I love my gamecube. It's not my primary system because it only has a few games I like to play. But I do love it. That much should be understood.
That said, I think someone needs to point out what should be screamingly obvious. Nintendo makes some great games, and has a great history of making great games, and that's why people love them. But people, aside from making a handful of great games (i.e., having a number of good devs), Nintendo the company doesn't love you back.
Why do I say that? Look at the facts. Nintendo is simply the most mercenary console manufacturer out there. Everything they do is predicated on how much money they make. That's fine, because it's a business, but enough with treating them like they're godlike or untouchable. In a market with 3 consoles, the consumer is the winner when the console makers step all over themselves to deliver value. But Nintendo is always one step behind, preferring to offer a way for them to make money over a way to offer you value at every turn.
Some examples: 1) No DVD. People are right, it's not a big deal now, but at the time it was. The competitors had it, GC didn't. They did it to save money. That's it. To hear their executives describe it, though, it was as if they were doing you a favor by not providing something their competitors did. "It's a game machine", they said. As if DVD playback would have somehow sullied the purity of its gaming ability. No. It would have cost them more. That's it. And it hurt them because at the time, a lot of people didn't have DVD players. And DVDs were becoming the fastest growing media format in history. People went the other way (xbox, ps2) because for an extra $50 they could get a $200 DVD player. 2) Proprietary disc format: Their format was designed to prevent piracy and nothing else. I don't think they pretended otherwise, but still, the result is cross-platform games on the GC with compressed audio and textures. 3) No online. Sorry, they're dropping the ball on this one. Why? According to them, it's because "it's premature". Meaning they can't afford or don't want to pay for the infrastructure. Hell, they don't have to have an xbox live, just something like ps2 to at least have a PRESENCE in online. There's even a slot in the bottom of the cube waiting for a network adapter, begging them to get off their ass and make it worth purchasing. The fact is, I can understand from a business perspective if they don't think they can make money on online yet. But to scold me, the consumer, for wanting it ("console online gaming isn't ready yet") while I'm sitting there begging for it is the most classic case of Nintendo looking out for their bottom line before my interests as a consumer. It's understandable from their perspective, but I'm not going to sit and bash other consoles when they are providing me with a compelling online experience. In a 3 console market, if they don't provide what I want, I'll go elsewhere. 4) Gameboy connectivity. I don't even think I need to go into this. This is the alternative they provide to online gaming. This is the "innovation" everyone is lauding them for. Please. This is nothing more than a CHEAP, CHEAP effort to cross sell. To make me buy 2 consoles to get the most out of one game (along with a cable), or in the most egregious examples, to make me buy 2 consoles and 2 copies of the same game, is just criminal. It hearkens back to the days of being a kid and all of the shitty marketing things toy companies tried to pull back in the day. "Buy our toy! Of course, if you REALLY want to get the most out of it, buy our other toy, and our toy connector, and our toy extension...." That's fine when you're a dumb kid. But after a $150 console purchase and a $50 game purchase, I expect to have everything at hand to fully enjoy a game, thank you very much. If I want something compelling as an extension to it, how about this: the chance to play against anyone in the world online, and not have to pay for another version? How about that? Their "connectivity" play offers their bottom
You're missing the point. A lot of games don't necessarily offer bots, and at the time none offered internet play. Actually Halo offered LAN play, which no other console game that I'm aware of offered; it couldn't have offered more b/c xbox live wasn't out yet. The point is that the multiplayer in Halo was so well tuned and honed that it was far better than any other console FPS, either then or now. You may disagree with me, which is fine, since I know people who also don't think Halo is that great. But I know a lot more who do, and when they talk about it, they're usually talking about the multiplayer. The devil is in the details, and something about all of the little details in Halo sum up to a great multiplayer experience. Maybe it's the slower pace; maybe it's the weapon balance; maybe it's the vehicles; maybe it's all of the above. But everyone I know who still plays Halo (and it's most people I know who have it) does so because they find the multiplayer so good.
For example, I never hear about the Oakland As or Philadelphia Eagles having locker room boasts about who the best Bond player is, or who's best at Timesplitters. But there have been newspaper articles in which members of both teams have admitted to having some pretty hard core competition in the locker room with Halo. And they're not talking about the single player.
While Halo's multiplayer could have used more levels, it has never felt "tacked on" to me by any stretch. The multiplayer is part of what makes the game as great as it is. You hear people in the news, like sports stars and entertainers, boasting about how good they are at Halo. In my opinion, it's about as good as console FPS multiplayer gets. Something about the pacing, control, shield system and weapons balance makes it the standard bearer for console FPS. So I'd disagree with "tacked on".
What the hell is the difference between this game an any other bond game that has come out since Goldeneye? Goldeneye hit all of the right marks at just the right time. It was a really popular game, sold a lot, and still gets talked about in reverent tones. OK, not sure i agree with it all, but I'll buy it for now. So after that success, EA tried with another Bond game. Not so successful. Everything had been done before. Not spoken about in reverent tones. They tried another. And another. None of those games were by the same developer, or by anyone on the same team.
So now they have another Bond game, without the original developer or anyone from the original team, BUT it's called "GOLDENEYE"!!!. How again is this different from just another Bond game? How is this anything other than a cheap attempt to cash in on the reverent tones used to describe Goldeneye?
A lot of the Zelda games have had your typical "muwah ha ha" type of bad guy, completely removed from any real humanity. I thought that the Windwaker had a nice touch in the confessional speech by Ganon near the end. "I suppose...I suppose I coveted that wind." Didn't stop him from trying to kill you or from being a nasty bastard, but for a moment you could see things from his perspective and it was a lot more interesting than the end boss in most games as a result.
