Red Steel/First Revo shots (Nintendo bashing here)

[Praxis]

I may not have agreed with anything else he posted in this topic, but I would actually have to agree with Vympel on this issue. Just because you shoot stuff does not make the game a shooter. By that logic all the Zelda games, Super Mario Bros 1 and 3, Super Mario World 1 and 2, Chrono Trigger, and a bunch of other non-shooter games would also have to be considered shooters. Sure you shoot stuff in Metroid Prime, but that is not ultimately the focus of the game like it is in shooters but merely a small part of the overall game.

Wait, why would you not consider Metroid Prime a FPS?

That's the ONLY thing I agree with Vympel on.

Metroid Prime is classified on Nintendo's page as a First Person Adventure.

It's really designed as an Adventure/Exploration game, the combat simply happens to be shooting (lock on, at that, you don't aim like in most FPS).

I agree with Davis on everything else.

[Praxis]

Oh, and selling approximately the same as the X-box is "failure" now, I guess.

Based on what metric? I'm sorry, all I need to do is go to any games store to see the Gamecube was a failure compared to PS2 and X-Box. The selection shelves speak for themselves. The fact that it failed in the US speaks for itself.

Go to Japan and ask them if they think the GameCube was a failure.

Get out of your America-only mindset. The GameCube failed HERE. Not worldwide. Failing in one region does NOT equate to failing worldwide.

I have to wonder about precision and speed in multiplayer games, but for a more deliberate single-player game like Metroid Prime

This is the most incredible thing I've ever seen.

He asks: "Find me someone who has used it and found it uncomfortable" and you find a quote from someone who said it was great in single player and WONDERS how it will be in multiplayer.

Stop being retarded. The reviewer did not find it uncomfortable.

Bullcrap. Wow, you can name a handful of games, you think this demonstrates that the Gamecube wasn't a failure? Get real. All I need to do is look at how many games I bought for PS2 compared to how many I bought for Gamecube, walk into a store and look at the pathetically small Gamecube section filled with lame-ass games, or go on any gaming comic website and watch them mock the Gamecube.

Sigh.
Since Sony has a 70% marketshare, we can basicly consider EVERYONE else a failure. At least Nintendo made a higher profit. Microsoft came out with a $4 billion loss.

Microsoft failed in Japan and a few other countries. Nintendo failed in the United States and a few other countries.

Get over it. Go to Japan and see how they mock the XBox.

I don't live in Japan. Do you? As for profitabe over XBox, sorry, go look at the selection of games for XBox compared to Gamecube at your local store. Compare. That's how you build something on your brand. And I hate the XBox, for god's sake.

Vympel; you're an idiot. Get out of your U.S. only mentality. We're NOT ARGUING over whether or not the GameCube failed in the United States, we're talking about whether it failed OVERALL. Dismissing the fact that it was clearly #2 in foreign countries because you "don't live there" is just plain stupid.

As for profitable; wait, having more games makes it more profitable? Don't be an idiot. Microsoft took four billion in losses over the XBox.

[Praxis]

Using sarcasm to avoid a concession, are we?

No, just recalling a mindless bit of apologetics.

So basicly, Vympel's right, everyone single reviewer who has actually used it is wrong, and we should all hail Vympel.

What astounding logic!

You're an idiot, some of those "reviewers" (who are reviewing a prototype using mostly bodgy games slapped up in seconds) expressed the same concerns I have!

Wow. That's like asking how many people have said Star Trek would beat Star Wars. I've heard it so many times I stopped remembering people who do.

I've heard dozens of journalists, even some company representatives (Phil Harrison of Sony for example), dismissing it as a gimmick and proclaiming that it's doomed to fail and the PSP will win. Hundreds of message boards as well.

And their reasoning for saying so applies to this argument ... how?

Okay, now you're just running around with a "look at me, I'm ignorant!" sign on your head.

GameCube was only a failure in the U.S.- it has a worldwide marketshare of 14%, compared to XBox at 16%.

Oh, ok, it only failed in the US. Are you KIDDING? Dude, I could tell it failed in Australia just by walking into a games store.

