GameTavern - GCN vs Xbox

GameTavern (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/index.php)

- Video Gaming (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- - GCN vs Xbox (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4700)

Quote:

Originally posted by fingersman
Game point, set and match.
Come on guys be realistic....... how do you expect 3rd parties to jump on the bandwagon when the company( Nintendo) who makes the console hasn't shown much interest in it.
They have made no annoucement about major online support or a network ( thanks to that whole keep everything a secret else everyone will steal it attitude), so Nintendo 's future online look pretty blurry right now.

We are playing Tennis? COOLbeans.

As for the whole point on online gaming, it is true that Nintendo hasn't given it much effort (if any at all), but that doesn't mean folks can't make use of it, I mean Sega did, and wouldn't it be a bit wiser to release your game on a system with limited online support? I mean the market is a bit less crowded there so it has a better chance of standing out.

But no one has really answered my question, if the developers can't make the game to go online because of weak support, why can't they take advantage of some of the Cube's specific feature. I mean the only two I could think of are the "digital click" and the GCN/GBA connection, and like Nintendo and several other 3rd parties have shown the GCN/GBA connection has some flexibitliy to open up features on the Cube version that no other console could match.

Quote:

Originally posted by BreakABone
We are playing Tennis? COOLbeans.

As for the whole point on online gaming, it is true that Nintendo hasn't given it much effort (if any at all), but that doesn't mean folks can't make use of it, I mean Sega did, and wouldn't it be a bit wiser to release your game on a system with limited online support? I mean the market is a bit less crowded there so it has a better chance of standing out.

Not exactly true... Online game developers don't want to stand out. There could be one great online game for a console, but is that enough to go out and buy that modem adapter? Think about it... anybody who plays PSO aid $80 for the game, plus montly fees.

Now, on the same note, if there were 12 other games online, chances are that more people would buy modems, thus making the online gaming userbase bigger. I mean, no developer wants to be the one to initiate the online gaming experience unless it's a first party or they were paid to do it.

I mean, Ps2 had Madden 2003, NBA Live 2003, THPS4, and Everquest online... are these games really hurting each other? Nope. One guy may buy the modem for Madden, and the other for Everquest... but once they get the modem it opens them up to buy the other games at less of a hit on the wallet.

Kind of like consoles... is it safer to make a game for Ps2 or GCN? A racing game may stand out on GCN, but on Ps2 it has WAY more potential buyers.

Quote:

But no one has really answered my question, if the developers can't make the game to go online because of weak support, why can't they take advantage of some of the Cube's specific feature. I mean the only two I could think of are the "digital click" and the GCN/GBA connection, and like Nintendo and several other 3rd parties have shown the GCN/GBA connection has some flexibitliy to open up features on the Cube version that no other console could match.

In this case, there is simply too much competition. How many games that use the link up feature are considerd bad? None I can think of. They are all just extremely marketable games, or simply good games.

Any ol third party couldn't really take adventage of it. Some will though, like in Splinter Cell. The fact is, if the game isn't a game that will sell extremely well, that feature is useless.

I mean, banking on a person who own a GBA owning a Cube... then a person owning a cube owning a link cable... and the person owning the link cable owning the GCN game... and then the person falling so deep in love with that game that they are willing to spend $40 on a GBA version...

Chances are slim. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, and Sonic could slip through that system easily... but any ol game just won't do that. Hell, even RE probably couldn't do it.

Quote:

Originally posted by TheGame
Not exactly true... Online game developers don't want to stand out. There could be one great online game for a console, but is that enough to go out and buy that modem adapter? Think about it... anybody who plays PSO aid $80 for the game, plus montly fees.

Now, on the same note, if there were 12 other games online, chances are that more people would buy modems, thus making the online gaming userbase bigger. I mean, no developer wants to be the one to initiate the online gaming experience unless it's a first party or they were paid to do it.

I mean, Ps2 had Madden 2003, NBA Live 2003, THPS4, and Everquest online... are these games really hurting each other? Nope. One guy may buy the modem for Madden, and the other for Everquest... but once they get the modem it opens them up to buy the other games at less of a hit on the wallet.

