Here here. Testify NZE. If you want a deep fighting game, go pick up VF. If you want a quick game that can be deep, pick up a Smash Bros. game. I've had the first game since the day it came out and I still play it on a semi-regular basis.
Printable View
Here here. Testify NZE. If you want a deep fighting game, go pick up VF. If you want a quick game that can be deep, pick up a Smash Bros. game. I've had the first game since the day it came out and I still play it on a semi-regular basis.
that's such a horrible comparison (although better then your Monkey Ball/Ridge Racer one). i mean, how can you compare a free roaming 3D shooter to an on rail shooter? although i do agree that Rez is a much better game.Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
Star Wars: Rougue Squadron : A nice 3D shooter. The PS2 has the best version of Rez. Next.
atleast compare Ace Combat 4 to Rogue Leader. that's also better than Rogue Leader.
:lol:Quote:
Originally posted by 88mph
It is a piece of shit.
A huge stinking piece of shit.
It is the worst fighting game I have ever played.
It gets owned by fucking Way of the Warrior.
it is a serious question of taste there, as i still play ssbm long after even alpha 3 and soul calibut have collected dust. I will be fully honest, right now there are abotu 8 games that i car about for the ps2, period,a dn few of them sold well. someone starts a nintnedo's in trouble thread every month or so, and thats just the way it goes, but i could care less, if anything i have started regretting getting an x-box, as the only good games for it have already been ported, or werent as good as they were hyped, and yes, im speaking directly about the sega games. i enjoyed jet set, got bored with gun valk, and played the first level of panzer and havent been bothered to pick it up again since. for me, the gc has been far better than i even hoped after the 64, so im a happy camper.
one of them is 88, any other questions?:DQuote:
Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
Two people claim Smash Bros. as the worst fighting game ever?
.
What really matters is the market share. Retailers aren't going to stock stuff that isn't selling fast because they would rather dedicate the space to stuff that is selling.
It's not about how great the games are but whether the masses are attracted to the system enough. In the old days veteren gamers made up most of the game industry but today we don't account for the majority anymore.
It's about survival and nintendo being slow to change and adapt to demands, not about whether thier games are great or not.
The PA strip is so true. Nintendo are relying too much on only themselves to keep a whole system afloat (like the n64) and forgetting about the bigger picture. This is why their slice of the market share is being eaten up. (especially by newbie gamers of the playstation 1 era who don't really have a fondness or knowledge of nintendo and therefore have no real loyalty to the company. Look at it from thier perspective)
But any time someone mentions this you are immediately labelled a "nintendo basher", or "anti-nintendo". If anything we love nintendo and want them to do well which is why we think it's important to look at the issue realistically instead of ignoring the rest of the industry and what the competiors are doing. If somebody steps on your turf you should fight to gain it back, right?
So often the common attitude is:"All that matters is I love nintendo and will continue to buy and support x game and look forward to x title in the future. Who fucking cares about sales as long as I am happy and we know thier games are great?"
But what if there's no tommorow and they lose control over the market that it becomes hard to get it back as a result of demand being ignored? While joe casualgamer is waiting 4 months for his delayed game he may well blow his cash on another game on a rival system because of being too gamestarved to wait. The frequent releases on the rival system create an impulse buy and if he doesn't buy this other game he will feel he's missing out. That's pretty much what happened with the n64. I waited ages for some top games, beat them after playing them to death and had to wait ages again for the next game, pouring a majority of my money into ps1 games over n64 ones because there were barely any third parties and a lack of support for certain favourite genres on n64. (nintendo do not specialise in all genres and once in a while I like to play something not from them. Solution? change thier ways a little, be more flexible, respect the struggling third parties)
Having said all that, to thier credit they've done a great job with regard to thier relationship with capcom, konami and namco and they've filled in the genre gap that the n64 had a problem with, (read rpgs, fighters, arcade ports) but there is still more work to do as a result of there being 3 competitors now instead of 2. It's not enough that they just fix thier old mistakes but rather they try to improve enough upon existing examples to stay level with the other systems or at least keep thier heads above the water.
I hate to say it, but the only way Nintendo *may* come out on top in the next generation is to make up a bunch of shit about their console that will never pan out to be true, buy up as many development houses as they can so they're not making games for competing consoles, not make the console look like a schoolgirl's lunchbox, make a controller with a button configuration that all existing genres can actually work well on, drop licensing fees altogether, and go with a standard medium like full size dvds.
