Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GameCube (Games) Entertainment Games

On Stemming Nintendo's Exclusive Game Drought 110

Posted by simoniker from the gaming-throat-is-parched dept.
Thanks to Nintendojo for its editorial discussing ways to help Nintendo increase the amount of GameCube-only titles it releases. The writer notes that "...it is all too apparent that Nintendo's exclusive games lineup is very thin at the moment", and suggests one of many possible solutions: "Nintendo must figure out a way to increase the [development] capacity of Retro Studios and/or Silicon Knights. These companies must have as much depth [in amount of releases] as Rare had at the latter part of its life." How would you like to see Nintendo partnering to release more high-quality GameCube-only games?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

On Stemming Nintendo's Exclusive Game Drought More

On Stemming Nintendo's Exclusive Game Drought

Comments Filter:

  • Nintendo seems to be ok for this year (Score:5, Informative)

    by Naffer ( 720686 ) on Sunday January 25, 2004 @07:46PM (#8083667) Journal
    I bought a Gamecube last December, and now own quite of few of the "must have" games. The problem that I see for 2004 is that the big first party games that everyone was anticipating are out now, and their sequals are too far off in the distance to see. For most of thise year, Nintendo is going to have to count on 3rd party developers to maintain the slow influx of quality games.

    Now I'm going to go against my bettter judgement and link to an article [ign.com] on IGN titled "Most anticipated games of 2004." I don't care much for IGN, but the list does include some potentially good games.

  • It's sad because it's true. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Black Mage Balthazar ( 708812 ) on Sunday January 25, 2004 @07:50PM (#8083686)
    I have been a long time Nintendo fan, owning every major console, and now a GBA. I have always stuck by Nintendo because of the high quality of their games, and because I couldn't really afford to have more than one system.

    Now don't get me wrong, I've played other systems. I've finished FFVII and FFX on the PS and PS2, as well as playing a great deal of Tekken and the Gran Turismo series, but I could never justify buying a PS for just these games.

    But now I realize, that I have done the same thing for a Gamecube. I have less than ten games (due partially to budget constraints), a GBA, and 1 GBA game (FF Tactics Advance). The problem I have is variety. It turns out, I have a game in almost every genre, and it's hard to play multiple games in a genre. If I want to fight, I have SCII, racing is Mario Kart:DD or F-Zero GX. Team sports is NHL 2004, while extreme sports is Tony Hawk 4. RPG is Zelda, etc. The problem is Nintendo fills a genre niche, and then moves on! Which means that if I want to play a different fighting game, well, I can't. So I get bored with the games, despite their excellent quality.

    Nintendo needs to tighten their release dates, and find developers to compete against themselves. Who can make the best action/fighting/RPG game? Nintendo wins in the end because no matter which game of two or three wins the sales wars, it's still money into Nintendo's pockets.

    I just don't want my favourite company to die.
    • Which means that if I want to play a different fighting game, well, I can't.

      While I get your point, I think that's a terrible example. The GameCube has Soul Calibur 2 and Super Smash Brothers Melee, probably the two most popular fighting games for any current console.
      • Well, SSBM isn't your traditional fighting game (which is part of its appeal). But even switching between two gets boring. There were probably a dozen fighters for the SNES, and at least half a dozen for the 64.
        • Well, SSBM isn't your traditional fighting game (which is part of its appeal). But even switching between two gets boring. There were probably a dozen fighters for the SNES, and at least half a dozen for the 64.

          There's at least half a dozen for the GC as well: SSBM, Soul Calibur II, Bloody Roar: Primal Fury, Capcom vs. SNK 2: EO, Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance, and X-Men: Next Dimenision.

    • Re:It's sad because it's true. (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "...and find developers to compete against themselves."

      You pretty much hit it on the head right there. If they had a dozen or so developers releasing high-quality titles that gave nintendo a run for their money, on their own system, it would drastically increase the GC library and quality of the system overall.