However, the GameCube has sold at a PROFIT since launch. It only sold at a loss for one quarter (when the GameCube's price first dropped to $99) and currently is still selling at a profit.

Yeah I suppose when you're spending zero dollars on it and have virtually no games for it any times someone buys it you make a profit

Nintendo makes money off every GameCube sold, plus games.
Sony loses money from every PS2 sold, but makes it back on games.

And this doesn't tell you something?

Microsoft loses tons of money on every XBox sold, and doesn't make it back

When you throw in the DS and Nintendo's majority marketshare in the handheld world, Nintendo is one of if not the most profitable video game companies in the world. Nintendo's gaming division actually posted a higher profit (but lower revenue- Sony had the most revenue, but also more losses, and thus Nintendo had more profits) than Sony, Microsoft, or EA.

So what? The Gamecube's still a failure. To argue otherwise (dismissing the entire US market in the process) is sheer delusion.

Yet, every single one of those 'reviewers' came out with an overwhelmingly positive impression and several stated that once they realized they could rest their arms on their lap it was perfectly comfortable.

Please, I'd love to see you find ONE reviewer who didn't like the controller and actually played it.

Stop being an idiot until you find someone who has actually used it and said the same things you did.

Nintendo makes money off every GameCube sold, plus games.
Sony loses money from every PS2 sold, but makes it back on games.

And this doesn't tell you something?

Since Nintendo's profits are higher than Sony's game division's profits for 2004 and 2005...I don't think it's telling me the same thing it's telling you

Considering that Microsoft BARELY beat out Nintendo worldwide in marketshare but Nintendo beat out Sony in profit, Nintendo did fine.

2% less than the XBox is NOT a failure. Stop insisting that failing in individual regions makes it a worldwide failure. The XBox has a LESS THAN 1% MARKETSHARE in Japan. I'm not exaggurating. Microsoft took four billion dollars in losses on it. The XBox is the failure here by your logic.

[Qwerty 42]

I may not have agreed with anything else he posted in this topic, but I would actually have to agree with Vympel on this issue. Just because you shoot stuff does not make the game a shooter. By that logic all the Zelda games, Super Mario Bros 1 and 3, Super Mario World 1 and 2, Chrono Trigger, and a bunch of other non-shooter games would also have to be considered shooters. Sure you shoot stuff in Metroid Prime, but that is not ultimately the focus of the game like it is in shooters but merely a small part of the overall game.

Wait, why would you not consider Metroid Prime a FPS?

That's the ONLY thing I agree with Vympel on.

Metroid Prime is classified on Nintendo's page as a First Person Adventure.

It's really designed as an Adventure/Exploration game, the combat simply happens to be shooting (lock on, at that, you don't aim like in most FPS).

I agree with Davis on everything else.

I hate to jump on the bandwagon here, but just because a game is depicted in a first-person viewpoint and you shoot things, it is not necessarily a first-person shooter game, not much unlike how any game where you play a role is not an RPG. Metroid Prime has much more in common with, say, Zelda than a shooter like Halo. Metroid Prime Hunters, however, definitely crosses the line into shooter.

[Vympel]

Go to Japan and ask them if they think the GameCube was a failure.

Fuck Japan. It's irrelevant. As far as gaming is concerned its a complete other world.

Get out of your America-only mindset. The GameCube failed HERE. Not worldwide. Failing in one region does NOT equate to failing worldwide.

And Australia. But by all means, if you can show it was a smashing success in Europe?

This is the most incredible thing I've ever seen.

He asks: "Find me someone who has used it and found it uncomfortable" and you find a quote from someone who said it was great in single player and WONDERS how it will be in multiplayer.

Stop being retarded. The reviewer did not find it uncomfortable.

Now you're being fucking dishonest. The purpose of that quote was not to indicate or prove discomfort.

Sigh.
Since Sony has a 70% marketshare, we can basicly consider EVERYONE else a failure. At least Nintendo made a higher profit. Microsoft came out with a $4 billion loss.

Microsoft failed in Japan and a few other countries. Nintendo failed in the United States and a few other countries.

Get over it. Go to Japan and see how they mock the XBox.

This is not about just the XBox. And yes, the PS2 did kick the shit out of Gamecube. Gamecube failed.