As far as the GameCube's present situation is concerned, that article mentioned something about 'a real bonafide success' in regards to Nintendo not having one in the last two generations (this one included). I hate to break it to them, but the N64 was a 'real bonafide success' and its situation was worse than GameCube's, probably by a pretty wide margin.
Also, as someone mentioned, Nintendo doesn't leak money the way Microsoft does with the Xbox. And thank god for Nintendo, because obviously the software is not flying off shelves. But yet again, as someone mentioned, it's not as though the software isn't there. There are plenty of third party titles out there, many of them mature, and they don't sell. Of course, many of them are sub-par as well... But still, Nintendo is debt free, sitting on 6+ billion dollars, still well in the black even with their earning statement 38% below estimated, and they have a virtual monopoly on the handheld market for the time being and the near forseeable future. In other words, they aren't in trouble.
And let's not forget the fact that that earning statement was for the last fiscal year. Earnings on GBASP, Zelda and Pokemon (in the US) were not included. Nintendo has since stated that GameCube sales increased 20% with the release of Zelda. Add on top of that the forthcoming US release of the GBPlayer, and that'll be another boost, I'm fairly sure. Plus, 2003 will see the release of the Capcom 5 (minus 1 I think), F-Zero, Crystal Chronicles, the Mario sports games and other exclusive titles that at the very least will sustain Nintendo this year. Trickling in? Maybe. Hell, probably... But Nintendo won't be going the Sega route anytime soon because of it.
So is the outlook any rosier for 2003? Maybe, maybe not... depends on what you like. If we're talking sales, probably, but not by leaps and bounds. Is that a bad thing, like the article suggests. No. They'll still be well in business and trudging along. Do they need to change their stategy to try to envelope a bigger market share? No, they don't need to. But as a business, they should anyway, and that means getting on the ball content-wise and marketing the hell out of it, and getting more high-profile exclusives from third party developers.
For the record, my GC gets way more play than my PS2, and I still haven't been compelled to own an Xbox yet, the Wavebird is my favorite controller, and Nintendo's franchises do it for me. I'm not worried about this generation, but if Nintendo doesn't do some or all of those suggestions in the first paragraph in the next generation, then they'll lose even more market share, and there's only so much of the pie to go around.
--Scourge .
2k3 = GC's year.
Hopefully with a larger cube base (they are selling cheap) this will influence take up of thier major titles (increasing software sales - the thing that really counts) and big antipation and hype by more fans and converts for future games on the system which will have the flow on effect (word of mouth) of bringing some ps2 gamers towards the cube. I'm glad they will be working on the second prime right after the first game for example as this shows a change in nintendos traditional attitude. ("when original game is done, let's break and ignore making sequels for 4 years" :D )
Oh and the argument about whether MS bleeds because it sells box at a loss is negated by the fact that MS make huge yearly profits from their OS sales and other software that covers the tiny costs to get the xboxs in homes and in building thier userbase. So either way, nintendo still lose thier market share without much penalty to the competition. (unless they fight back)
Again it comes down to whether retailers will want to stock GCs on shelves in favour of whatever is currently selling better. In the past nintendo could bully them and stuff but retailers have increased power these days.
And where is the TurboGrafx 128? Oh wait...Quote:
Originally posted by OmegaFlareX
Yes, yes, another let's-pick-on-the-guy-in-last-place anti-Nintendo article. I'm sure the same thing was happening to the TurboGrafx 16 in 1992.
I heard this about 2001. And 2002.Quote:
Originally posted by GameHED
2k3 = GC's year.
they would never do that. PS2 game sales probably account for %50 of EA's incoming revinue. i'd say at least 750 million. maybe more.Quote:
Originally posted by MVS
EA, sure, they can swing a vote, but it would take more than 500 Million to get them alone to put everything on the GC exclusive for 3 years.
shit, people would pay to see that. make a PPV out of it.Quote:
Originally posted by 88mph
I'd rather staple my cock to my asshole.
2k3 = PS2's year... again.
2k4 = Halo 2 and Fable come out finally, but it'll probably still end up being PS2's year.
2k5 = PS3's year.