      Would be nice to see.

    • If I want to fight, I have SCII

      There's also Super Smash Bros Melee, Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance, Capcom vs SNK, and a few other lesser known games.

      racing is Mario Kart:DD or F-Zero GX.

      There's also Wave Race Blue Storm, Need for Speed Underground, Burnout, and at least a few others.

      Team sports is NHL 2004, while extreme sports is Tony Hawk 4.

      Granted Sega dropped their sports line from GameCube after the first year, but EA releases all their sports titles for it. Acclaim releases All Star Basebal
      • Unfortunately, all comments I make are made on my personal bias. ie, I don't like Mortal Kombat, and I never have. Perhaps I should say: I want a large selection of excellent games, but then, I would have my cake and eat it too, and that's not allowed.
      • RPG is Zelda, etc.

        Well, Zelda isn't an RPG. If you want RPGs, the Cube is a pretty bad choice as their are very few, although Namco has several coming out later this year.

        If you are looking for a FinalFantasy-style RPG, try Skies Of Arcadia: Legends.

  • I dont believe in Exclusive Titles (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bruha ( 412869 ) on Sunday January 25, 2004 @07:51PM (#8083690) Homepage Journal
    Exclusivity = I dont buy them unless it's for the one I own.. I'm not going to bounce around and buy 3 or 4 consoles just to play the latest and greatest games out there. I bought a Xbox and it ticks me off that the Kirby game is Nintendo only. All it serves to do is decrease the games sales potential.

    I would however appreciate limited exclusivity where the game would be ported after a fixed amount of time.
    • Well maybe more companies could do what Namco did with Soul Calibur II. You basically get the same game, but each console got its own character.

      Gamecube: Link
      XBOX: Spawn
      PS2: Heihachi

      That way, the game sells well in all three markets, and each console owner can brag to the other about the exclusive content that they got.

      (btw Link is the best ;) )

    • Re:I dont believe in Exclusive Titles (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Gr33nNight ( 679837 ) on Sunday January 25, 2004 @08:03PM (#8083776)
      Decrease game sales potential, and increases console sales potential. If you want to play Nintendo created games, you *must* buy a GameCube, and thats Nintendos ace in the hole.
      • Unfortunately, Nintendo doesn't have the same juice in the industry as it used to back in the day. It seems that a large minority (if not majority) respond to "If you want to play Nintendo-created games, you *must* buy a gamecube" with "Well, I guess I don't want to play them *THAT* badly." I just got a gamecube last November (on the first day of the $99 w/Zelda Special deal), and I'm not the only one, judging by the sales surge that the price dropped seemed to line up with. The main game I am looking forwa
    • Exclusivity = I dont buy them unless it's for the one I own...I bought a Xbox and it ticks me off that the Kirby game is Nintendo only.

      Ports cost money. Most of the time, they use completely different hardware archetectures, but then there's the X-box. Most of the games use the same API as a modern PC (DirectX), the console is a modern PC, and MS buys out companies and/or pays them to release exclusive games when a port would have been easy. If you were so concerned about exclusivity, you'd either own
      • Ports are a releatively easy way to spread the risk. The big problem is that often the ports are done at a lowest common denominator level. Exceptions being Splinter Cell and Rainbow 6 Xbox. Ubi seems to put the time into taking advantage of teh Xbox at least.

    • Re:I dont believe in Exclusive Titles (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Snowmit ( 704081 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @02:10AM (#8085910) Homepage
      Exclusivity = I dont buy them unless it's for the one I own.

      I take it from this comment that you somehow think that there are people do do buy games for systems the don't own? Of course you don't buy it if you can't play it.

      The thing is that exclusives sell consoles. When I picked my console for this generation, I picked a Game Cube first because I wanted the exclusives on the Game Cube more than the exclusives on the other two systems. Every great exclusive that Nintendo puts out or that it gets company C to put out means Y more people buy a Game Cube. Then, once they have a Game Cube, they buy Z number of games, each of which gives Nintendo cash.

