I look forward to online play and new ideas with the GBA link
> cable... and new joint ventures with third party developers like Namco
> and SEGA. And the ability to transfer data from the aracade to
> gamecube with Triforce Arcade machines. and the future Panasonic SD
> memory cards which can upload faces and even films and games! Not
> innovative enough? yeah right.
Online play was pushed onto them by Sega. As for the venturing with Sega and Namco and the arcade transfer, doesn't this come under the same thing ? Plus thats not Nintendo working alone is it, Sega and Namco are helping them. As for the memory cards - any news on how much it will hold ? Basically, will it hold more than one film or mini game ? Plus this faces thing, is it an option of putting your face into certain games ? If so, its a limited option. It'll be good for driving games, and stuff where they can show the players face above a character. Really, it would be an option that helps online gaming, an area Nintendo aren't in a hurry to enter. By the time Nintendo could go online, I get the feeling it'll be too late and it'll be a severe case of playing catch up to 2 better online services.
> Oh no, Sony was a company to help the small companies. Nintendo and
> SEGA overcharged for the use of their carts and CD's. Sony offered
> cheap console development. They sorta saved the industry... but
> because Sony are making DVD additions and linux etc... Microsoft
> realized they had to stop Sony damaging the PC world... In other words
> microsoft entered the market to stop sony so bought a load of
> developers to do it damaging the rest of the industry,
Actually, it was developers that took the idea of the X-Box to Microsoft. MS liked the console and gave them what they needed to get it built. From here they went to developers, asking what they'd like the X-Box to do as far as making games go. One of the most common answers was to be able to do large amounts of characters all acting individually from eachother. So for example you could have say 30 Oddworld characters on screen at once, doing their own thing right down to blinking at different times without the game being affected. This of course could also lead to large scale battles and characters developing individually without it being scripted by the game. This was given - hence the hard drive. Now before I say this, I'm not slating Zelda, but overall, as nice as it looks, its scripted, just like basically every RPG. Thanks to the X-Box, Project Ego, although having a storyline like anyother game, allows a lot more freedom to the player. Your character can get married and have kids, you can go upto any character in a village and say cut their face - as time goes on, you'll be able to return and that character will have a scar. Not only that, but they'll remember it was you who did it.
Basically, the X-Box is a console developed by developers for developers. Its easy to make games for and there are plenty of small developers working on it.
> Nintendo have online plans but they are being cautious... Pokemonline
> and Mario Kart online sound very promising. And Nintendo make hundreds
> of games that don't just feature Mario. SEGA deserve to still be
> around.
Hundreds ? Slightly over exagerated. As for Nintendo's online plans, its all well having Pokemon and Mario Kart online eventually, but will it be a dull lifeless affair ? I've heard a good number of Ninties slating online gaming as exactly this - and they're right if theres no headset. I played online on the DC and although the challenge was there, communication wasn't. Go beyond the PSO lobby area and it was very difficult to talk to other players without getting fragged or killed by enemies. For online gaming to really get you addicted, you really need to let players mingle as they play together so its really like a large scale multiplayer that you can't experience at home usually - or at least not very often.
Sony have this support on some of theirs games, but I think Microsoft are doing it best by insisting that all online games support the headset.
I can see good potential in Mario Kart online - especially if 8 players can race together. Pokemon though I think is a big question mark as it depends what it actually turns out to be that'll really decide how good it is. If its a massive online multiplayer RPG, then it'll be excellent, even without a headset. If its basically an online Pokemon stadium, I don't think it'll be as attractive and I think it'll need at least headset support to make it a different experience to what you'd usually get.
> Yep cause SEGA failed. Nintendo are cautious because online gaming is
> uncertain, you can already go online in Japan anyway. And i cannot
> believe you have the cheak to even consider Nintendos new console as
> not innovative... hardware like the wave bird and GBA link up proves
> you wrong there.
The wave bird ? All it is is an improved infra red controller - big wow. I'll give them the GBA link up though as that leaves some good potential. It'll be a case of seeing what developers do with it that decides if its a decent option. The reason online gaming is uncertain is because its never had enough attention given to it on a console. PC online gaming is very popular. Sega tried online gaming but probably due to their lack of experience in the field, they didn't do a great job of it. There was very little support for it too. But again, all credit to Sega for at least trying it.