Because PC games are such an original bunch. Heaven forfend that such a bastion of originality be infected with the herd mentality. Now we have a game that is neither
a) An FPS. (but with really good graphics and killer multiplayer!) b) An RTS (but this time there are 6 factions, each up to 5% different from the others!)
I've been downloading new mechs, maps, and gametypes for MechAssault ever since it was released. Also upgrades to the lobby system. With a console with a hard drive, the options open up, and there will probably be a lot more of this type of thing in the next generation of consoles.
Not necessarily true on the design platform comment. Splinter cell was the first mp game designed for xbox first, but there are others and there will be many more to come. One premier title that comes to mind is Starcraft:Ghost. I'll agree that the tony hawk games are designed with the ps2 in mind first, and a lot of EA's games. But beyond that, a lot of other major 3rd party developers are designing on xbox first. Ubisoft is one example, as you've already indicated. From what I understand, it's easier to port down than up. But I could be wrong. I do know that most of the time when you see an upcoming game's screenshots nowadays, you usually see the xbox version.
If you haven't tried them, Sega's sports titles are defintely worth a go. the football game is probably the best I've ever played. Sure, you can't change the price of hotdogs like you can in Madden. But the gameplay is dead on, the presentation is fantastic with its espn trappings, and the online play is nice. It's on both xbox and ps2 and probably worth at least a rent.
Well, you'll never see someone set up a server on xbox live except MS. You can set up your xbox as a dedicated box, a mini-server, to increase performance. But the servers themselves are all housed by MS and will remain that way because it is a closed system by design. You log into that closed system, and there's no way they will let anyone throw a PC server up there and have it integrate with Live. There are reasons for the closed system, by the way, such as single-signon and no cheating. Just look what 'anyone, anywhere' server setting up allowances did for Counterstrike when it comes to cheating.
I can see where you're coming from. There are a lot of titles out there coming out that I just don't see the allure of. The FF games, for example, just never did anything for me. No RPG ever did, actually, until I recently place KOTOR (though the star wars factor probably helped me there). I think that it's interesting to think about what kinds of games a console has and to see how that affects people's opinions of them. For example, PS2 is heavy on the Japanese RPGs. If I were a big fan of those games, I'd clearly prefer that system. Personally, I like the FPS games, especially when they're done well. That's why I like my xbox. The closest I get to RPGs are Zelda-type games, and that's why I have my GameCube.
One thing's for sure, there are a LOT of good games coming out this xmas, and that's even after a lot of good games were delayed. It's going to be tough to keep up, but I suppose there are worse problems to be had.
They probably have the largest number of anticipated games coming out for Xmas
Well, maybe the largest number of games you are anticipating. People forget that this isn't an objective business when talking about game or console quality. Everyone's opinion varies. Personally, there's only one game that I see in the next year coming out for my GC that's worth buying, and that's the next Zelda. The only marquee title for GC exclusively this holiday that I know if is Mario Kart, and it's just not my speed. May be a great game, but not my thing.
Personally, I see a lot more stuff coming out for xbox this season that appeals to me. Things like Rainbow 6, Counterstrike, Deus Ex 2 (which looks AMAZING), Crimson Skies, etc. The rest of the games I see coming out that interest me, like XIII, Metal Arms, etc., are crossplatform, so they don't count.
One thing a lot of Nintendo zombies keep droning on about is how the older market is saturated. They seem to think that Nintendo will beat sony and MS because of all of the young gamers they're appealing to now. When those gamers grow up, the argument goes, they'll be loyal to Nintendo, and Nintendo's market grows. I think a chimpanzee could watch what has happened over the past 10 years with "Nintendo loyalty" and realize that this is just wishful thinking. When young gamers grow up, they want to play more mature games. If Nintendo doesn't offer them, and there's 2 other consoles out there that do (along with the teen-friendly allure of "graduating" into something more mature), then history has shown what will happen.
Um, what? What the hell are you talking about? My point is that every jingoistic asswipe rallying behind the American flag right now is beating on the French as if they're somehow a morally inferior species. I find a lot of frenchmen annoying, but let's remember that they do have a history before 1870, and that history did involve A LOT of cooperation with us. I seem to remember something about a statue or something....
About the time their ancestors were over there, I seem to recall that the only reason that America won the Revolutionary War was because of support from the French.
I think you could buy more like 4 shiny silver GBA SPs, and then go hog wild with Zelda 4 swords.
It's rare to see such a poorly designed product marketed so heavily. I hope this sends a message to the marketing clowns at Nokia (and everywhere else) that people are stupid, but not THAT stupid.
I worked tech support for an investment bank in San Fran during the dot com boom. You can imagine the kind of shit I encountered in that job. This of course came from bankers, analysts, and traders who were telling their clients about great new technology that they themselves were pretty clueless on.
My favorite was going down to the trade floor to have an a-hole trader yell at me while waving his mouse around in the air. "This fxxxing thing doesn't work! Make it work!" (what pleasant people, traders; take every D+ student you ever knew in high school and put him in a sweaty-pit dress shirt and tie and you get the picture). The fix was to take the mouse and put it back down on the table, on the cryptically named "mouse pad", so that the ball could actually touch something other than air.