  • Do you remember Rare's output? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dancingmad ( 128588 ) on Sunday January 25, 2004 @07:54PM (#8083713)
    I read this article on Nintendojo yesterday and while I respect the dojo, they seem to forget Rare's output at the later half its life. They had very few good games after the Nintendo 64's cult hit Goldeneye. None of their games could equal Donkey Kong Country or Goldeneye in terms of brilliance or success. I'd rather have Retro working on making Metroid Prime 2 as good as Prime 1, instead of Prime 2 plus Samus Party 3, Metroid Kart, and Ridley's Hide and Seek or Kraid's Bad Scales Day.
    • ... which is *precisely* why they've added [in amount of releases]. Nobody's claiming that Rare made *good* games during their last years with Nintendo, they just pumped them out at a respectable rate compared to that of, say, Silicon Knights (the only game they've published in the last several years is Eternal Darkness). The trick is to keep them coming that fast, and have them be good, too.
      • Nobody's claiming that Rare made *good* games during their last years with Nintendo, they just pumped them out at a respectable rate compared to that of, say, Silicon Knights (the only game they've published in the last several years is Eternal Darkness). The trick is to keep them coming that fast, and have them be good, too.

        And the point is that unless you severely inflate the size of the company and maintain seperate development studios within the company (ie like Nintendo's several development division
    • Perfect Dark was a great game, among my friends and I it totally replaced Goldeneye for console FPS fun. It just tweaked Goldeneye, really, sure...in the same way that Starcraft just tweaked Warcraft 2.

  • Where does the "DS" fit in? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb&gmail,com> on Sunday January 25, 2004 @08:01PM (#8083751) Homepage
    I have to wonder if Nintendo is too busy supporting the Gameboy Advance (understandably with its monstrous installed base) and the upcoming "DS" system. Nintendo has said that the DS system will be an addition to their line as opposed to a GBA replacement. That means that Nintendo will be supporting [at least] three different consoles. This seems like an odd choice to me given the dearth of interesting Gamecube titles alluded to in this story, and it can only suck even more resources away from the Gamecube and, presumably, its eventual successor.

  • Namco (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ondo ( 187980 ) on Sunday January 25, 2004 @08:02PM (#8083766)
    From the article:

    "Namco is also another third party that Nintendo should try working with more. If Nintendo springs the cash, Namco could possibly give the Cube an exclusive Soul Calibur."

    Or maybe they should do what they did with Sega on F-Zero GX, and get Namco to develop a game for an already established Nintendo brand. Like, for example, Star Fox. And, while there at it, they should announce it at E3. But not this year's E3, because they'll be talking about the DS. Do it at last year's E3. That'll get the fanboys excited.

    Unless they totally forget about it, of course.

    • Re:Namco (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PyroMosh ( 287149 )
      I realize that you couldn't have just Guessed that and that this is sarcasm, but still, I think most people don't know, here's the link [ign.com] to IGN's coverage of E3 last year where they revealed that Namco is developing Star Fox 2.
    • Unless they totally forget about it, of course.
      After seeing the trailer at E3, I think most of us decided forgetting about it is really the best option available. :D
    • Re: article excerpt
      It took Namco 4 years to come out with the sequel to Soul Calibur (and if you ask me, it doesn't look like it gained a whole lot from those four years, but that's another story). At that rate, if they got Namco to make an exclusive Soul Calibur, we wouldn't see it until well into the next generation of consoles anyway, so it wouldn't do a whole lot of good for Nintendo anyway.
  • Open up the platform. Sell programming hardware and tools. I, for one, would line up to purchase such a thing. Then they could even still charge for publishing licenses, but here, small groups of hobbiest programmers could come up with an entire game, and use it to get finacial backing to purchase a publishing license.