> Are they now? Since when was F Zero, Excitebike, 1080, Wave Race,
> Smash Brothers all beating a blob with flowsers. Sure Mario, Kirby and
> Wario are all platformers and Zelda and Pokemon are adventure games
> but Nintendo produce hundreds of original titles that everyone can
> enjoy like Metroid Prime.
I was using Pikmin as an example. F-Zero is a game I like, but most of the others really don't appeal to me. I used to like playing the Zelda games, but practically playing through the whole Zeldas been kidnapped story everytime got very tedious. Mario titles seem to thrive on this kidnapping story most of the time as well and it really does get old fast. With Nintendo, it just seems that for every new game they do, they add 5 sequels that are practically the same as the title before it. Mario Sunshine is essentially Mario 64 with a waterpack. Metroid is taking a new direction, but of all the Nintendo titles, its Metroid I would have liked to see kept similar to its roots - basically a shooter/platformer.
Not saying its gonna be crap, but I think it would have been better as a 3D version of what it was - especially when its one of the few Nintendo titles that hasn't had an update recently.
When I play Sega games, they all have that special touch to them, but they feel more varied. When it comes to Nintendo's games, although they're different titles, they all have that same atmosphere to them that says they could all live in the same world. Hard to explain - its like everything always has to be bubbly and cute in some way. I can see why some older players can feel excluded when it comes to Nintendo games.
> Nintendo's hardware is going to help produce a twist in the Final
> Fantasy games of the future. so many future Nintendo titles and
> non-Nintendo titles use the GBA which will change the way we play
> games both dramatically and subtle. Nintendo don't deny that online
> gaming is the future, they just doubt the world is ready for it yet...
> and lets face it... it isn't.
How successful the GBA link is comes down to how developers use it. Afterall the GBA is only a limited handheld so theres only so much it'll be able to do. Of course some great ideas could come up, but I think its a case of wait and see.
> DVD based software, SD memory cards that can upload pictures, videos
> and even games! , GBA link up, more third party support, Online
> option. About the same the X-box has different to the N64.
DVD based software yes, but its not like it responsible for bringing anything new so far. The DC's memory card could upload games too - although only small things that ate up the space pretty quickly. Online option has yet to be really used or supported properly - Nintendo are severely lacking in this area, afterall, it was just chucked in after persuasion from Sega.
As for the X-Box compared to the N64 (compared to the GC) - hard drive, DVD playback capability, console link up, online play with full support for a headset and the chance to play your favourite music tracks in games. Oh and DVD based software and more third party support.
Not quite the same.
> No they persuaded to do it reacently. Nintendo always planned to with
> Pokemonline and Mario Kart Online planned for next year.
What I meant was that if not for Sega, Nintendo wouldn't have even added the online capability.
> Yep as I look forward to online play and new ideas with the GBA link
> cable... and new joint ventures with third party developers like Namco
> and SEGA. And the ability to transfer data from the aracade to
> gamecube with Triforce Arcade machines. and the future Panasonic SD
> memory cards which can upload faces and even films and games! Not
> innovative enough? yeah right.
Online play was pushed onto them by Sega. As for the venturing with Sega and Namco and the arcade transfer, doesn't this come under the same thing ? Plus thats not Nintendo working alone is it, Sega and Namco are helping them. As for the memory cards - any news on how much it will hold ? Basically, will it hold more than one film or mini game ? Plus this faces thing, is it an option of putting your face into certain games ? If so, its a limited option. It'll be good for driving games, and stuff where they can show the players face above a character. Really, it would be an option that helps online gaming, an area Nintendo aren't in a hurry to enter. By the time Nintendo could go online, I get the feeling it'll be too late and it'll be a severe case of playing catch up to 2 better online services.
Savatt78 wrote:
> So was the Nes, Master System, Snes and Megadrive - yet you didn't see
> those sort of extortionate prices. And the fact that the N64 was a
> more powerful console is really no excuse for it as the X-Box, GC, PS2
> and DC games stick to the same price as PS1 games and other console
> games before it.
But as technology progresses, it also gets cheaper. DVD and Mini-Disks are much cheaper to make than cartridges, and some X-Box and PS2 games come out at the same price as N64 ones.
> Again, because they've had to. I bet things would be different if the
> competition wasn't around. The console has to be cheaper because how
> would Nintendo be able to justify charging the same amount for a GC as
> a rival console that has more options such as the PS2's DVD and
> X-Box's hard drive and online ready capabilities.
