Powderkeg said:
Is this an example of talking in circles when you've lost the point?
I said that the Revolution appears to be more of the same as far as games go. You asked how I could say that. My response was that they are relying on the same two franchises that they've released on every console they've ever made.
And now you ask me why they would give up those franchises? The answer is obvious. Not doing so is "more of the same."
I said you can't tell yet,
because Nintendo hasn't revealed their product yet. Showing a case design, dropping a few names, a few features and chip partners is one thing, announcing your product line-up, your product (price, specs, final design,...) business partners (third parties), marketing/business strategy,... is another thing.
So you can't tell if it 'appears to be more of the same', because they haven't announced anything yet. Last thing I heard Miyamoto was working on two new IP's, and who knows how the more traditional Nintendo franchises will turn out on Revolution, so stop your 'all the same' talk untill after E3 2006, because we can't tell yet.
Powderkeg said:
EA pledged minimal support.
Square-Enix announced a Crystal Chronicals sequel (Yay?) but nothing more than that so far.
Konami and Bandai-Namco have announced support though. In Konami's case, they promised an exclusive of some type for every system next-gen.
But with less than a year before launch (Assuming they live up to their promise of launching in the same time frame of the PS3) they've only got four 3rd party developers willing to publically say they will give any support at all, and one of those four is only giving minimal support.
You are wrong. EA said their 'only' their biggest titles would appear on Revolution, I wouldn't call that minimal support. Their sports line-up is still represented by the way.
And again, you can't seem to seperate official, public
announcements of business partners, from public
statements. Nintendo
hasn't started to unroll their media train yet. Understand that this is the reason for the fact that no third party company has officially announced platform support. They're keeping everything for E3 2006.
Do you really think Nintendo would have only four partners?
Powderkeg said:
So, you are saying they won't launch on time, and the Revolution will be delayed?
Or are you saying they won't announce partners and get the media started until 1-2 months after they've already launched the system in Japan?
What's on time? Why they haven't announced a release date yet!
All we know it was going to be launched in 2006, close to the PlayStation 3 launch. Iwata recently stated the platform might be launched last, but that's ALL we know, unless you work at Nintendo, which is most doubtful...
Again, they are keeping everything for E3 2006, like it or not. So yes, it would seem very likely Nintendo is launching
after E3 2006...
Powderkeg said:
Final kits with no Alpha's puts developers at the same point as they would be if they just got alpha's at the same time instead. It still leaves them with nearly a year less time to have their games ready than Sony developers, and almost 2 years less time than 360 developers have had.
Mmm I didn't know Sony or Microsoft had any final kits out, I must be living in the future..
Concept and pre-production doesn't need any kits and I am sure Nintendo has given directions to developers concerning the specifications they should work to and how the controller will function and such. Developers could also start development with GameCube SDK's, as it will be very similar to those of Revolution, in combination with high-end ATI cards.
If Nintendo starts sending out kits in September/October, developers will have about a year. (suggesting Nintendo launches during Summer/Fall 2006, which is likely)
Rogue Squadron 2 was made in about 6 - 7 months.
Powderkeg said:
Effectively dumped. They won't make a game for the Revolution unless they know beyond any doubt that the game will sell well on the Revolution. Something like the Harry Potter games would be almost certain, while Battlefield, Need for Speed, and likely Madden will almost certainly not appear on the Revolution.
And it's never a good thing to not get the 3 best selling games from the worlds largest game publisher.
Not dumped, EA still commited themselves to release their bigger titles on Revolution, including their sports range. This is not being dumped, neither is it minimal support. It's just the games that appeal more to Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 audiences that are not being released. Yes, Battlefield is one. However, Madden will still appear on Revolution, and Need of Speed could appear as well when you look at all the Need of Speed releases on GameCube (NFS Most Wanted is listed under the GameCube section at EA's website), Nintendo DS and GameBoy Advance. Was it any different on GameCube, which also didn't see titles such as Battlefield and Burnout 3? They did get a sizeable amount of support, and still maintain a good relationship with Nintendo (EA used Nintendo franchises in Fight Night, NBA Street V3).
Powderkeg said:
I use the word "exclusive" when that word accurately describes the title in question. Exclusive means it only appears on one system, and in only 1 form. Just because a couple of levels were added or changed when it was ported to a different system does not mean the game is still exclusive.
I wouldn't call Splinter Cell an Xbox exclusive just because content was changed when it was ported to the PS2 and GCN. Likewise, I wouldn't call Sonic Mega Collection a GCN exclusive just because the PS2 and Xbox got the slightly altered "Plus" version.
And a Dreamcast game ported to the GCN is a port. Ports are not exclusive.
Super Monkey Ball 1 & 2 were available exclusively for GameCube for a two years or so.
Sonic Mega Collection was also available exclusively for GameCube for a year or so.
These are the only Sega titles on GameCube that were exclusive initially, and were later on ported to other platforms, so your previous statement how "all Sega GameCube exclusive titles were converted to multiplatform games", is plain wrong.