    It would have more potential then the Amiga

    • Re:Open the platform (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It would have more potential then the Amiga

      Ouch.

    • No need - it's not the barrier (Score:4, Insightful)

      by grahamwest ( 30174 ) on Sunday January 25, 2004 @11:28PM (#8085145) Homepage
      Hobbyist programmers can make their game or more realistically a game prototype on PC or Mac and demonstrate that to potential publishers. It's not hard to move a game's technology from one platform to another for most cases. Making a sufficiently compelling and graphically appealing game is pretty hard these days no matter what platform you're on. I would say that supporting this platform or that platform is only 10% of the programming effort at most. If your game is good enough you'll get funding and access to hardware. If it's not you won't get the backing anyway.
      • What about if you don't want to publish it through traditional channels?

        I was thinking Nintendo would do well to embrace the homebrew scene (especially with the GBA), sharing official development kits, and cheap hardware available to all. i.e. a Nintendo brand flash-cart with some hardware restriction that only allows it to store/run games made using the homebrew kit.
        If the flash-cart were reasonably cheap, ordinary people could download the little games from a Nintendo community site for a nominal fee ($1
    • Not to be overly cynical here, but can you name one AAA top selling title that started as a hobbyist original IP in the last 5 years?

  • How very odd (Score:5, Informative)

    by Snowspinner ( 627098 ) * <{ude.lfu} {ta} {dnaslihp}> on Sunday January 25, 2004 @09:04PM (#8084246) Homepage
    The article mentions Namco... but Namco is doing an exclusive for Nintendo already - Donkey Konga. And they put out Pac-Man Vs. as well - a small thing, but a very, very good game all the same.

    They also mention how Squaresoft's exclusives are all on the PS2 now... which is odd, what with Crystal Chronicles out in only a few weeks.

    I really wish commentators on Nintendo would bother to at least pretend to have done any research on their articles.
  • Once, Sega had a very successful console, the Genesis. Then, they released two expansions: the SegaCD, and later the 32X; neither was very successful. Sega could not support them properly, so most of their games were released for the Genesis anyway. People who believed these expansions would actually be the "next level" were obviously pissed off.

    When the Saturn - the real "next level" - arrived, people no longer trusted Sega. They were known for not supporting their systems properly. But the problem was...

    • Re:"DS": Nintendo to follow Sega? Trouble ahead! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Sunday January 25, 2004 @11:56PM (#8085282) Journal
      If this "DS" portable is not to replace the GBA, it will ultimately be its rival.

      Given that the DS's specs *seem* (is there any official word on this?) to indicate that backwards compatibility should be possible, it looks like it will replace the GBA.

      In terms of game support though, what if they arranged it so that people kept developing gba games, and some games could be made to work in a gba, but in a DS, it would use the second screen? Nintendo did this with some of the original gameboy games when the gbc came out. The GB games would still be for the GB, but they could also have a 4 color palette programmed in for the GBC to use. (granted, a second display would be somewhat more complex "optional addon" to code for, especially with mismatched processors, so this is quite unlikely to happen.)
      • Actually, the specs tend to indicate that the machine won't be backward compatible with anything - my best bet (and it's just a guess) is that the machine is going to be some kind of "flashable" machine, where a game is stored in it's memeory, thus working like Game and Watch and making good on Nintendo's promise that the machine doesn't replace either machine.
        • There are a couple of reasons why the DS appears as if it would be backwards compatible with the GBA:

          1) Processor. The DS will have a dual-processor configuration, with an ARM 7 and ARM 9 processor. It seems strange that they would have two different processors for this machine. It may indicate that the more powerful ARM 9 will run the CPU, while the ARM 7 will run the graphics. However, why not use two ARM 9 processors in order to buy them in bulk? It's not like either is a custom 'graphics' or 'CPU' chip

    • When the Saturn - the real "next level" - arrived, people no longer trusted Sega. They were known for not supporting their systems properly. But the problem was... they had too many systems to support.