Without competition, you don't really know what's expensive and what's not. It was only when Macs and Linuxes started to become more popular that people released Microsoft were ripping off their customers. I doubt Nintendo would do the same, just look at the Game Boy Advance. It's portable, it's graphics rival the PSOne's and has some classic games on it. It has no competition, and still Nintendo are researching and working to make it as cheap as possible.
> So was the Nes, Master System, Snes and Megadrive - yet you didn't see
> those sort of extortionate prices. And the fact that the N64 was a
> more powerful console is really no excuse for it as the X-Box, GC, PS2
> and DC games stick to the same price as PS1 games and other console
> games before it.
But as technology progresses, it also gets cheaper. DVD and Mini-Disks are much cheaper to make than cartridges, and some X-Box and PS2 games come out at the same price as N64 ones.
> Again, because they've had to. I bet things would be different if the
> competition wasn't around. The console has to be cheaper because how
> would Nintendo be able to justify charging the same amount for a GC as
> a rival console that has more options such as the PS2's DVD and
> X-Box's hard drive and online ready capabilities.
Without competition, you don't really know what's expensive and what's not. It was only when Macs and Linuxes started to become more popular that people released Microsoft were ripping off their customers. I doubt Nintendo would do the same, just look at the Game Boy Advance. It's portable, it's graphics rival the PSOne's and has some classic games on it. It has no competition, and still Nintendo are researching and working to make it as cheap as possible.
Dringo wrote:
> True but hey it was cartridge based.
So was the Nes, Master System, Snes and Megadrive - yet you didn't see those sort of extortionate prices. And the fact that the N64 was a more powerful console is really no excuse for it as the X-Box, GC, PS2 and DC games stick to the same price as PS1 games and other console games before it.
> Cheapest Software and Cheapest console on the market.
Again, because they've had to. I bet things would be different if the competition wasn't around. The console has to be cheaper because how would Nintendo be able to justify charging the same amount for a GC as a rival console that has more options such as the PS2's DVD and X-Box's hard drive and online ready capabilities.
> Just not now as if you bothered to look at the Japanese state of
> affairs Nintendo's new effort in the west has changed... dramatically.
Of course it has - they can't afford to lose the West to Sony and Microsoft which are both big threats - particularly in the U.S.
Now that they're not so dominant, they've had to change their tune.
> True but hey it was cartridge based.
So was the Nes, Master System, Snes and Megadrive - yet you didn't see those sort of extortionate prices. And the fact that the N64 was a more powerful console is really no excuse for it as the X-Box, GC, PS2 and DC games stick to the same price as PS1 games and other console games before it.
> Cheapest Software and Cheapest console on the market.
Again, because they've had to. I bet things would be different if the competition wasn't around. The console has to be cheaper because how would Nintendo be able to justify charging the same amount for a GC as a rival console that has more options such as the PS2's DVD and X-Box's hard drive and online ready capabilities.
> Just not now as if you bothered to look at the Japanese state of
> affairs Nintendo's new effort in the west has changed... dramatically.
Of course it has - they can't afford to lose the West to Sony and Microsoft which are both big threats - particularly in the U.S.
Now that they're not so dominant, they've had to change their tune.
The only problem Nintendo had with Europe in that past is that for some reason they didn't think westeners liked RPGs, hence no UK release of Mario RPG or Earthbound.
They were only released in America because there is such a big audience.
As for the money hungry thing, unlike Sony (esspeccialy) and Microsft they will, and do, hold back games for quite a long while to make sure they are as good as they can be, instead of just releasing it at a set date, of course this does cost them more money. It's not a huge thing but it does show they're commitment to high quality games and they're willingness to sacrifice a bit of extra money in the process. Esspecially when you consider that just as many people would buy the games even if they were released without having the extra few touches.
As for being 'limited' to 4 player modes, well I can only say you've obviously never played a decent multi-player game. Go and buy a second hand N64, Goldeneye, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Snowboard Kids etc. and four controllers. Invite three mates round, have plenty of drinks and food, and it's the most fun you will *ever* have on a console. Instead of setting there by yourself playing against people with no personality, no people to joke and mess around with, and listening to morons talking trash over the headset. Online gaming is far too impersonnal to be any decent amount of fun.
I've only just become excited at the prospect of online gaming with Pokemon. I love the Pokemon games and the chance to beat the pants of a bunch of lippy 10 year olds is just too good to pass up.
They were only released in America because there is such a big audience.