Also, Dreamcast was dead in 2001, and only three titles were ported to GameCube as (DX, Battle and Legends), all of them altered in a relatively considerable degree. Yeah they're ports, but can you get them on PlayStation 2 or Xbox? Most Sega GameCube exclusives were actually built specifically for GameCube.
Powderkeg said:
When? In 2010?
They aren't exactly a major development house with lots of different teams. They've got 3 games to deliver to MS for the 360, and they won't be making games for other consoles until those 3 games are delivered.
Actually Silicon Knights is working on multiple projects for different publishers.
One deal is to make three Too Human titles for Microsoft, another deal is to make a not yet announced project for Sega. Too Human is a Xbox 360 exclusive, but the project for Sega might as well be for Revolution. And what if they announce another publishing deal for another title?
Or do you really think a developer can only work on one project at a time?
Powderkeg said:
The talent left? And it's now at Zoonami? And Funkydilla must be an example of that awesome talent, right?
Like I said, so far, Rare has been a flop, but so far, everything theyve done has been started under the idea that it would be a Nintendo-bound game. Let's wait and see what they have to offer on the 360 before we start saying they aren't any good anymore, shall we?
Zoonami is working on four projects in total, Funkydilla being one of them. Also, they worked on Goldeneye 007 for Nintendo 64 if you need an example of their talent. Your point being?
After Conker's Bad Fur Day hit N64 in 2001, what did Rare 'do' if I may ask? A mediocre Starfox Adventures (with Nintendo partially to blame), Grabbed By The Ghoulies and a conversion that took them way too long for what it's worth. Kameo and Perfect Dark Zero might have started as GameCube titles, but they weren't far into development, so that's not really an argument. If only most of their talent hadn't left...
And, I am just judging Rare on what they did since Conker hit N64, and nothing is holding me back to say they really aren't good anymore. Just like you, I am eagerly waiting for them to prove me wrong in the future as I've enjoyed previous titles like Banjo-Kazooie and Perfect Dark... but delivering just three console titles during one entire generation span, with two of them being altered N64 games, is something not worth a $375 million investment IMO..
Powderkeg said:
Saying and doing are two entirely different things. After all, "any of the conventional styles" would include dual analog clickable thumbsticks, and no fewer than 6 buttons, but the talk so far has been suggesting that they won't have those controls. (If they did, then there wouldn't be anything special about their controller, would there?)
We'll see how Nintendo's Revolution unfolds, we'll have to wait another 8 months...
Powderkeg said:
Rare has been gone since 2003, almost 2 years after the GCN launched.
Silicon Knights is under contract to deliver 3 games to MS, and they currently only have 1 development team that I am aware of.
And yes, Factor 5 is now gone. (But don't call them 2nd party. That's a term Nintendo made up to describe developers that they owned part interest in) Factor 5 is still a LucasArts developer, which makes them 3rd party.
Rare has been gone since 2002. Silicon Knights, as stated above, is working on multiple projects. Factor 5 was a second party developer, this is a term commonly used for a developer that develops exclusively for one platform/company, while not being owned by it.
Powderkeg said:
Good relations don't sell games, and Nintendo owners tend to not buy EA games. Like I said before, you may get your Harry Potter games, but don't count on any of the major EA games.
As stated above, you are wrong about your minimal support, Revolution will still get EA's biggest titles.
Powderkeg said:
50% of the once exclusives you listed have been changed to multiplatform. That should tell you something.
I listed some third party titles that sold well on GameCube, and _not_ exlusives, read what I write.
Powderkeg said:
You listed 5 game series from 4 publishers that sold well on the Gamecube. How many 3rd party games bombed on the GCN? How many multiplatform games sold well on the PS2 or Xbox, but sold poorly on the GCN?
Look at the games you listed. Do you see a trend in style? Remove Soul Calibur 2, and it should be even more obvious? What about the hundreds of developers who make thousands of games that don't fit into the "Colorful, kid-friendly, Japanese" style?
I listed 5 game series, I could as wel have listed other games, like Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, Resident Evil and Baten Kaitos. Also, Nintendo makes, for a large part, 'colorful, kid-friendly, Japanese style' games (although I'd rather say games for all ages with at most times a lot of creativity and soul). If you don't like that kind of games, don't play them.
Plus, as if Xbox or PlayStation 2 games haven't 'bombed', one game out of three barely breaks-even... Yes there are less third party games on GameCube, but way more first party Nintendo games in comparison to SCEI and Microsoft. I don't think GameCube has more 'bombed' games than other platforms.
You are exaggerating, and I doubt I am the only one who thinks that way.
Powderkeg said:
Who cares who the game was farmed out to? It's still the same classic Nintendo styled games which appeal to Nintendo fans, but doesn't do a thing to increase sales to the casual gamer.
Who cares? Err... You did?
You were complaining about third parties, so I gave you some third parties that worked on Nintendo franchises. All these titles are a testament to the good relationship Nintendo has with it's current third party partners.
Give it up already, I proved you wrong for three times in a row, is it really that hard to accept some things and adjust your opinion?