      What? Sega was one of the top companies in terms of arcades at the time (still is big) and the fact that they were porting several games to the Saturn made it extremely popular. The problem with the Saturn was an extremely difficult development platform and the utter failure of some of those ports.

    • Your take on Sega's downfall is as convoluted as it is wrong.

      The Saturn did not succeed, because it lacked games- stemming from their choice of graphics hardware (based on PowerVR) that did not use traditional triangles as its primitive. This made things very annoying for developers.

      Your point that people by this time no longer trusted Sega is simply misguided, as the Dreamcast easily outperformed the Saturn on all fronts.

      The DS is also not an add on, so even bringing up the 32X and Sega CD is moot.

      Per

  • cube lineup (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Quality over quanity. The battlecry of the '64 lives on. i'm a longtime nintendo fan and i personally am not concerned. i would rather have a few excelent titles than a bunch of mediocre ones. Not all games for other systems are mediocre, but the few decent ones get lost in the glut of other games (esp. ps2) i would rather have a focused effort on titles than a shotgun effect with the attitude of "let's see what sticks"

    • Re:cube lineup (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BTWR ( 540147 ) <americangibor3@ya[ ].com ['hoo' in gap]> on Sunday January 25, 2004 @10:44PM (#8084871) Homepage Journal
      If this "DS" portable is not to replace the GBA, it will ultimately be its rival

      I wouldn't be surprised it it turns out that the DS's release date is 1 week before the PSP. Maybe Nintendo is willing to cut a little of GBA's market in order to get into a LOT of PSP's market share. Consider this:

      Today:
      GBA = 95% of the portable market
      Others (Swan, NGPC) = 5%

      In a GBA vs. PSP war (after say one year):
      GBA = 80%
      PSP = 18%
      Others = 2%

      But with THREE systems (2 of which are nintendo) then with the $150 people have to spend on a new console, very few will buy both, and at least some will buy a DS over a PSP):
      GBA = 80%
      PSP = 11%
      DS = 7%
      Other = 2%

      So is it possible that DS is perhaps sort of like a "kamakaze machine," in that maybe it isn't meant to do well itself (although that would be nice), but it's real goal is to hurt the PSP, even if it causes its own demise? Hell, if PSP only has 10% of the game market then that's NOTHING! I mean, the Turbo Grafx 16 and Saturn probably had that much at one point!
      And let's not forget, if DS is a sucess, great. If it isn't and the PSP gets a foothold, then there's still the GBA2 coming out in a few years to hurt the PSP, since the DS has been said (over and over) to NOT be a sequel to the GBA.

  • Nintendo's Plan (Score:2, Informative)

    by pwbeninate ( 745253 )
    Nintendo seems to have a strategy to target "entry-level" gamers. With N64 and GameCube they made consoles that are strictly game machines (as opposed to CD/DVD/Media Centers). It's kinda like plug-and-play. I like how they keep it simple, because it keeps the price down. It seems like developers think Nintendo is targeting too small of an audience, which may be true. Nintendo themselves mostly make games for kids, and market toward that audience (Mario, Pokemon, etc.) But now with the addition on Retro St
    • Wtf is it with people saying the mario games are for kids? Mario games are fun, just because they arent full of sex and violence doesnt make thm for kids. I have all 3 consoles, and the GC gets far more play than any of the others, and will for the foreseeable future, at least until Halo 2 is released.

      And for the record GC does have one other fantastic RPG, Eternal Darkness, which is one of the best games ive played in a long while. Theres also Zelda, which i never really liked on the snes, so havent playe

      • Re:Nintendo's Plan (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Troed ( 102527 )
        I have all 3 consoles, and the GC gets far more play than any of the others

        Seconded, same here. The Xbox is used strictly for emulation and movie-watching, and the PS2 was bought for one game only - Silent Hill 3 ...