As for the money hungry thing, unlike Sony (esspeccialy) and Microsft they will, and do, hold back games for quite a long while to make sure they are as good as they can be, instead of just releasing it at a set date, of course this does cost them more money. It's not a huge thing but it does show they're commitment to high quality games and they're willingness to sacrifice a bit of extra money in the process. Esspecially when you consider that just as many people would buy the games even if they were released without having the extra few touches.
As for being 'limited' to 4 player modes, well I can only say you've obviously never played a decent multi-player game. Go and buy a second hand N64, Goldeneye, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Snowboard Kids etc. and four controllers. Invite three mates round, have plenty of drinks and food, and it's the most fun you will *ever* have on a console. Instead of setting there by yourself playing against people with no personality, no people to joke and mess around with, and listening to morons talking trash over the headset. Online gaming is far too impersonnal to be any decent amount of fun.
I've only just become excited at the prospect of online gaming with Pokemon. I love the Pokemon games and the chance to beat the pants of a bunch of lippy 10 year olds is just too good to pass up.
Savatt78 wrote:
> I wouldn't say Nintendo are angels when it comes to pricing. Of
> course the GC console is cheaper - but only because it has to be. If
> not for the X-Box price drop, you lot would have been paying
> £170 on release day.
That's a common wreckless assumption as the two price drops came at around the same time (GameCube's - 22nd April. X-Box - Sometime before then I presume?). Nintendo dropped their prices because they reached their target of four million units shipped worldwide before it even hit Europe. This meant that they had reached mass production, and could get the components much, much cheaper. They wanted us Europeans to have value for money from day one, and also for the GameCube to go off with a bang, so they lowered the price.
> They're games are around the same price as X-Box titles and extra
> money is made back through things like the memory card which is an
> essential purchase. What differs with the GC's memory card though is
> that its has very little space, so its not long before you end up
> needing another one.
Well, I've still got 47/59 blocks left on mine, and currently own three games. Admittedly, I will be using this up fairly quickly, but Nintendo have just released a HUGE Memory Card 251 for the same price (I think), which will last someone for a LONG time.
> I mean look back at the N64 - £250 on release, with a memory
> card that saved next to sod all and games entering the regions of
> £60, even £70! Bloody criminal.
Indeed, but that was only because it was so expensive to manufacture! They had to make a profit, and seemingly expensive prices were the only way to do this. In relation, they weren't charging any more than Sony, but those bloody cartridges were just so much money. That said though, the MAJORITY of games were about £44.99 (give or take £5.00). I personally never had any problems with my one official memory card, and I owned 11 games!
> The GC has come out with cheaper prices because really, its had to in
> order to compete. I'm not saying Microsoft are wonderful either, in
> my opinion all the companys charge a shed load. But Nintendo
> certainly don't show anymore love for the consumer than the
> competition.
They want to make a profit, I agree, but they're not as money hungry as some companies, and make sure that customers are getting their money's worth. I respect them for this, unlike money grabbing companies such as EA, Sony and Microsoft (not so much, but they charge extortionate rates for Windows due to the lack of competition).
> Afterall, they've had quite the reputation for not giving a crap about
> Europe in the past.
Never heard about this. Care to elaborate?
> I wouldn't say Nintendo are angels when it comes to pricing. Of
> course the GC console is cheaper - but only because it has to be. If
> not for the X-Box price drop, you lot would have been paying
> £170 on release day.
That's a common wreckless assumption as the two price drops came at around the same time (GameCube's - 22nd April. X-Box - Sometime before then I presume?). Nintendo dropped their prices because they reached their target of four million units shipped worldwide before it even hit Europe. This meant that they had reached mass production, and could get the components much, much cheaper. They wanted us Europeans to have value for money from day one, and also for the GameCube to go off with a bang, so they lowered the price.
> They're games are around the same price as X-Box titles and extra
> money is made back through things like the memory card which is an
> essential purchase. What differs with the GC's memory card though is
> that its has very little space, so its not long before you end up
> needing another one.
Well, I've still got 47/59 blocks left on mine, and currently own three games. Admittedly, I will be using this up fairly quickly, but Nintendo have just released a HUGE Memory Card 251 for the same price (I think), which will last someone for a LONG time.
> I mean look back at the N64 - £250 on release, with a memory
> card that saved next to sod all and games entering the regions of
> £60, even £70! Bloody criminal.