You missed the biggest con against PCs. To get a PC with better graphics than my xbox, I'd need to pay at least $1000, preferably $2000 and up for a real hard-core gamer machine. That's not including the monitor. Sure, you can get a PC for cheaper, but not a hardcore gamer PC with all of the bells and whistles you describe. There's a big difference between that and the $200 consoles cost (less for GC). I think it officially qualifies as an order of magnitude.
Just a little pro for consoles that rarely gets mentioned: how many times have you played head-to-head against one or more friends in your living room on the PC? Probably not many; it's hard to fit two people on a keyboard, let alone 4. I know that online is bigger and better with PCs, but there's a big difference between that and the direct social experience of console multiplayer games.
You don't make any sense at all. "I'm not resolved to pumping those 2-300 every two years into a new console and games." You follow that with "I'll upgrade the PC, especially when sweet video cards are coming out each year." So you prefer paying $300 every year instead of every two years? How does that make an argument against consoles?
Besides, the ps2 came out 3 years ago. GC and xbox 2 years ago. There are no plans for new consoles anytime before 2005. Console generations have always been around 4-5 years or more. So your argument against shelling out console upgrade money is doubly flawed.
If you don't like consoles, fine, don't play them. I happen to enjoy games on my PC and my consoles. Something you said describes why I am leaning more and more towards console games as time goes by: "I was just amazed (again) from 12 inches away". Sorry, but after sitting in front of my computer all day, the last thing I want to do is relax with a CRT 12 inches from my face.
On my second point, there are a few games that require that you purchase both versions. Legend of Zelda and Splinter Cell are two that come to mind. Most of the talk I hear about upcoming GBA connectivity also involves purchasing both versions of a game. The animal crossing thing sounds kind of cool, I admit.
On the third point, I guarantee that the Panasonic Q sales aren't that high. Although DVDs are pretty big in Japan, I don't think Japan went through the same widespread adoption that happened over here. After all, they already had VCD, and the leap between VCD and DVD isn't nearly as big as between VHS and DVD. In the North American market, the biggest one out there, DVD playback would have helped tremendously.
On the fourth point, I disagree that it's going to take some time. It's never going to happen until Nintendo changes their policies and goes on an all out recruitment drive for third party support. I don't think that will ever happen. They made a better effort this time around but it's not enough. Not only will it not "take more time", but as time goes on they're actually losing third party support. They've lost Acclaim, Eidos, and (for me, the big one), Sega Sports. They finally got Square back, but is it too little too late?
I don't think Nintendo is going away anytime soon but I think they have lost some of their edge. I think they get a bit arrogant. They make fantastic first party games, hands-down the best first party offering of any console. I don't think that's too arguable, even if you don't like the games themselves (there are a lot of games I don't like but that I'll respect for their quality). But,
1) They insist they don't need an online strategy. Microsoft's online strategy is helping sell xboxes. It's helping sell EA sports games on PS2. Why would you want to ignore this potential market and get experience in it prior to the next generation?
2) They keep insisting that GBA connectivity is somehow innovative. I'm sorry, but GBA connectivity is nothing more than a shameless marketing gimmic. NOTHING more. "Look here! This game is innovative because if you buy it twice, one version for your GC, one version for your GBA, you get a mini-map in the GC version! You don't need the minimap to finish the game, but hey! It's INNOVATIVE! We're making an easy game even easier!" C'mon, that's not innovation. Back to point #1, Microsoft's XSN sports thing is actually innovative. If you don't know what this is, look into it before you tell me I'm wrong.
3) They insist on going their own way with media. It cost them dearly in the last generation, when they kept cartridges around. Sure, cartridges had advantages, but there were severe limitations, too. They spurned DVD support, which was a big deal this generation, since DVDs were just catching on when the consoles started coming out. Also, smaller discs for piracy protection? At the cost of storage room, meaning poorer textures in a lot of games? If I'm making the decision as a buyer, I'll opt for more storage space, better textures, and more FMV over piracy protection; you can't sell me on piracy protection because that's just you covering your own ass. That's like trying to tell me I should buy a Ford over a Chevy because Ford's corporate offices have a better alarm system.
4) A long, infamous, and continuing history of poor relations with third party developers. They've lost a lot in the past due to their hardline stance with other developers. Look at what happened to Square, and look how important Square became to Sony. They continually charge more for licensing. There are developers left and right now who are dropping support for GC because of profitability concerns. A lot of those developers suck, but I'm sorry, losing Sega Sports was a HUGE blow. Nintendo's stance is that they make the best games. Ok, but Sony sells the most because they have better relationships with their 3rd party developers, and always will (partly b/c they're more dependent on them).
If you think Nintendo hasn't lost their edge, consider this. How do you think the GC would have done if
1) It had online support half as good as the xbox's
2) You could do actually useful things with GBA connectivity, and you didn't have to buy the same game twice for different platforms
3) It used full-size DVDs and could do DVD playback
4) Nintendo had FULL 3rd party support, and consistently worked for more. In other words, you get all of the great Nintendo games, plus all of the other great games out there that Nintendo doesn't make.
If all of that were true, I think things would be shaping up quite differently. Sure, the GC is fine without all that, and is doing quite well. But a Nintendo with an EDGE would be doing a whole hell of a lot better, and wouldn't continue to cash in on its past. They would be developing games and game add-ons (like online capability) that were innovative, not good. There's a big gap between a GREAT game and an INNOVATIVE game. Nintendo makes a lot of great games, but not a lot of innovative ones, at least not innovation that appeal to a mass market (Pikmin and Animal Crossing are pretty innovative, but don't really appeal to the more mature market that makes up most of the game-buying public. Note that this is true even if you liked those games). I'll always like them for their great games, but man, if they had an edge, if they were truly innovative, and if they weren't so damn mercenary and arrogant, they could be ruling the roost.