  • Wha...? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by silentbobdp ( 157345 ) on Sunday January 25, 2004 @10:43PM (#8084857) Homepage
    What on earth is going wrong here? Why does every Nintendo story bring thousands of impending doom messages? The facts are these: Gamecube is whomping on XBox in Japan, just overtook them over here, and Nintendo - the company - has lots and lots and lots of __cash__ the likes of which Sega et al have never even laid eyes on. As a platform company, they aren't going anywhere.
    • Beating the Xbox is hardly brag worthy, especially since MS has more money for surviving the long haul. Seriously, people need to drop arguments like that and the whole Apple analogy. Get some serious material already :|. Considering the beatdown Sony is putting on both Nintendo and MS, beating one another doesn't mean anything.

      Face it, Nintendo keeps making really bad decisions. Even hardcore fans should be able to see that (I have). Nintendo needs to stop with gimmicks, get serious with the fact th
  • How would you like to see Microsoft partnering to release more Microsoft-only software?

    I vote for all the cross-platform goodness we can get.

  • Lack of exclusives? (Score:5, Informative)

    by GaimeGuy ( 679917 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @12:31AM (#8085432) Journal
    List of some exclusives for the Cube (some released already, some aren't released, yet.) 1080 Avalanche
    Animal Crossing
    Baten Kaitos
    Beach Spikers
    Billy Hatcher & The Giant Egg
    Cubivore
    Custom Robo
    Donkey Konga
    Doshin the Giant
    Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem
    F-Zero GX
    Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles
    Geist
    Giftpia
    Gotcha Force
    Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life
    Ikaruga (Not on the other two competing consoles)
    Kaijuu no Shima: Amazing Island, a Sega Monster training game that is in the works, is a GC exclusive
    Killer 7
    Kirby Air Ride
    The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition.
    The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Plus
    The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time/Master Quest
    The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
    Lost Kingdoms
    Lost Kingdoms II
    Luigi's Mansion
    Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour
    Mario Kart: Double Dash!!
    Mario Party 4
    Mario Party 5
    Mario Tennis is coming up.
    Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes
    Metroid Prime
    Nintendo Puzzle Collection
    P.N. 03
    Pac Man Vs.
    PSO Episode III
    Pikmin
    Pikmin II
    Pokemon Colosseum
    Resident Evil
    Resident Evil 0
    Resident Evil 4
    You can throw in RE 2, 3, and Code Veronica, if you want, too.
    Skies of Arcadia Legends (not on Ps2 or X-box, the other two competing consoles)
    Sonic Adventure 2: Battle (not on Ps2 or X-box)
    Sonic Adventure DX Director's Cut (Again, not on Ps2 or X-box)
    Sonic Mega Collection
    Star Fox (from Namco)
    Star Fox Adventures
    Star Wars Rogue Leader: Rogue Squadron II.
    Star Wars Rogue Squadron III: Rebel Strike.
    Super Mario Sunshine
    Super Monkey Ball
    Super Monkey Ball 2
    Super Smash Bros. Melee
    Tales of Symphonia
    Viewtiful Joe
    Wario Ware for GC
    Wario World
    Wave Race: Blue Storm
    These are just the more well-known exclusives. There's more than the ones I listed.
    Yeah, I'd say that the GameCube has very few exclusive games. *rolls eyes*
    • I think he meant lack of exclusives due to be release soon, in fact, im pretty sure he said it No need to get all hypersensitive and list EVERY game
    • The article is about exclusive games FROM NINTENDO. Roughly two thirds of your list is published by third parties.

      And I am pretty sure the argument was for quality exclusives, too. (Your list has a lot of B-quality and niche titles.) And I can't believe you are counting games that were released on other domestic console systems not four years ago. I personally wouldn't count compilations of games I already have owned for 5+ years, either.
      • The article is about exclusive games FROM NINTENDO.