Indeed, but that was only because it was so expensive to manufacture! They had to make a profit, and seemingly expensive prices were the only way to do this. In relation, they weren't charging any more than Sony, but those bloody cartridges were just so much money. That said though, the MAJORITY of games were about £44.99 (give or take £5.00). I personally never had any problems with my one official memory card, and I owned 11 games!
> The GC has come out with cheaper prices because really, its had to in
> order to compete. I'm not saying Microsoft are wonderful either, in
> my opinion all the companys charge a shed load. But Nintendo
> certainly don't show anymore love for the consumer than the
> competition.
They want to make a profit, I agree, but they're not as money hungry as some companies, and make sure that customers are getting their money's worth. I respect them for this, unlike money grabbing companies such as EA, Sony and Microsoft (not so much, but they charge extortionate rates for Windows due to the lack of competition).
> Afterall, they've had quite the reputation for not giving a crap about
> Europe in the past.
Never heard about this. Care to elaborate?
I also forgot the GBA connectivity in my list of new ideas for GameCube.
Savatt78 wrote:
> I don't remember Sony being well known for their games, but they
> didn't have too much trouble trampling over Nintendo did they. What
> Microsoft have over Sony, besides the obvious bank account, is
> experience in things such as online gaming which has helped to create
> X-Box Live for a start. As far as moving options in gaming forward
> goes, at least Microsoft and Sony are attempting it. If Nintendo were
> the only company, it would be a case of being force fed Mario game
> after Mario game while being limited to a maximum of 4 players on
> multiplayer.
That's a little naive, Savatt. One Mario game has been released for the GameCube, with loads of other Nintendo games planned and already out that don't feature Mario as the dominant character. I wouldn't call that Mario game after Mario game. Hey, four controller ports is better than two and a £24.99 multitap, and as far as I knew, the GameCube could be linked up via a LAN or WAN network for online play or linked TVs.
> Sega went down which was sad as they attempted to actually innovate
> when it came to the hardware and direction of gaming. What do
> Nintendo do as far as this area is concerned ? Oh! A new controller
> ! Excuse me while I go mess my pants with excitement.
In my opinion, Nintendo have the best controller out, and with the highly anticipated Wavebird released soon, I think it's a good move by Nintendo. In fact, I really don't see your point.
> Nintendo have an online capability, if you can really call it that.
> But really they're just sitting on the fence while the others do it
> first.
Nintendo have always been a developer of games that everyone can play, not just people with access to the internet and I doubt the majority of gamers will actually benefit from online play. After the huge failure of FFXI in Japan, Nintendo realised that online gaming is not looking profitable at this point in time. Rather sensible, in my opinion.
> The software Nintendo put out is all well and good - if you're into
> their games. Personally, as much as I love games and new ideas, my
> idea of fun isn't beating up some blob with a bunch of flowers and as
> for the likes of Mario and Zelda, although they're trying a couple of
> new ideas, they are essentially the same thing.
Again, very naive. If you took the time to read up and research the forthcoming Mario and Zelda games you'd see they're actually very fresh and innovative. Personally, I've yet to see a platformer planned or out now that can beat Mario Sunshine and I'm sure the majority will agree. Also, is there an Action/Adventure game that comes close to Ocarina Of Time? Not yet. The thing is Savatt, most people ARE into their games, which is why Nintendo do so well - they develop quality games for the largest market - everyone.
> At the end of the day, the GC might as well be an updated N64, because
> if you take away the flashier graphics, what does it do that the N64
> didn't?
New and much improved controller plus Wavebird, the disc format which is easier, larger cheaper to develop for and prevents piracy, expansion ports for possible add-ons, an intricately thought out design that considers power, easiness of development and cost to the gamer, not to mention the amasing graphics.
> Although it has an adapter for online play, its not as though Nintendo
> are actually set on using it. So far, unless something very recent
> has been announced, the only game supporting the GC's online
> capability is Phantasy Star Online by Sega, who were actually the ones
> who persuaded Nintendo to put the capability in in the first place.
I have NEVER heard this before and at the time the GameCube was being developed, SEGA and Nintendo were still rivals! I think you've been lied to Savatt, as the GameCube was released completed in Japan only just after SEGA announced their plans to cease hardware production.
> I don't remember Sony being well known for their games, but they
> didn't have too much trouble trampling over Nintendo did they. What
> Microsoft have over Sony, besides the obvious bank account, is
> experience in things such as online gaming which has helped to create
> X-Box Live for a start. As far as moving options in gaming forward
> goes, at least Microsoft and Sony are attempting it. If Nintendo were
> the only company, it would be a case of being force fed Mario game
> after Mario game while being limited to a maximum of 4 players on
> multiplayer.