Well, that's a fair argument. There was a big thing here a week ago about the DVD not being in the Gamecube. I think that it's fine to make the business decision to keep out DVD playback to keep costs down. But any quotes from Nintendo executives you read on the subject make it sound as if adding DVD playback is detrimental to a console, as if it's not somehow a "pure" game machine.
Plus, I personally disagree with the business decision. I think DVD playback was a major selling point to consumers. The timing of it couldn't have been better. DVDs were really starting to take off as this generation's consoles were launching. So not everyone had a DVD player but a lot of people were looking to get one. Bundling a DVD player in a console that didn't cost much more than a plain DVD player was a smart move that used the momentum DVDs were getting to drive a lot of casual purchases. The core market for most of these game systems is the 15-25 yr old male market, and I'm sure a lot of 20somethings were able to justify buying a game machine by telling themselves that it included a dvd player. I know of several people personally who made that justification.
Of course, I think this only applies to the American market. I don't know how DVDs were doing over in Japan, or if they already had a lot of VCD players like the rest of Asia. In any case, Japan is a more game-friendly consumer culture, so I think 20somethings there probably didn't have to justify a game console purpose to themselves as much.
Once again, the rabid nintendoites need a good hosing down. I could see where the replies here were going to end up the instant I saw the article.
Face it, people, you may like your system but that doesn't mean that it's either a) The best system or b) The system most likely to make money. Game developers are in it for money and game development isn't cheap anymore. So when a game company struggles, good or bad, they're going to try to focus on the markets they find most profitable. Right now, Eidos has joined Acclaim and Sega Sports in determining that GC development can be removed from their core business, helping their bottom line. THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL THAT HAPPENED. This isn't an indictment of everything you find moral; it's a business decision.
While I agree that Eidos hasn't published much inhouse of worth (all of the Tomb Raider titles sucked, in my opinion), they do have other properties that they publish that have been both successful and good. They used to publish the Unreal games (though I think that's Infogrames/Atari now), and they still (last I heard) publish the Deus Ex games. Deus Ex cannot be slammed by anyone with any sense. Overall, I find Eidos to be a mediocre publisher with a few really good games.
I have a GC myself that I use to play the Nintendo games. I'm probably not alone in focusing mainly on 1st party games for that system. But if I'm a 3rd party publisher and I see that trend, plus I see Nintendo charging outrageous licensing fees, then I'm less likely to want to develop on that platform. If I can make money by developing to xbox and ps2, then I see no reason to have to deal with porting to yet another system, with all of the development costs associated with it.
Overall, despite what people think about Eidos, there's a trend developing. Eidos, Acclaim, Sega Sports (which produces EXCELLENT games), and others have pulled out of GC development. I don't think it spells the end of the GC, but I wouldn't be making any bets on it coming in second place in this round. Frankly, I think Nintendo makes a lot of arrogant decisions that end up biting them in the ass, and we're kind of seeing the results of that. Their draconian licensing arrangements, their insistence on developing on proprietary media (which was a real problem in the last generation), their insistence that GC/GBA linkage is somehow revolutionary and anything more than a cheap attempt to get you to buy more Nintendo games, their insistence that the GC is somehow BETTER because it doesn't have a DVD player in a console generation that coincides with DVDs becoming the most successfuly media ever launched; all of this stuff adds up. I think Nintendo needs a reality check. They make great games, some of the best out there. But they need to get a little humble and realize that they are no longer the center of the gaming universe. personally, I wish them luck because I want to see them do well. But, we'll see what happens.
People are forgetting that the lack of a DVD player hurts the gamecube in other ways. There isn't nearly the same amount of room on the proprietary little disks as there is on a DVD. That means less room for textures, fmv, sounds, levels, etc. While no current games are pushing size limits on game data yet, the limits are already apparent with regard to textures on the GC. Take a look at IGN's head to head reviews, where they compare versions of games that have come out on multiple consoles. The GC versions have repeatedly gotten lower marks for poorer texture quality, for the simple fact that there wasn't enough room for high-res textures on the GC disk.
I think that it's a valid decision on Nintendo's part to not include DVD playback for cost reasons. That's a business decision. I wouldn't have made it because this generation of consoles came out just as DVDs were launching into the most successful media rollout in modern history, but that's just me. But for them to turn around and act like it's a feature is kind of ludicrous. They take the stand that game systems shouldn't have DVD playback because they don't. "It's a game system, it shouldn't have DVD playback! it doesn't need it!"
Most people I know would gladly pay an extra $50 for that ability. Actually most people I know with either PS2s or xboxes stated the DVD playback as a major reason for getting the machine in the first place. It's an easier justification, especially for the adult, casual game player. "Hmm, do I need a dedicated gaming machine? (I really want one but how do I justify it?)" versus "Hmm, I'd like to play games-- HEY, this is a DVD player! I need a DVD player. If I convince myself it's a DVD player, I'm not dropping $200 on something just to play games!"
Nintendo should play up the fact that the lack of DVD makes their system cheaper. They shouldn't try to pretend that it's better because it's just a game machine.
disclaimer: I love my gamecube, so back off, all you nintendoites lemmings.
Slashdot Mirror
I love my gamecube. It's not my primary system because it only has a few games I like to play. But I do love it. That much should be understood.
