Why is it always Nintendo?

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

Remember the Gamecube? When did its time come? Never?

The GC had a pretty decent library of games. Better than the Wii's thats for sure.

Originally Posted by Zora Fisherman

did i mention the gamecube? no. dont put words in my mouth.

"The Wii's time will come". Really? It's been almost two years since the Wii was released and every big-name Nintendo exclusive has been released. When will it be the Wii's time? When was it the Gamecube's time? You can't make such bold statements and ignore history. Nintendo has historically always done well in the handheld market, and the DS is no indication of how well the Wii will do in the console market.

GBA = Awesome
Gamecube = Sucks

As you can see, this is no correllation whatsoever.

Originally posted by DrZaius1
Remember the Gamecube? When did its time come? Never?

That's because there was no reason for the Gamecube to ever get better. Sales only got more and more unimpressive with each passing year, it had no functionality that the PS2 and 360 didn't, it wasn't the highest powered system etc.

Wii is still selling like crack. Developers are getting a better handle on the controls, and realize that it isn't a fad system. The next year or so is showing that there's plenty of notable third party efforts coming to the Wii, from a wide range of companies. It will never come close to what 360, or even the PS3 does in terms of exclusivity, but it's getting to the point where mocking it may not be all that logical.

EDIT-

Originally posted by Ender
The GC had a pretty decent library of games. Better than the Wii's thats for sure.

You're comparing a system's library of nearly five years to one that's barely been out for one and a half?

At this time in the GC's lifespan, it's collection of good games wasn't that different from Wii's right now.

Originally Posted by Ender

The GC had a pretty decent library of games. Better than the Wii's thats for sure.

I don't know about that. Wii is a definite improvement upon the Gamecube, but in the end, it's improving on the Gamecube. There's not much to improve upon.

Originally Posted by Jeff

That's because there was no reason for the Gamecube to ever get better. Sales progressively dropped with each passing year, it had no functionality that the PS2 and 360 didn't, it wasn't the highest powered system etc.

And that is solely Nintendo's fault.

Wii is still selling like crack. Developers are getting a better handle on the controls, and realize that it isn't a fad system. The next year or so is showing that there's plenty of notable third party efforts coming to the Wii, from a wide range of companies. It will never come close to what 360, or even the PS3 does in terms of exclusivity, but it's getting to the point where mocking it won't be all that logical.

We'll see if this ever transpires.

Originally posted by DrZaius1
And that is solely Nintendo's fault.

Indeed.

We'll see if this ever transpires.

It will, but it won't happen all at once. It'll progressively occur over the next few quarters.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

"The Wii's time will come". Really? It's been almost two years since the Wii was released and every big-name Nintendo exclusive has been released. When will it be the Wii's time? When was it the Gamecube's time? You can't make such bold statements and ignore history. Nintendo has historically always done well in the handheld market, and the DS is no indication of how well the Wii will do in the console market.

GBA = Awesome
Gamecube = Sucks

As you can see, this is no correllation whatsoever.

both the wii and the ds are trying to reach the casual audiences with technology thats new to the gaming world. it took DS developers quite a long time to figure out what works and what doesn't with the new tech (touch screen). when they did figure it out the games improved vastly.

there is no correlation between the GBA ands the gamecube but both the wii and ds are trying to accomplish the same thing in the same ways. so in this case there is a correlation.

and having success in the past doesnt indicate success in the future. example.

NES, SNES, & N64 = awesome consoles

Gamecube = not very awesome.

according to your logic shouldnt the gamecube be equal to those other consoles? well we cant ignore history now can we?

Originally Posted by Zora Fisherman

both the wii and the ds are trying to reach the casual audiences with technology thats new to the gaming world. it took DS developers quite a long time to figure out what works and what doesn't with the new tech (touch screen). when they did figure it out the games improved vastly.

there is no correlation between the GBA ands the gamecube but both the wii and ds are trying to accomplish the same thing in the same ways. so in this case there is a correlation.

and having success in the past doesnt indicate success in the future. example.

NES, SNES, & N64 = awesome consoles

Gamecube = not very awesome.

according to your logic shouldnt the gamecube be equal to those other consoles? well we cant ignore history now can we?

What are you talking about? Everyone already knows that the Nintendo Gamecube was a huge disappointment to the gaming community after the godly Nintendo 64.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

What are you talking about? Everyone already knows that the Nintendo Gamecube was a huge disappointment to the gaming community after the godly Nintendo 64.

im saying that according to history the gamecube should have been great but wasnt.

I have like 5 games on my N64, and I don't feel like I'm missing out on much. =\

-Ocarina Of Time
-Majora's Mask
-Paper Mario
-Super Mario 64
-Goldeneye

The only games I can think of that I should have are the Banjo games, and I really don't like 3D platformers. So like I said, not missing out on much.

Originally Posted by Jeff

Wii is still selling like crack. Developers are getting a better handle on the controls, and realize that it isn't a fad system. The next year or so is showing that there's plenty of notable third party efforts coming to the Wii, from a wide range of companies. It will never come close to what 360, or even the PS3 does in terms of exclusivity, but it's getting to the point where mocking it may not be all that logical.