That's a little naive, Savatt. One Mario game has been released for the GameCube, with loads of other Nintendo games planned and already out that don't feature Mario as the dominant character. I wouldn't call that Mario game after Mario game. Hey, four controller ports is better than two and a £24.99 multitap, and as far as I knew, the GameCube could be linked up via a LAN or WAN network for online play or linked TVs.
> Sega went down which was sad as they attempted to actually innovate
> when it came to the hardware and direction of gaming. What do
> Nintendo do as far as this area is concerned ? Oh! A new controller
> ! Excuse me while I go mess my pants with excitement.
In my opinion, Nintendo have the best controller out, and with the highly anticipated Wavebird released soon, I think it's a good move by Nintendo. In fact, I really don't see your point.
> Nintendo have an online capability, if you can really call it that.
> But really they're just sitting on the fence while the others do it
> first.
Nintendo have always been a developer of games that everyone can play, not just people with access to the internet and I doubt the majority of gamers will actually benefit from online play. After the huge failure of FFXI in Japan, Nintendo realised that online gaming is not looking profitable at this point in time. Rather sensible, in my opinion.
> The software Nintendo put out is all well and good - if you're into
> their games. Personally, as much as I love games and new ideas, my
> idea of fun isn't beating up some blob with a bunch of flowers and as
> for the likes of Mario and Zelda, although they're trying a couple of
> new ideas, they are essentially the same thing.
Again, very naive. If you took the time to read up and research the forthcoming Mario and Zelda games you'd see they're actually very fresh and innovative. Personally, I've yet to see a platformer planned or out now that can beat Mario Sunshine and I'm sure the majority will agree. Also, is there an Action/Adventure game that comes close to Ocarina Of Time? Not yet. The thing is Savatt, most people ARE into their games, which is why Nintendo do so well - they develop quality games for the largest market - everyone.
> At the end of the day, the GC might as well be an updated N64, because
> if you take away the flashier graphics, what does it do that the N64
> didn't?
New and much improved controller plus Wavebird, the disc format which is easier, larger cheaper to develop for and prevents piracy, expansion ports for possible add-ons, an intricately thought out design that considers power, easiness of development and cost to the gamer, not to mention the amasing graphics.
> Although it has an adapter for online play, its not as though Nintendo
> are actually set on using it. So far, unless something very recent
> has been announced, the only game supporting the GC's online
> capability is Phantasy Star Online by Sega, who were actually the ones
> who persuaded Nintendo to put the capability in in the first place.
I have NEVER heard this before and at the time the GameCube was being developed, SEGA and Nintendo were still rivals! I think you've been lied to Savatt, as the GameCube was released completed in Japan only just after SEGA announced their plans to cease hardware production.
Savatt78 wrote:
> Whitestripes wrote:
> Oh, and another thing. Maybe just nobody respects Microsoft. After
> all, if you don't make games (which they don't really) what the hell
> are you doing in the games industry? Oh thats right, buying it out
> because you want even more money. Christ, if I had Bill gates money
> I'd give 3/4 of it to charity and retire! I don't think I could
> spend
> a billion if I tried!
>
> What do Microsoft themselves make? Microsft Flight Simulator 97
> anyone? Even their names are about as un-original as you can get.
>
> Well they can't be doing that bad cause I'm certainly enjoying the
> console they've put out. What Microsoft have done is provided the
> hardware so that developers both well known and small, can easily
> develop some great games - kind of like Sony with the playstation.
Oh no, Sony was a company to help the small companies. Nintendo and SEGA overcharged for the use of their carts and CD's. Sony offered cheap console development. They sorta saved the industry... but because Sony are making DVD additions and linux etc... Microsoft realized they had to stop Sony damaging the PC world... In other words microsoft entered the market to stop sony so bought a load of developers to do it damaging the rest of the industry,
> I don't remember Sony being well known for their games, but they
> didn't have too much trouble trampling over Nintendo did they. What
> Microsoft have over Sony, besides the obvious bank account, is
> experience in things such as online gaming which has helped to create
> X-Box Live for a start. As far as moving options in gaming forward
> goes, at least Microsoft and Sony are attempting it. If Nintendo were
> the only company, it would be a case of being force fed Mario game
> after Mario game while being limited to a maximum of 4 players on
> multiplayer.