That said, I think someone needs to point out what should be screamingly obvious. Nintendo makes some great games, and has a great history of making great games, and that's why people love them. But people, aside from making a handful of great games (i.e., having a number of good devs), Nintendo the company doesn't love you back.
Why do I say that? Look at the facts. Nintendo is simply the most mercenary console manufacturer out there. Everything they do is predicated on how much money they make. That's fine, because it's a business, but enough with treating them like they're godlike or untouchable. In a market with 3 consoles, the consumer is the winner when the console makers step all over themselves to deliver value. But Nintendo is always one step behind, preferring to offer a way for them to make money over a way to offer you value at every turn.
Some examples:
1) No DVD. People are right, it's not a big deal now, but at the time it was. The competitors had it, GC didn't. They did it to save money. That's it. To hear their executives describe it, though, it was as if they were doing you a favor by not providing something their competitors did. "It's a game machine", they said. As if DVD playback would have somehow sullied the purity of its gaming ability. No. It would have cost them more. That's it. And it hurt them because at the time, a lot of people didn't have DVD players. And DVDs were becoming the fastest growing media format in history. People went the other way (xbox, ps2) because for an extra $50 they could get a $200 DVD player.
2) Proprietary disc format: Their format was designed to prevent piracy and nothing else. I don't think they pretended otherwise, but still, the result is cross-platform games on the GC with compressed audio and textures.
3) No online. Sorry, they're dropping the ball on this one. Why? According to them, it's because "it's premature". Meaning they can't afford or don't want to pay for the infrastructure. Hell, they don't have to have an xbox live, just something like ps2 to at least have a PRESENCE in online. There's even a slot in the bottom of the cube waiting for a network adapter, begging them to get off their ass and make it worth purchasing. The fact is, I can understand from a business perspective if they don't think they can make money on online yet. But to scold me, the consumer, for wanting it ("console online gaming isn't ready yet") while I'm sitting there begging for it is the most classic case of Nintendo looking out for their bottom line before my interests as a consumer. It's understandable from their perspective, but I'm not going to sit and bash other consoles when they are providing me with a compelling online experience. In a 3 console market, if they don't provide what I want, I'll go elsewhere.
4) Gameboy connectivity. I don't even think I need to go into this. This is the alternative they provide to online gaming. This is the "innovation" everyone is lauding them for. Please. This is nothing more than a CHEAP, CHEAP effort to cross sell. To make me buy 2 consoles to get the most out of one game (along with a cable), or in the most egregious examples, to make me buy 2 consoles and 2 copies of the same game, is just criminal. It hearkens back to the days of being a kid and all of the shitty marketing things toy companies tried to pull back in the day. "Buy our toy! Of course, if you REALLY want to get the most out of it, buy our other toy, and our toy connector, and our toy extension...." That's fine when you're a dumb kid. But after a $150 console purchase and a $50 game purchase, I expect to have everything at hand to fully enjoy a game, thank you very much. If I want something compelling as an extension to it, how about this: the chance to play against anyone in the world online, and not have to pay for another version? How about that? Their "connectivity" play offers their bottom
You're missing the point. A lot of games don't necessarily offer bots, and at the time none offered internet play. Actually Halo offered LAN play, which no other console game that I'm aware of offered; it couldn't have offered more b/c xbox live wasn't out yet. The point is that the multiplayer in Halo was so well tuned and honed that it was far better than any other console FPS, either then or now. You may disagree with me, which is fine, since I know people who also don't think Halo is that great. But I know a lot more who do, and when they talk about it, they're usually talking about the multiplayer. The devil is in the details, and something about all of the little details in Halo sum up to a great multiplayer experience. Maybe it's the slower pace; maybe it's the weapon balance; maybe it's the vehicles; maybe it's all of the above. But everyone I know who still plays Halo (and it's most people I know who have it) does so because they find the multiplayer so good. For example, I never hear about the Oakland As or Philadelphia Eagles having locker room boasts about who the best Bond player is, or who's best at Timesplitters. But there have been newspaper articles in which members of both teams have admitted to having some pretty hard core competition in the locker room with Halo. And they're not talking about the single player.
While Halo's multiplayer could have used more levels, it has never felt "tacked on" to me by any stretch. The multiplayer is part of what makes the game as great as it is. You hear people in the news, like sports stars and entertainers, boasting about how good they are at Halo. In my opinion, it's about as good as console FPS multiplayer gets. Something about the pacing, control, shield system and weapons balance makes it the standard bearer for console FPS. So I'd disagree with "tacked on".
Waah. If you didn't know you were going to face Ganon in the end, then there's nothing I can do. I didn't tell you more than you couldn't guess.
What the hell is the difference between this game an any other bond game that has come out since Goldeneye? Goldeneye hit all of the right marks at just the right time. It was a really popular game, sold a lot, and still gets talked about in reverent tones. OK, not sure i agree with it all, but I'll buy it for now. So after that success, EA tried with another Bond game. Not so successful. Everything had been done before. Not spoken about in reverent tones. They tried another. And another. None of those games were by the same developer, or by anyone on the same team.
So now they have another Bond game, without the original developer or anyone from the original team, BUT it's called "GOLDENEYE"!!!. How again is this different from just another Bond game? How is this anything other than a cheap attempt to cash in on the reverent tones used to describe Goldeneye?
A lot of the Zelda games have had your typical "muwah ha ha" type of bad guy, completely removed from any real humanity. I thought that the Windwaker had a nice touch in the confessional speech by Ganon near the end. "I suppose...I suppose I coveted that wind." Didn't stop him from trying to kill you or from being a nasty bastard, but for a moment you could see things from his perspective and it was a lot more interesting than the end boss in most games as a result.