        No, it's not. It specifically mentions F-Zero GX from Sega and says they should try and get more exclusive games from them and Namco.
      • The article is about exclusive games FROM NINTENDO.

        Saying a game is exclusive FROM NINTENDO is kinda redundant. I mean, is Nintendo really going to make the next Kirby game multiplatform? Obviously, if it's from Nintendo, it's exclusive.

        Second of all, I think first party games is the least of Nintendo's problems. Ask anyone who knows anything about games, and they could probaly list a half-dozen games first party Nintendo games. Now ask the same person about first-party Sony games. I know a bit abo
      • Actually, out of the 64 games I listed, 36 are published by Nintendo, and 29 are published by 3rd parties (I'm including Cubivore under both: It was made and published by Nintendo in Japan, but Atlus brought it to the U.S.) And A lot of the titles I listed are highly acclaimed, even if 5 or 10 of them are niche titles. I included Resident Evil,because it was ONLY remade for the GC. You can't find the remake on the X-box or Ps2. Nor can you find Skies of Arcadia, Sonic Adventure, Sonic Adv
      • The article is about exclusive games FROM NINTENDO. Roughly two thirds of your list is published by third parties.

        And? Viewtiful Joe nearly made me buy a GameCube. Furthermore, to complain that Pikmin 2 and Metroid Prime 2, say, aren't comming out within the next three months is kind of silly. I mean when's FFXII comming out on the PS2? Clearly Squaresoft isn't supporting them well-enough (to say nothing of Sony's internal development studios which are off the radar, and the fact that FFCC is coming o

    • Re:Lack of exclusives? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bjb ( 3050 )
      Wasn't Resident Evil ported to (at least) the PlayStation? I never owned a PSone or PS2, but I could have sworn that I saw R.E. on a PSone a few years back.
      • Nope. RE was never ported to playstation. It was in fact released as a PS exclusive. It was (much much later) ported to the GC (which has a couple of RE exclusives itself).
      • You are correct when you say that Resident Evil is on the playstation. However, the remake isn't, and it isn't on the Ps2 or X-box, now is it?
        • You can play the original Playstation version on the PS2, so a remake would be a little redundant, wouldn't it?
          • It actually feels like a whole new game. The things that remain the same are the mansion layout and the overall plot. Everything else is redone, revamped, and improved upon overall (save the clunky controls, of course) It just has a whole new feel to it. That's why I included it: It isn't simply the same game with better graphics.

  • Let me think... (Score:4, Informative)

    by scot4875 ( 542869 ) on Monday January 26, 2004 @01:05AM (#8085593) Homepage
    Let me think back over this last fall/summer...

    Mario Golf
    P.N. 03 (better than people gave it credit for)
    F-Zero
    Viewtiful Joe
    Rogue Squadron 3
    Kirby's Air Ride
    Mario Party 5
    Mario Kart

    And that's just off the top of my head. Every one of these games (except maybe PN03, depending on your taste) is worth owning. That's 8 exclusives, 5 of which I'd classify as AAA titles.

    On top of those are all the multi-platform games (damn, Prince of Persia was good. So was Beyond Good & Evil).

    Honestly, I haven't followed the release schedules of the PS2 or XBox very closely, since I have more than enough games to keep me very well occupied on my 'Cube and PC, so what am I supposedly missing? Grabbed by the Ghoulies? Final Fantasy: Teen-pop Edition?

    --Jeremy
    • I wouldn't know for the PS2, but you've missed out on Project Gotham 2, Crimson Skies, Top Spin Tennis, Rainbow Six 3, and who knows what else because I've been way too busy playing those (and that's only what came out last November, even). The replay value on those is astronomical thanks to perfectly balanced with tons of options online gameplay. Of your list, the only games that have come anywhere close to the addictiveness of the above games (for me, at least) are F-Zero and Viewtiful Joe.