Nintendo have online plans but they are being cautious... Pokemonline and Mario Kart online sound very promising. And Nintendo make hundreds of games that don't just feature Mario. SEGA deserve to still be around.
> Sega went down which was sad as they attempted to actually innovate
> when it came to the hardware and direction of gaming. What do
> Nintendo do as far as this area is concerned ? Oh ! A new controller
> ! Excuse me while I go mess my pants with excitement.
> Nintendo have an online capability, if you can really call it that.
> But really they're just sitting on the fence while the others do it
> first.
Yep cause SEGA failed. Nintendo are cautious because online gaming is uncertain, you can already go online in Japan anyway. And i cannot believe you have the cheak to even consider Nintendos new console as not innovative... hardware like the wave bird and GBA link up proves you wrong there.
> The software Nintendo put out is all well and good - if you're into
> their games. Personally, as much as I love games and new ideas, my
> idea of fun isn't beating up some blob with a bunch of flowers and as
> for the likes of Mario and Zelda, although they're trying a couple of
> new ideas, they are essentially the same thing.
Are they now? Since when was F Zero, Excitebike, 1080, Wave Race, Smash Brothers all beating a blob with flowsers. Sure Mario, Kirby and Wario are all platformers and Zelda and Pokemon are adventure games but Nintendo produce hundreds of original titles that everyone can enjoy like Metroid Prime.
> Software is important, but to advance in software, you need the ideas
> in hardware too at times to help bring new ideas. Online gaming
> offers players the chance to take part in massive multiplayer games at
> any time and with the X-Box in particular having the headset supported
> in all online titles, it doesn't have to be a dead, lifeless affair.
> The X-Box's hard drive has helped to create ideas such as Blinx and
> Project Ego which are set to be awesome titles.
Nintendo's hardware is going to help produce a twist in the Final Fantasy games of the future. so many future Nintendo titles and non-Nintendo titles use the GBA which will change the way we play games both dramatically and subtle. Nintendo don't deny that online gaming is the future, they just doubt the world is ready for it yet... and lets face it... it isn't.
> Of course not all games will use these options, but they are there to
> be used and who knows what developers will be able to come up with
> thanks to some companies actually focusing attention on the console
> itself.
> At the end of the day, the GC might as well be an updated N64, because
> if you take away the flashier graphics, what does it do that the N64
> didn't ?
DVD based software, SD memory cards that can upload pictures, videos and even games! , GBA link up, more third party support, Online option. About the same the X-box has different to the N64.
> Although it has an adapter for online play, its not as though Nintendo
> are actually set on using it. So far, unless something very recent
> has been announced, the only game supporting the GC's online
> capability is Phantasy Star Online by Sega, who were actually the ones
> who persuaded Nintendo to put the capability in in the first place.
No they persuaded to do it reacently. Nintendo always planned to with Pokemonline and Mario Kart Online planned for next year.
> Microsoft might not be wonderful when it comes to Windows, but so far
> I don't see anything wrong with the the X-Box. When Microsoft have
> developers shoving out crap and give me a console that constantly
> crashes and has problems, I'll look elsewhere. But right now, I'm
> happy with the console and Microsoft are providing me with games I
> enjoy, great future releases to look forward to and great prospect for
> new developments in gaming, wether its online gaming or new ideas to
> use with the hard drive.
Yep as I look forward to online play and new ideas with the GBA link cable... and new joint ventures with third party developers like Namco and SEGA. And the ability to transfer data from the aracade to gamecube with Triforce Arcade machines. and the future Panasonic SD memory cards which can upload faces and even films and games! Not innovative enough? yeah right.
> Whitestripes wrote:
> Oh, and another thing. Maybe just nobody respects Microsoft. After
> all, if you don't make games (which they don't really) what the hell
> are you doing in the games industry? Oh thats right, buying it out
> because you want even more money. Christ, if I had Bill gates money
> I'd give 3/4 of it to charity and retire! I don't think I could
> spend
> a billion if I tried!
>
> What do Microsoft themselves make? Microsft Flight Simulator 97
> anyone? Even their names are about as un-original as you can get.
>
> Well they can't be doing that bad cause I'm certainly enjoying the
> console they've put out. What Microsoft have done is provided the
> hardware so that developers both well known and small, can easily
> develop some great games - kind of like Sony with the playstation.
