Originally posted by: jagr10
Many people predicted Nintendo to fall flat before they even launched the gamecube. You have to wonder how overpaid execs get to work for them. I mean, they come up with a fisher price looking console with crappy specs compared to their competition. Plus they have to come out with their special discs. Oh, and let's not forget they didn't even have an online plan whatsoever.
And they wonder why alot of game makers are cutting their ties with them. They either need to follow sega's lead or they better re-invent their system to appeal to all ages and not just 10 year olds.
Specs? Stop right there. If you care about Specs of a CONSOLE SYSTEM you should be shot. That isn't what they are made for. You get a console because you enjoy the games. That is why you still see people play the NES (I was at UCI on tour and we were in a living room of the dorms and a girl and what seems to be his GF hooked up the NES to play Super Mario Brothers 3 - and it was right on top of the Xbox) games - because they are fun.
If we follow your logic everything save for the Xbox would have been ignored. Wait, the Xbox would've been ignored and people would only care over PCs.
And what do the discs matter? While I admit it was Nintendo's fault for not going DVD for Video Playback (And size reasons) I don't think that actual size has anything to do with it. Moreover, its the fact they did't realize that high quality audio would be used which is why so many GC games have inferior audio tracks when compared to their PS2/Xbox Brethern.
Online plan? Yup - sucks for them. But my Ps2 never had a plan either...I think it was stupid for Nintendo for not having some kind of plan (atleast Sony is attempting something and is actually functional especially when you consider that broadband games wasn't in the front of their mind when making the console) I also agree that Online gaming just isn't this great deal everyone makes it out to be.
Note: i don't have a Gc, and I never owned a 64. I occaisionaly played the NES, I got a snes for about a year before my parents sold it, I got a PSX when I graduated 8th grade, and a Ps2 when i completed 11th grade.
I picked the PS2 because it has games I LIKE! Not because its wireless capabilities exceeded those of Gameboy or something...To me all the graphics are similar - most games you really can't tell the difference, while others the Ps2 looks better b/c it was made for it, and other where the Ps2 version is laugable...so its not like I'm some 2d junkie either...
I just play the games....not the hardware
Anyway back to Nintenod:
A guy on on the net named "the Gord" (something like that) predicted at launch that it would fail (he pointed out the DC sold 150 million launch day - the GC pulled in 90 million) and I too noticed the shakiness on the system. I know a lot of people who did get gamecubes to supplement their Ps2/Xbox (they got it fo "first party Nintendo titles") but got rid of them later and didn't regret it because it wasn't worth having a console just sitting there.
As for next gen I don't see myself going Nintendo unless SquareEnix develops exclusively for them...Then I'd get a GC2 just for Square titles since I love RPGs but Square doesn't make them all...
But I think the next gen will be very decisive in who lives and who reigns - specifically for nintendo. My guess is that Sony comes out on top again playing top fiddle (they seem to learn from mistakes of the past though they were VERY lucky in the first 6 months of the Ps2's life since most games were mediocre - after that thought it was smooth sailing so to say) with Microsoft playing a strong second and Nintendo - who will have brought out an awsome console -left in a distant third because no one cared
I had no doubts the PS2 was going to beat the cube in sales. It is sad though knowing the PS2 is just crap hardware compared to the Gamecube. PS2 has a Higher hardware fail rate, a confusing and over complex graphics engine, and just piss poor developer support.
The way I see it - you are stupid not to buy a 2 year replacement plan for a 200 dollar console...or anything over 100 bones for that matter...to me the risk isn't worth it. And who cares over the hardware? Talk about how much crap the PS2 is - most people don't see it that way because most don't care over the hardware! And I still doubt that by now - over three years AFTER its release(Japan launch) the console still has piss poor developing tools. If that was true I'd expect all Ps2 games to look no better than most launch titles ...
As for Sega and the 32X the main fault lies within Sega of Japan and lack of communication. When they were designing the Saturn they were keeping it secret to where even they didn't know what was going on. When SoA approached them about a low cost high preformance upgrade to the Genesis SoJ let them run with it. To SoA the 32x was supposed to be a legitamate 32bit console that would hold its own (the sucker had twin SH-1s and VDPs
- obviously SoJ influenced the design so they could get developers used to the Saturn since at the last minute due to the PSX they had to dump their idea of "ultimate 2d console" and toss on some SH-2s) while to SoJ it was nothing more of a "doorstop" to the true sucessor - the Sega Saturn...
So when USA launches 32x and all the sudden you have the Saturn in Japan and then all the sudden the Saturn is coming to the USA soon (hell they moved the launch from Setpember to Eearly 1994 in an attempt to gain marketshare ahead of Sony...all it did was leave dozens of saturns on the shelf with one game: virtua figther UNTIL developers could get something out....so much for tactic...) no one cares anymore....
And what do developers want to program for? A brand new true 32bit console that could reap in the profits, or some "upgrade" based on someting that was being phased out? See my point...hence all the developer support dissapears...
But yeah - the 32x was the wrong console at the wrong time and all the titles sucked majorly...Even Doom was just some buggy beta that was released. Its the only Sega console I don't have any respect for - even teh SegaCD which had around 200 titles and all were crap save for around 10 (literally) holds a spot for games like SonicCD and Snatcher and Lunar...
And as for GC being kiddy...well its not kiddy but the fact on launch you could only get a purple console, and the new mario game was titled "Super Mario SUNSHINE' didn't help...they should've launched the system in black or atleast included it as an option
TheeeChosenOne:
That is a LIE. I had a 550mhz k6-2 with a geforce2 GTS-V and 320megs of ram...NOLF didn't run that great (choppy...let us say that...playable but choppy I played a lot but tried not to "look" at open spaces because it would chug too much) at all at the lowest detail settings, I tried BF1942 and it moves WAAYYY to slow, WC3 was also slightly slow especially when the computer started to build units, MoH was kinda alright but it wasn't meant to be experienced on such a low level I had it set at, the Age of Mythology demo was okay at low settings but again the game looked too ugly that way instead of pretty. I have so many game demos from demo discs that I would always eagerly try to get it to run on my rig...
Oh - Even games like Delta Force: Land Warrior weren't all that fast....it was better than most but still not good
Please let us list more...I even tried UT2k3 and its not fun.
And I can tell the difference between playable or not....even now when I play WC3 Online and I play a Tower Defense and the units onscreen get to be really high the framerate chugs but I can manage it so i consider it playable...but this wasn't true on my previous rig.
And I think you are overestimating pc longevity...go back and rewitness it.
Facebook
Twitter