      Also, if y
  • Four Words, moron:

    Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles [ign.com]

    lack of exclusive title my ass. Not only that, but they'll sell a crapload of GBAs and link-cables for it too.
  • Funny - last I looked the selection of Gamecube titles was VERY FAT (as in hundreds of titles) to say the least, especially with all the titles coming out this year.
  • I would rather have fewer, better games than more games of average quality.
  • I am not the biggest RPG fan, but I do occasionally enjoy them. The reason I say Nintendo needs to lead focus towards RPGs is their controller. The Gamecube controller just seems like it was made with RPGs in mind. The layout of the X and Y buttons are occasionally annoying in action titles, but when it's for bringing up menus it just seems natural.

    The GameCube control is NOT meant for fighting games (at least not far advanced ones). I couldn't imagine playing a Street Fighter 2 port on a GameCube cont
    • The GameCube control is NOT meant for fighting games (at least not far advanced ones)

      Maybe it's just me, but I LOVE the GC controller, even for fighting games. Soul Caliber 2 plays like a dream with it (okay...maybe that's not what you meant by far advanced ones). I like how the GC controller is not horribly symmetric, if you know what I mean...not rows of buttons placed neatly one above the other. I always have had problem with consoles putting more than 2 buttons in a single row (my thumb just isn't

      • Unfortunately now that I have kids most of my fighting game days are behind me. For fighting games I still like the three in a row setup, of course I pretty much stopped playing fighting games with the SNES. I've got a couple on the N64, it's layout wasn't to bad for those kinds of games. The only 3D fighter I ever really played extensively was Mace the Dark Age on the 64, and that was just barely 3D based on the way it played.

        Nope, I'm still stuck on Capcam 2D fighters in my mind for the most part. I'
      • The big problem with the GC controller for fighting games is the location of the control pad.

        The typical 2-D fighter does not want big swing from left to right, it just slows down response time. And the control pad is too low to be comfortable.

        Mortal combat wouldn't even support the control stick, so as soon as I got sore from the pad I was done. But that was just crappy on their part.

        A move like towards, down, diagonal towards is a real bitch on a stick though.

        Also, this is a game issue, but most gam
    • There is no convincing me the 'Cube controller is anything short of a miracle. They may or may not have made other mistakes, but this is something the got RIGHT! First of all, Sony's controller has the analog stick in the wrong place. It was an ad-on for PS1 and never migrated to the right place on PS2. I feel like a contortionist just trying to go forward. And as for X-box... sure the controller is ok... EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT IT'S ONLY SLIGHTLY SMALLER THAN THE STATE OF RHOADE ISLAND! These other system
    • I can't agree more about the Gamecube controller. It's fine for RPG type games, but any sort of action game has my hands crying for relief. It's the sole deciding factor for me now as to what system I buy a game for if it's available for multiple.

      I bought SC2 for the GC, and I thought it was ok. Then I played it on both the PS2 and the XBox and I couldn't go back to playing on the GC, the controller was just unusable.

      From now on I'll only buy a Gamecube game if it's a GC exclusive, If it's availabl
  • Hey, if Nintendo or anyone else wants to fund me and a small team for 2-3 years, I'd be more than happy to produce an exclusive GameCube title.
  • Use some of that cash that's just lying around and buy some developers. IMO they should go after Sega, they are like-minded companies, and it would help fill a BIG gap in the Cube's lineup (sports). Some kind of online strategy would be nice too, but we all know that's not gonna happen.
  • The reason why Nintendo "lost" Square back in the N64 days is because they made the dumb decision to market another cartridge-based console when that way meant higher production costs per game, ergo lower profits per game sold at the same price, and greatly limited the storage capacity available for games. That and their attempt to strong arm Square into exclusivity agreements. For that matter, Sony wouldn't BE in the business if Nintendo hadn't thought they could bully around Sony on their own terms over

Slashdot Top Deals

Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse

Close