Vympel; you're an idiot. Get out of your U.S. only mentality. We're NOT ARGUING over whether or not the GameCube failed in the United States, we're talking about whether it failed OVERALL. Dismissing the fact that it was clearly #2 in foreign countries because you "don't live there" is just plain stupid.

No, what's plain stupid is dismissing it's utter failure in the American (and by my own experience, the Australian market) and still pretending it was anything but a failure because it came second in Japan. Wanna tell me how many Japanese games make it to us plebs out in the wide world? The answer is hardly any. So who cares?

As for profitable; wait, having more games makes it more profitable? Don't be an idiot. Microsoft took four billion in losses over the XBox.

Just because it's making a profit does not translate into the system not having failed, dumbass. Having more games is far more important, especially if you want to build up a future. Both the PS2 and XBox (why you continue to focus on exclusively the XBox is beyond me) kicked the shit out of the Gamecube in that department, and Sony kicked the shit out of them overall. Again: the Gamecube failed. Just deal.

[Qwerty 42]

Go to Japan and ask them if they think the GameCube was a failure.

Fuck Japan. It's irrelevant. As far as gaming is concerned its a complete other world.

But it is still included in sales statistics.

You also seem to be defending that because Japan tends to prefer different games, it's irrevelevant. That's a rather bigoted attitude.

[Cairber]

The pictures look nice; hopefully we can get some clips or something soon.

I'm looking forward to trying out this controller, but I'm one of those people who doesn't judge a system until I play it. Xbox was just a bore and the controller was too large for my liking; plus, it offered nothing (well, very little) for kids and I'm assuming the 360 also is not interested in that market. It had too many negatives for us to decide to have one.

As for gamecube failure...meh, in our fam, we own gamecube, PS1/2, dreamcast, one SP and 2 DS systems. Each system gives us something different; it's nice to just kick back and enjoy what each of them has. I enjoy being able to beat up people in smash bros and then switch over and play some kingdom hearts 2 and then race eachother in mario kart from a couple rooms apart or with some other random people from the world.

I see very little point in boohooing games or systems that other people like. Xbox your thing? good for you. Playstation fan? fine by me.

[Praxis]

Go to Japan and ask them if they think the GameCube was a failure.

Fuck Japan. It's irrelevant. As far as gaming is concerned its a complete other world.

I could say the same about America. I only care about worldwide numbers, and the worldwide numbers give the marketshares as being fairly close between XBox and GameCube.

This is the most incredible thing I've ever seen.

He asks: "Find me someone who has used it and found it uncomfortable" and you find a quote from someone who said it was great in single player and WONDERS how it will be in multiplayer.

Stop being retarded. The reviewer did not find it uncomfortable.

Now you're being fucking dishonest. The purpose of that quote was not to indicate or prove discomfort.

Then I don't get it. You were quoting his post where he tells you to find someone who found it uncomfortable. Why were you quoting that to respond if you weren't trying to prove discomfort?

Sigh.
Since Sony has a 70% marketshare, we can basicly consider EVERYONE else a failure. At least Nintendo made a higher profit. Microsoft came out with a $4 billion loss.

Microsoft failed in Japan and a few other countries. Nintendo failed in the United States and a few other countries.

Get over it. Go to Japan and see how they mock the XBox.

This is not about just the XBox. And yes, the PS2 did kick the shit out of Gamecube. Gamecube failed.

Then so did the XBox.

As for profitable; wait, having more games makes it more profitable? Don't be an idiot. Microsoft took four billion in losses over the XBox.

Just because it's making a profit does not translate into the system not having failed, dumbass. Having more games is far more important, especially if you want to build up a future. Both the PS2 and XBox (why you continue to focus on exclusively the XBox is beyond me) kicked the shit out of the Gamecube in that department, and Sony kicked the shit out of them overall. Again: the Gamecube failed. Just deal.

Because the XBox and GameCube are in the same league in terms of marketshare. If you want to insist GameCube failed, then by your same standards of failure, the XBox failed too.

If you want to say the PS2 is the only successful system, that's fine by me, as they DID whoop everyone else put together. I'm just pointing out that the GameCube didn't do much worse than the XBox but made much, much more.