Kind of like consoles... is it safer to make a game for Ps2 or GCN? A racing game may stand out on GCN, but on Ps2 it has WAY more potential buyers.

You have a valid point, and I was thinking along the same lines, but it really depends on how other folks look at it. The fact is an established online roster would encourage more developers to use the feature, but someone has got to start. And it doesn't look like it will be Nintendo any time soon.

Quote:

Well with your previous logic, I assume t would be much easier to find a person who owns a GBA/GCN and link cable. I mean look at the games that take advantage of it, Metroid Prime, Animal Crossing, Sonic Adventure 2: Battle and some others. All those games have atleast broke the half a million mark in the US alone or are pretty close to it so I mean there is a chance that there is a large number of people who use it.

I mean Splinter Cell is doing, RayMan 3 is doing it and some other 3rd party games are, but I guess with your prior logic, it was because Nintendo actually supports it and yet won't toouch online gaming.

Quote:

Originally posted by Perfect Stu
SF's rant was interesting...to me it sounded like one giant "BAH!" which would seem appropriate to what he was trying to convey.

I'm disappointed with both XBox and Gamecube so far...but that doesn't mean things can't change. For Xbox...Why ignore (maybe that's the wrong word?)

Well, that defeats the purpose of my entire post, now doesn't it? While it wasn't exactly the topic's exact premise, I am utterly disappointed in both consoles from a retail and expectation standpoint. This is my take:

-Xbox promised online (way back in January 2k1) AT LAUNCH. That didn't happen, and when it did happen a year later, how many games are XboxLive capable? Barely more than PS2's online offering, which is FREE.

-GameCube promised great software, which it does have now, but was only limited to Rogue Leader and Super Monkey Ball at launch. Yawn.

And that's basically it in a nutshell, Stu. As for my positive assertions, I'll post that when I deem it relevant.

Quote:

Halo 2, Fable, Perfect Dark 2, etc. based on the system's past (which you call utterly disappointing, to which many will argue against)? Rare is on board, and they have a past of VERY high quality games. Microsoft is more than likely giving them more of an opportunity to fully utilize their creativity. "The sky's the limit"...well, apparently in Rare's fairly recent past, Nintendo's franchises/restrictions have been the limit. Conker was a step in the right direction (in some areas)...Possibly we'll see some newer, more original ideas?

Somehow I doubt it. Rare will continue to cash in on their previous franchises, and then maybe it will produce a new product. Right now only 3 projects are confirmed from the team, and all three of them were once GameCube-specific.

Quote:

As for Gamecube...it's hard to say. "One man's trash is another man's treasure." To some, many (if not most, if not *gasp* all) of Nintendo's efforts are considered instant classics. Others will disagree completely. I think the problem with the system is that it gets TOO close to limiting the consumer to the Nintendo brand, and the Nintendo brand only. 3rd parties, for the most part, have chosen to unleash their big dawgs on one of the other two systems (Resident Evil being the big exception). If your gaming interests are primarly >NINTENDO<, the system has delivered to a certain extent, and I'm sure will deliver in coming years. Most gamers want more variety (the whole 'mature games' crap has been beaten to death one too many times...I'll stay away from that) in their system.

We all know that this has actually been an improvement for Nintendo over N64 (GameCube really has had just as many 3rd party releases as Xbox over the course of 2002, and just as many overall titles). And yes, the 'mature games' crap has been beaten to death, and considering how false it is, one can deduce why.;)

Quote:

Luckily, as all gamers will agree, there's something out there for everyone. Be it mostly XBox, mostly Gamecube, mostly PS2 or mostly PC...pick and choose the games that fit your gaming interests, and try not to think much about the ones that don't.

Hey, you forgot Macintosh and Linux!!! You fanboy!!!

Lol...;)

At any rate, GCN has proved to be a viable (though not as strong) third-party console, as has Xbox proved to be a viable first-party console (though also not as strong). That's about the only expectations I feel have been met. End rant 2.

-Official Ninja of [coming soon]...