Riiiight.
Because PC games are such an original bunch. Heaven forfend that such a bastion of originality be infected with the herd mentality. Now we have a game that is neither
a) An FPS. (but with really good graphics and killer multiplayer!)
b) An RTS (but this time there are 6 factions, each up to 5% different from the others!)
What is happening to gaming?
I've been downloading new mechs, maps, and gametypes for MechAssault ever since it was released. Also upgrades to the lobby system. With a console with a hard drive, the options open up, and there will probably be a lot more of this type of thing in the next generation of consoles.
Not necessarily true on the design platform comment. Splinter cell was the first mp game designed for xbox first, but there are others and there will be many more to come. One premier title that comes to mind is Starcraft:Ghost. I'll agree that the tony hawk games are designed with the ps2 in mind first, and a lot of EA's games. But beyond that, a lot of other major 3rd party developers are designing on xbox first. Ubisoft is one example, as you've already indicated. From what I understand, it's easier to port down than up. But I could be wrong. I do know that most of the time when you see an upcoming game's screenshots nowadays, you usually see the xbox version.
If you haven't tried them, Sega's sports titles are defintely worth a go. the football game is probably the best I've ever played. Sure, you can't change the price of hotdogs like you can in Madden. But the gameplay is dead on, the presentation is fantastic with its espn trappings, and the online play is nice. It's on both xbox and ps2 and probably worth at least a rent.
Well, you'll never see someone set up a server on xbox live except MS. You can set up your xbox as a dedicated box, a mini-server, to increase performance. But the servers themselves are all housed by MS and will remain that way because it is a closed system by design. You log into that closed system, and there's no way they will let anyone throw a PC server up there and have it integrate with Live. There are reasons for the closed system, by the way, such as single-signon and no cheating. Just look what 'anyone, anywhere' server setting up allowances did for Counterstrike when it comes to cheating.
I can see where you're coming from. There are a lot of titles out there coming out that I just don't see the allure of. The FF games, for example, just never did anything for me. No RPG ever did, actually, until I recently place KOTOR (though the star wars factor probably helped me there). I think that it's interesting to think about what kinds of games a console has and to see how that affects people's opinions of them. For example, PS2 is heavy on the Japanese RPGs. If I were a big fan of those games, I'd clearly prefer that system. Personally, I like the FPS games, especially when they're done well. That's why I like my xbox. The closest I get to RPGs are Zelda-type games, and that's why I have my GameCube.
One thing's for sure, there are a LOT of good games coming out this xmas, and that's even after a lot of good games were delayed. It's going to be tough to keep up, but I suppose there are worse problems to be had.
Nintendo's list:
1) Something with Mario and mushrooms and cars
2) Something with Mario and mushrooms and golf
3) Something with Pokemon
4) Something else with Pokemon, but this time with GameBoy connectivity!
5) Some pacman rehash
They probably have the largest number of anticipated games coming out for Xmas
Well, maybe the largest number of games you are anticipating. People forget that this isn't an objective business when talking about game or console quality. Everyone's opinion varies. Personally, there's only one game that I see in the next year coming out for my GC that's worth buying, and that's the next Zelda. The only marquee title for GC exclusively this holiday that I know if is Mario Kart, and it's just not my speed. May be a great game, but not my thing.
Personally, I see a lot more stuff coming out for xbox this season that appeals to me. Things like Rainbow 6, Counterstrike, Deus Ex 2 (which looks AMAZING), Crimson Skies, etc. The rest of the games I see coming out that interest me, like XIII, Metal Arms, etc., are crossplatform, so they don't count.
One thing a lot of Nintendo zombies keep droning on about is how the older market is saturated. They seem to think that Nintendo will beat sony and MS because of all of the young gamers they're appealing to now. When those gamers grow up, the argument goes, they'll be loyal to Nintendo, and Nintendo's market grows. I think a chimpanzee could watch what has happened over the past 10 years with "Nintendo loyalty" and realize that this is just wishful thinking. When young gamers grow up, they want to play more mature games. If Nintendo doesn't offer them, and there's 2 other consoles out there that do (along with the teen-friendly allure of "graduating" into something more mature), then history has shown what will happen.
Um, what? What the hell are you talking about? My point is that every jingoistic asswipe rallying behind the American flag right now is beating on the French as if they're somehow a morally inferior species. I find a lot of frenchmen annoying, but let's remember that they do have a history before 1870, and that history did involve A LOT of cooperation with us. I seem to remember something about a statue or something....
About the time their ancestors were over there, I seem to recall that the only reason that America won the Revolutionary War was because of support from the French.
Enjoy your freedom fries, moron.
I think you could buy more like 4 shiny silver GBA SPs, and then go hog wild with Zelda 4 swords.
It's rare to see such a poorly designed product marketed so heavily. I hope this sends a message to the marketing clowns at Nokia (and everywhere else) that people are stupid, but not THAT stupid.
I worked tech support for an investment bank in San Fran during the dot com boom. You can imagine the kind of shit I encountered in that job. This of course came from bankers, analysts, and traders who were telling their clients about great new technology that they themselves were pretty clueless on.
My favorite was going down to the trade floor to have an a-hole trader yell at me while waving his mouse around in the air. "This fxxxing thing doesn't work! Make it work!" (what pleasant people, traders; take every D+ student you ever knew in high school and put him in a sweaty-pit dress shirt and tie and you get the picture). The fix was to take the mouse and put it back down on the table, on the cryptically named "mouse pad", so that the ball could actually touch something other than air.