[Master of Ossus]

I just want to point out how stupid it is to compare the successfulness of different products based on market share instead of profitability. A company sells a good to make a profit, and more profit is better than less profit. Market share is totally irrelevant except in that it allows for economies of scale and for greater revenue (as well as networking externalities, in some cases), but all of these are merely a means to the end of earning a profit. If you disagree with this sentiment, then ask HP or Sprint how much market share mattered to them, and then ask any of their competitors how important profits were. A company will continue selling a product that makes an economic profit, regardless of how small its market share is; it will discontinue products that do not make profits, regardless of how large their market share is.

[Praxis]

I just want to point out how stupid it is to compare the successfulness of different products based on market share instead of profitability. A company sells a good to make a profit, and more profit is better than less profit. Market share is totally irrelevant except in that it allows for economies of scale and for greater revenue (as well as networking externalities, in some cases), but all of these are merely a means to the end of earning a profit. If you disagree with this sentiment, then ask HP or Sprint how much market share mattered to them, and then ask any of their competitors how important profits were. A company will continue selling a product that makes an economic profit, regardless of how small its market share is; it will discontinue products that do not make profits, regardless of how large their market share is.

Thank you.

Vympel doesn't seem to agree.

Just because it's making a profit does not translate into the system not having failed, dumbass. Having more games is far more important,

[DPDarkPrimus]

Having a large game library does not equate to success. It can contribute to a system's success (or lead to it's failure), but it is not the method by which one defines success.

Vympel's claim that profit != success is no doubt based off the loss that MS took when they sold the X-Box- but they recovered that loss, and more, thanks to selling games.

[Nephtys]

Having a large game library does not equate to success. It can contribute to a system's success (or lead to it's failure), but it is not the method by which one defines success.

Vympel's claim that profit != success is no doubt based off the loss that MS took when they sold the X-Box- but they recovered that loss, and more, thanks to selling games.

Meanwhile, having a system with what.. three good games doesn't make a good system either. Doesn't matter the profits made.

[DPDarkPrimus]

You know, I just wish we could have a thread about a specific console without it turning into a bunch of people foaming at the mouth over how horrible such-and-such a console is horrible.

[Vympel]

I could say the same about America. I only care about worldwide numbers, and the worldwide numbers give the marketshares as being fairly close between XBox and GameCube.

You can discuss this as if you were the CEO of Nintendo all you like. As far as gamers are concerned, it means jack shit how much money they make. Wow, it's popular in Japan. Whoopdeedoo. I'm not in Japan, and the game selection everywhere else sucks donkey balls.

Then I don't get it. You were quoting his post where he tells you to find someone who found it uncomfortable. Why were you quoting that to respond if you weren't trying to prove discomfort?

Pretending that Metroid is a tradtional shooter, obviously.

Then so did the XBox.

No, it didn't. See, XBox gamers can still buy a shitload of quality games for their console. Gamecube can't say the same. Unless apparently, you're in Japan, which I (and you) am not.

Again: you are not a CEO of Nintendo, I am not a CEO of Microsoft, and how much profit they make means precisely dick when determing how good the system is from the perspective of a gamer, which is what this is all about.

Because the XBox and GameCube are in the same league in terms of marketshare. If you want to insist GameCube failed, then by your same standards of failure, the XBox failed too.

See above. Marketshare is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Where I live (and where most everyone else lives), the Gamecube has no presence, and no games). That makes it a failure.

[Stark]

Metroid is a shooter. It's got lockon, it's got stupid puzzles and 8bit boss fights, but it's a SHOOTER from the FIRST PERSON. Stop arguing semantics: FPSs already go the gamut from Thief to UT2k4, so who cares?

[Bounty]

RE Metroid : The version of Echoes used for the demo was specifically refitted to have traditional FPS controls :

As on the Cube the analog stick controls movement, but instead of holding down a button to look around, you simply point the other controller in the direction you want to aim.

The Cube version of Echoes was not an FPS if you're anal but this demo certainly was.


RE shell inclusion : It *will* be included free, because every single *other* neccesary peripheral - from the GB pack to the GBA rumble cart - has so far been bundled with the game or console that required it. It's a Nintendo tradition, if you will.