I'm still waiting for the explosion. I have a feeling Nintendo will effectively be able to shift some of the trends away from the DS to the Wii (I hope) this year with their own first party blow out, come E3, since all but a few of Nintendo's teams have known projects.

Originally Posted by Zora Fisherman

im saying that according to history the gamecube should have been great but wasnt.

It would have been if Nintendo hadn't screwed it up. There is a point where Nintendo shifted gears from their pre-Gamecube greatness to their post-N64 shoddiness.

Originally Posted by Ender

I have like 5 games on my N64, and I don't feel like I'm missing out on much. =\

-Ocarina Of Time
-Majora's Mask
-Paper Mario
-Super Mario 64
-Goldeneye

The only games I can think of that I should have are the Banjo games, and I really don't like 3D platformers. So like I said, not missing out on much.

Mario Kart 64, Star Fox 64, Rogue Squadron, Perfect Dark, Conker's Bad Fur Day, etc. It wasn't the amount of games that were released for Nintendo 64, it was the quality and replayability of them.

Originally posted by Mr. Wonderful
I'm still waiting for the explosion. I have a feeling Nintendo will effectively be able to shift some of the trends away from the DS to the Wii (I hope) this year with their own first party blow out, come E3, since all but a few of Nintendo's teams have known projects.

I can think of quite a few games off the top of my head with a lot of potential to succeed on Wii; Force Unleashed, Blast Works, Fatal Frame IV, Madworld, King Story, Symphonia 2, Monster Hunter 3, From Software's titles (Tenchu 4 and an unknown action RPG), the all-but confirmed Castlevania Wii, Rygar, Tecmo Bowl etc. And, though I'm not very happy with the artstyle and humor that Capcom has selected, Spyborgs could be good. However, to really start hyping that I need gameplay footage that shows the design is as solid and as varied as the one Capcom employee stated.

Originally posted by DrZaius1
It would have been if Nintendo hadn't screwed it up. There is a point where Nintendo shifted gears from their pre-Gamecube greatness to their post-N64 shoddiness.

Nintendo wasn't without a lot of problems prior to the Gamecube, however. The 64 era was when they really started pissing off third parties, to the point where most of them started putting all of their exclusives on PSX. A lot of developers also weren't very pleased by their decision to stick with cartridges, while Playstation used the much more widely preferred CDs.

And it's not as if they only made good games during the N64 days. They made a lot of good games for Gamecube, and so far they've made a bunch of good games for Wii. To say that this company has only been stupid one generation just isn't right; they've always been doing something seriously wrong at one point or another.

Originally Posted by Jeff

Nintendo wasn't without a lot of problems prior to the Gamecube, however. The 64 era was when they really started pissing off third parties, to the point where most of them started putting all of their exclusives on PSX. A lot of developers also weren't very pleased by their decision to stick with cartridges, while Playstation used the much more widely preferred CDs.

Their refusal to switch from cartridges to a disc-based format did hurt them (and cost them gems such as Final Fantasy 7 and Metal Gear Solid), but it didn't affect them to a point where their console was inferior to any others.

And it's not as if they only made good games during the N64 days. They made a lot of good games for Gamecube, and so far they've made a bunch of good games for Wii. To say that this company has only been stupid one generation just isn't right; they've always been doing something seriously wrong at one point or another.

There's a difference between good games and great games, and the sheer amount of great games released by Nintendo during the Nintendo 64 era has yet to be matched by them, or any other company as well.

Originally posted by DrZaius1
Their refusal to switch from cartridges to a disc-based format did hurt them (and cost them gems such as Final Fantasy 7 and Metal Gear Solid), but it didn't affect them to a point where their console was inferior to any others.

Yes and no. Obviously, that alone didn't send them down the crapper, nor was it the only thing that po'd third parties. But it was a significant gripe of many outside developers, and was one of the factors that lead to Nintendo's demise (for a time) was the sheer lack of third party support.

RPG developers in particular couldn't stand the cartridge format; so many of the big RPGs from that gen required multiple disks on PSX, putting it in one cartridge would've been a major hassle to them. There's a big reason why 64 had all of six or seven RPGs throughout it's lifespan, three of which were pretty bad.

There's a difference between good games and great games, and the sheer amount of great games released by Nintendo during the Nintendo 64 era has yet to be matched by them, or any other company as well.

If you're taking Rare's titles into account, then I'll agree to that.

Originally Posted by Jeff

Yes and no. Obviously, that alone didn't send them down the crapper, nor was it the only thing that po'd third parties. But it was a significant gripe of many outside developers, and was one of the factors that lead to Nintendo's demise (for a time) was the sheer lack of third party support.

RPG developers in particular couldn't stand the cartridge format; so many of the big RPGs from that gen required multiple disks on PSX, putting it in one cartridge would've been a major hassle to them. There's a big reason why 64 had all of six or seven RPGs throughout it's lifespan, three of which were pretty bad.

That's what led the Playstation and Nintendo 64 to be drastically different consoles. The biggest franchises on the Playstation were RPGs and racing games, while for Nintendo 64 they were platforming and action games.

If you're taking Rare's titles into account, then I'll agree to that.

As Rare was practically an in-house developer for Nintendo during that time, the majority of their games qualify as Nintendo games.