You missed the biggest con against PCs. To get a PC with better graphics than my xbox, I'd need to pay at least $1000, preferably $2000 and up for a real hard-core gamer machine. That's not including the monitor. Sure, you can get a PC for cheaper, but not a hardcore gamer PC with all of the bells and whistles you describe. There's a big difference between that and the $200 consoles cost (less for GC). I think it officially qualifies as an order of magnitude.
Just a little pro for consoles that rarely gets mentioned: how many times have you played head-to-head against one or more friends in your living room on the PC? Probably not many; it's hard to fit two people on a keyboard, let alone 4. I know that online is bigger and better with PCs, but there's a big difference between that and the direct social experience of console multiplayer games.
You don't make any sense at all. "I'm not resolved to pumping those 2-300 every two years into a new console and games." You follow that with "I'll upgrade the PC, especially when sweet video cards are coming out each year." So you prefer paying $300 every year instead of every two years? How does that make an argument against consoles?
Besides, the ps2 came out 3 years ago. GC and xbox 2 years ago. There are no plans for new consoles anytime before 2005. Console generations have always been around 4-5 years or more. So your argument against shelling out console upgrade money is doubly flawed.
If you don't like consoles, fine, don't play them. I happen to enjoy games on my PC and my consoles. Something you said describes why I am leaning more and more towards console games as time goes by: "I was just amazed (again) from 12 inches away". Sorry, but after sitting in front of my computer all day, the last thing I want to do is relax with a CRT 12 inches from my face.
On my second point, there are a few games that require that you purchase both versions. Legend of Zelda and Splinter Cell are two that come to mind. Most of the talk I hear about upcoming GBA connectivity also involves purchasing both versions of a game. The animal crossing thing sounds kind of cool, I admit.
On the third point, I guarantee that the Panasonic Q sales aren't that high. Although DVDs are pretty big in Japan, I don't think Japan went through the same widespread adoption that happened over here. After all, they already had VCD, and the leap between VCD and DVD isn't nearly as big as between VHS and DVD. In the North American market, the biggest one out there, DVD playback would have helped tremendously.
On the fourth point, I disagree that it's going to take some time. It's never going to happen until Nintendo changes their policies and goes on an all out recruitment drive for third party support. I don't think that will ever happen. They made a better effort this time around but it's not enough. Not only will it not "take more time", but as time goes on they're actually losing third party support. They've lost Acclaim, Eidos, and (for me, the big one), Sega Sports. They finally got Square back, but is it too little too late?
I don't think Nintendo is going away anytime soon but I think they have lost some of their edge. I think they get a bit arrogant. They make fantastic first party games, hands-down the best first party offering of any console. I don't think that's too arguable, even if you don't like the games themselves (there are a lot of games I don't like but that I'll respect for their quality). But,
1) They insist they don't need an online strategy. Microsoft's online strategy is helping sell xboxes. It's helping sell EA sports games on PS2. Why would you want to ignore this potential market and get experience in it prior to the next generation?
2) They keep insisting that GBA connectivity is somehow innovative. I'm sorry, but GBA connectivity is nothing more than a shameless marketing gimmic. NOTHING more. "Look here! This game is innovative because if you buy it twice, one version for your GC, one version for your GBA, you get a mini-map in the GC version! You don't need the minimap to finish the game, but hey! It's INNOVATIVE! We're making an easy game even easier!" C'mon, that's not innovation. Back to point #1, Microsoft's XSN sports thing is actually innovative. If you don't know what this is, look into it before you tell me I'm wrong.
3) They insist on going their own way with media. It cost them dearly in the last generation, when they kept cartridges around. Sure, cartridges had advantages, but there were severe limitations, too. They spurned DVD support, which was a big deal this generation, since DVDs were just catching on when the consoles started coming out. Also, smaller discs for piracy protection? At the cost of storage room, meaning poorer textures in a lot of games? If I'm making the decision as a buyer, I'll opt for more storage space, better textures, and more FMV over piracy protection; you can't sell me on piracy protection because that's just you covering your own ass. That's like trying to tell me I should buy a Ford over a Chevy because Ford's corporate offices have a better alarm system.
4) A long, infamous, and continuing history of poor relations with third party developers. They've lost a lot in the past due to their hardline stance with other developers. Look at what happened to Square, and look how important Square became to Sony. They continually charge more for licensing. There are developers left and right now who are dropping support for GC because of profitability concerns. A lot of those developers suck, but I'm sorry, losing Sega Sports was a HUGE blow. Nintendo's stance is that they make the best games. Ok, but Sony sells the most because they have better relationships with their 3rd party developers, and always will (partly b/c they're more dependent on them).
If you think Nintendo hasn't lost their edge, consider this. How do you think the GC would have done if
1) It had online support half as good as the xbox's
2) You could do actually useful things with GBA connectivity, and you didn't have to buy the same game twice for different platforms
3) It used full-size DVDs and could do DVD playback
4) Nintendo had FULL 3rd party support, and consistently worked for more. In other words, you get all of the great Nintendo games, plus all of the other great games out there that Nintendo doesn't make.
If all of that were true, I think things would be shaping up quite differently. Sure, the GC is fine without all that, and is doing quite well. But a Nintendo with an EDGE would be doing a whole hell of a lot better, and wouldn't continue to cash in on its past. They would be developing games and game add-ons (like online capability) that were innovative, not good. There's a big gap between a GREAT game and an INNOVATIVE game. Nintendo makes a lot of great games, but not a lot of innovative ones, at least not innovation that appeal to a mass market (Pikmin and Animal Crossing are pretty innovative, but don't really appeal to the more mature market that makes up most of the game-buying public. Note that this is true even if you liked those games). I'll always like them for their great games, but man, if they had an edge, if they were truly innovative, and if they weren't so damn mercenary and arrogant, they could be ruling the roost.
Well, that's a fair argument. There was a big thing here a week ago about the DVD not being in the Gamecube. I think that it's fine to make the business decision to keep out DVD playback to keep costs down. But any quotes from Nintendo executives you read on the subject make it sound as if adding DVD playback is detrimental to a console, as if it's not somehow a "pure" game machine.
Plus, I personally disagree with the business decision. I think DVD playback was a major selling point to consumers. The timing of it couldn't have been better. DVDs were really starting to take off as this generation's consoles were launching. So not everyone had a DVD player but a lot of people were looking to get one. Bundling a DVD player in a console that didn't cost much more than a plain DVD player was a smart move that used the momentum DVDs were getting to drive a lot of casual purchases. The core market for most of these game systems is the 15-25 yr old male market, and I'm sure a lot of 20somethings were able to justify buying a game machine by telling themselves that it included a dvd player. I know of several people personally who made that justification.
Of course, I think this only applies to the American market. I don't know how DVDs were doing over in Japan, or if they already had a lot of VCD players like the rest of Asia. In any case, Japan is a more game-friendly consumer culture, so I think 20somethings there probably didn't have to justify a game console purpose to themselves as much.
Once again, the rabid nintendoites need a good hosing down. I could see where the replies here were going to end up the instant I saw the article.
Face it, people, you may like your system but that doesn't mean that it's either a) The best system or b) The system most likely to make money. Game developers are in it for money and game development isn't cheap anymore. So when a game company struggles, good or bad, they're going to try to focus on the markets they find most profitable. Right now, Eidos has joined Acclaim and Sega Sports in determining that GC development can be removed from their core business, helping their bottom line. THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL THAT HAPPENED. This isn't an indictment of everything you find moral; it's a business decision.
While I agree that Eidos hasn't published much inhouse of worth (all of the Tomb Raider titles sucked, in my opinion), they do have other properties that they publish that have been both successful and good. They used to publish the Unreal games (though I think that's Infogrames/Atari now), and they still (last I heard) publish the Deus Ex games. Deus Ex cannot be slammed by anyone with any sense. Overall, I find Eidos to be a mediocre publisher with a few really good games.
I have a GC myself that I use to play the Nintendo games. I'm probably not alone in focusing mainly on 1st party games for that system. But if I'm a 3rd party publisher and I see that trend, plus I see Nintendo charging outrageous licensing fees, then I'm less likely to want to develop on that platform. If I can make money by developing to xbox and ps2, then I see no reason to have to deal with porting to yet another system, with all of the development costs associated with it.
Overall, despite what people think about Eidos, there's a trend developing. Eidos, Acclaim, Sega Sports (which produces EXCELLENT games), and others have pulled out of GC development. I don't think it spells the end of the GC, but I wouldn't be making any bets on it coming in second place in this round. Frankly, I think Nintendo makes a lot of arrogant decisions that end up biting them in the ass, and we're kind of seeing the results of that. Their draconian licensing arrangements, their insistence on developing on proprietary media (which was a real problem in the last generation), their insistence that GC/GBA linkage is somehow revolutionary and anything more than a cheap attempt to get you to buy more Nintendo games, their insistence that the GC is somehow BETTER because it doesn't have a DVD player in a console generation that coincides with DVDs becoming the most successfuly media ever launched; all of this stuff adds up. I think Nintendo needs a reality check. They make great games, some of the best out there. But they need to get a little humble and realize that they are no longer the center of the gaming universe. personally, I wish them luck because I want to see them do well. But, we'll see what happens.
People are forgetting that the lack of a DVD player hurts the gamecube in other ways. There isn't nearly the same amount of room on the proprietary little disks as there is on a DVD. That means less room for textures, fmv, sounds, levels, etc. While no current games are pushing size limits on game data yet, the limits are already apparent with regard to textures on the GC. Take a look at IGN's head to head reviews, where they compare versions of games that have come out on multiple consoles. The GC versions have repeatedly gotten lower marks for poorer texture quality, for the simple fact that there wasn't enough room for high-res textures on the GC disk.
I think that it's a valid decision on Nintendo's part to not include DVD playback for cost reasons. That's a business decision. I wouldn't have made it because this generation of consoles came out just as DVDs were launching into the most successful media rollout in modern history, but that's just me. But for them to turn around and act like it's a feature is kind of ludicrous. They take the stand that game systems shouldn't have DVD playback because they don't. "It's a game system, it shouldn't have DVD playback! it doesn't need it!"
Most people I know would gladly pay an extra $50 for that ability. Actually most people I know with either PS2s or xboxes stated the DVD playback as a major reason for getting the machine in the first place. It's an easier justification, especially for the adult, casual game player. "Hmm, do I need a dedicated gaming machine? (I really want one but how do I justify it?)" versus "Hmm, I'd like to play games-- HEY, this is a DVD player! I need a DVD player. If I convince myself it's a DVD player, I'm not dropping $200 on something just to play games!"
Nintendo should play up the fact that the lack of DVD makes their system cheaper. They shouldn't try to pretend that it's better because it's just a game machine.
disclaimer: I love my gamecube, so back off, all you nintendoites lemmings.