And Vympel still has to come up with some sort of argument to back up his delusion that the Rev controller is a useless gimmick. Preferably an argument that doesn't get shot down by reality.

[Stark]

I don't know: the pointy-bit being remote-shape and not something more ergonomic or easy to point is a pretty valid criticism.

[Vympel]

And Vympel still has to come up with some sort of argument to back up his delusion that the Rev controller is a useless gimmick. Preferably an argument that doesn't get shot down by reality.

Oh give me a break, start harping about "reality" after the fucking system comes out and has some games, not before. That's the only way this concept is going to get proven to have any worth. Right now it's nothing but a massive risk.

[Andrew J.]

See above. Marketshare is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Where I live (and where most everyone else lives), the Gamecube has no presence, and no games). That makes it a failure.

It has a smaller selection to be sure, but to jump from there to "no games" isn't just an exercise in exaggeration, it's a calisthenic workout in hyperbole.

[Qwerty 42]

See above. Marketshare is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Where I live (and where most everyone else lives), the Gamecube has no presence, and no games). That makes it a failure.

So? Why do we only have to include where we live? Why can't Japan be included in the mix? I also don't see how marketshare does not factor into that. If the Gamecube has 14% of the global marketshare, then how can you not see that it has presence globally which is comparable to the XBox?

[Archaic`]

So, Vympel, given that I have lived in Japan, would I be justified by your logic in calling the XBox an utter failure, based on my experiences there? Afterall, it had no games, no presence whatsoever...

Seriously, any EB store is well stocked with Gamecube titles in Australia, and good ones at that. Not like the wall to wall crap, interspaced with the occasional quality title, that you have for PS2 and XBox. Just a few off the top of my head....Smash Bros, Zelda, Eternal Darkness, Killer 7, Soul Calibur 2, Resident Evil 4, Wario Ware, Fire Emblem, Baten Kaitos, Metroid Prime 1 & 2, Rogue Squadron II, Mario Kart, F-Zero, Final Fantasy: CC, Paper Mario, Viewtiful Joe 1 & 2....

[Davis 51]

just what do you think they're sacrificing to make this system only $150.00?

From the looks of the graphics, not that much. Nintendo has always kept affordability in mind, and has worked for them in the past. That's why every system ever released by them has been under $200.

No, I'm not, because I own the game and no it's not a shooter, not like Quake, Duke Nukem, Halo, etc. Just because it's first person perspective and you ocasionally shoot at things does not a shooter make. And to rock you on this concept even more, I refer to the 1Up preview:

We will have to agree to disagree there. Regardless of what genre you consider it to be (I could make a very convincing argument that Half-Life 2 was a "First Person Adventure" if I wanted, yet it is still a shooter.), the demo was obviously trying to demonstrate the systems usefulness when it comes to shooters. Whetehr or not you prefer to call it an adventure, that still doesn't invalidate the claim.

I owned nearly all those games. You want to know something else? They're virtually the ONLY games I fucking owned for the N64! Because the rest were total shit! Who cares that it had an analog stick? It was a cartridge based piece of idiocy and is generally acknowledged to be so by any reasonable observer.

Bullcrap. Wow, you can name a handful of games, you think this demonstrates that the Gamecube wasn't a failure? Get real. All I need to do is look at how many games I bought for PS2 compared to how many I bought for Gamecube, walk into a store and look at the pathetically small Gamecube section filled with lame-ass games, or go on any gaming comic website and watch them mock the Gamecube.

I named only a handful of the games I owned because those were the exclusive titles that I owned, and that I could remember off the top of my head. In total, I own about 30 games for the N64and about 35 games for the Gamecube. I named the ones I enjoyed the most that were exclusive. The only titles for the PS2 that I can remember off the top of my head that I would enjoy are Soul Caliber III (PS2 Exclusive IIRC), the Final Fantasy games, the Kingdom Hearts games, and God of War. Name me the some other exclusive games that you own.

Little to no fucking additional cost? No, I don't think so chum. I know I paid extra.

Have you bought all the games I listed? Last I checked, their prices were the same as a standard game. Otherwise, you're really gullable and got ripped off.

The Gamecube failed by any meaningful standard. I'm sorry if that hurts your Nintendo ears, but it's true.

You mean your standard, which is meaningless.

I don't live in Japan. Do you? As for profitabe over XBox, sorry, go look at the selection of games for XBox compared to Gamecube at your local store. Compare. That's how you build something on your brand. And I hate the XBox, for god's sake.

Argument from Ignorance. Do you concede that the Gamecube was not a failure in Japan, as has been demonstrated many times by other's on this board?

The 64 was also not as revolutionary as say... the PS1? It's ONLY contemporary of note? The N64 still used cartridges, and it's controller was an awkward peice of trash.

I found the N64 controller to be quite comfortable, thank you. The Playstation controllers felt, flimsy, for lack of a better word. Even the big-assed Xbox controllers felt better.

That's the ONLY thing I agree with Vympel on.

Metroid Prime is classified on Nintendo's page as a First Person Adventure.

It's really designed as an Adventure/Exploration game, the combat simply happens to be shooting (lock on, at that, you don't aim like in most FPS).

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

Having more games is far more important

Not if the games are utter shit. Yes, there were a lot of games on the PS2. Aside from the ones I stated above, I can't think of many good exclusive titles.

I bought the Gamecube because the exclusive games were so much better than all of the crap on the PS2 put together. All the other good games that were on the PS2 were also available on the Gamecube.

By all means, If there were some exclusive titles that I missed, I would love to see them.

Oh give me a break, start harping about "reality" after the fucking system comes out and has some games, not before. That's the only way this concept is going to get proven to have any worth. Right now it's nothing but a massive risk.

If by "Massive Risk" you mean that every time a console puts out a system it is taking risks, the you would be right. However, everything I have seen tells me that the Revolution is poised to come out on top.

Graphics surperior to it's predicessor and comparable to the competition? Judging by those screenshots, check.

Affordability? Less than $200, most likely $150, Check.

Innovation? Check, check, and check.

Nice exclusive lineup? All indications say check.

Wireless controller ( ) Check.

Well, looks like I know what I'm buying come Thanksgiving.

Seriously, any EB store is well stocked with Gamecube titles in Australia, and good ones at that. Not like the wall to wall crap, interspaced with the occasional quality title, that you have for PS2 and XBox. Just a few off the top of my head....Smash Bros, Zelda, Eternal Darkness, Killer 7, Soul Calibur 2, Resident Evil 4, Wario Ware, Fire Emblem, Baten Kaitos, Metroid Prime 1 & 2, Rogue Squadron II, Mario Kart, F-Zero, Final Fantasy: CC, Paper Mario, Viewtiful Joe 1 & 2....

Interesting. I apperently forgot that my brother owns F-Zero and Mario Kart. I was never an RPG fan, but nice list nonetheless.

[Cairber]

Gamecube has a lot more games that my husband and I can enjoy together. Tales of Symphonia and FFCC let us play RPGs together (we are both huge fans, but before we had to watch each other play....with gamecube, we could play together). Then, of course, theres Mario Kart, Mario Party,Konga games, Smash Bros, monkey ball, etc that are all fun multiplayer games.

I hope the new system contionues this.

[Praxis]

Having a large game library does not equate to success. It can contribute to a system's success (or lead to it's failure), but it is not the method by which one defines success.

Vympel's claim that profit != success is no doubt based off the loss that MS took when they sold the X-Box- but they recovered that loss, and more, thanks to selling games.

No, they didn't. The $4 billion loss I quoted was the net profit quoted by the games division. They didn't recover the loss.

[Master of Ossus]

Having a large game library does not equate to success. It can contribute to a system's success (or lead to it's failure), but it is not the method by which one defines success.

Vympel's claim that profit != success is no doubt based off the loss that MS took when they sold the X-Box- but they recovered that loss, and more, thanks to selling games.

Actually, they didn't. Only recently did Microsoft even make it into the black for the present--they've never made up their massive losses on the original XBoxes, which only fails to bother them because they knew going in that they were going to lose money and were attempting to get good will from gamers by making those losses, rather than trying to make a profitable system.