Oh no, Sony was a company to help the small companies. Nintendo and SEGA overcharged for the use of their carts and CD's. Sony offered cheap console development. They sorta saved the industry... but because Sony are making DVD additions and linux etc... Microsoft realized they had to stop Sony damaging the PC world... In other words microsoft entered the market to stop sony so bought a load of developers to do it damaging the rest of the industry,
> I don't remember Sony being well known for their games, but they
> didn't have too much trouble trampling over Nintendo did they. What
> Microsoft have over Sony, besides the obvious bank account, is
> experience in things such as online gaming which has helped to create
> X-Box Live for a start. As far as moving options in gaming forward
> goes, at least Microsoft and Sony are attempting it. If Nintendo were
> the only company, it would be a case of being force fed Mario game
> after Mario game while being limited to a maximum of 4 players on
> multiplayer.
Nintendo have online plans but they are being cautious... Pokemonline and Mario Kart online sound very promising. And Nintendo make hundreds of games that don't just feature Mario. SEGA deserve to still be around.
> Sega went down which was sad as they attempted to actually innovate
> when it came to the hardware and direction of gaming. What do
> Nintendo do as far as this area is concerned ? Oh ! A new controller
> ! Excuse me while I go mess my pants with excitement.
> Nintendo have an online capability, if you can really call it that.
> But really they're just sitting on the fence while the others do it
> first.
Yep cause SEGA failed. Nintendo are cautious because online gaming is uncertain, you can already go online in Japan anyway. And i cannot believe you have the cheak to even consider Nintendos new console as not innovative... hardware like the wave bird and GBA link up proves you wrong there.
> The software Nintendo put out is all well and good - if you're into
> their games. Personally, as much as I love games and new ideas, my
> idea of fun isn't beating up some blob with a bunch of flowers and as
> for the likes of Mario and Zelda, although they're trying a couple of
> new ideas, they are essentially the same thing.
Are they now? Since when was F Zero, Excitebike, 1080, Wave Race, Smash Brothers all beating a blob with flowsers. Sure Mario, Kirby and Wario are all platformers and Zelda and Pokemon are adventure games but Nintendo produce hundreds of original titles that everyone can enjoy like Metroid Prime.
> Software is important, but to advance in software, you need the ideas
> in hardware too at times to help bring new ideas. Online gaming
> offers players the chance to take part in massive multiplayer games at
> any time and with the X-Box in particular having the headset supported
> in all online titles, it doesn't have to be a dead, lifeless affair.
> The X-Box's hard drive has helped to create ideas such as Blinx and
> Project Ego which are set to be awesome titles.
Nintendo's hardware is going to help produce a twist in the Final Fantasy games of the future. so many future Nintendo titles and non-Nintendo titles use the GBA which will change the way we play games both dramatically and subtle. Nintendo don't deny that online gaming is the future, they just doubt the world is ready for it yet... and lets face it... it isn't.
> Of course not all games will use these options, but they are there to
> be used and who knows what developers will be able to come up with
> thanks to some companies actually focusing attention on the console
> itself.
> At the end of the day, the GC might as well be an updated N64, because
> if you take away the flashier graphics, what does it do that the N64
> didn't ?
DVD based software, SD memory cards that can upload pictures, videos and even games! , GBA link up, more third party support, Online option. About the same the X-box has different to the N64.
> Although it has an adapter for online play, its not as though Nintendo
> are actually set on using it. So far, unless something very recent
> has been announced, the only game supporting the GC's online
> capability is Phantasy Star Online by Sega, who were actually the ones
> who persuaded Nintendo to put the capability in in the first place.
No they persuaded to do it reacently. Nintendo always planned to with Pokemonline and Mario Kart Online planned for next year.
> Microsoft might not be wonderful when it comes to Windows, but so far
> I don't see anything wrong with the the X-Box. When Microsoft have
> developers shoving out crap and give me a console that constantly
> crashes and has problems, I'll look elsewhere. But right now, I'm
> happy with the console and Microsoft are providing me with games I
> enjoy, great future releases to look forward to and great prospect for
> new developments in gaming, wether its online gaming or new ideas to
> use with the hard drive.
Yep as I look forward to online play and new ideas with the GBA link cable... and new joint ventures with third party developers like Namco and SEGA. And the ability to transfer data from the aracade to gamecube with Triforce Arcade machines. and the future Panasonic SD memory cards which can upload faces and even films and games! Not innovative enough? yeah right.
Page: