Originally posted by divibisan
I wasn't comparing their ways of keeping their monopoly, I was comparing the fact that their products are not all that good (the GBA is good, but the older versions were horrible), but anyone who tries to enter the market is immediately crushed by the Gameboy's monopoly
Yeah... I agree. But let's be realistic... The GameBoy was release in the late eighties, and other than the color refresh, it's essentially unchanged for almost 20 years! So essentially, the original GB design was spectacular! Of course, if we are comparing newer handhelds, the GBA rocks! I think it's far better than anything else that's out there.
It is hard, but developers have still managed to make some inredible games with it, hard as it is. Imagine how good the games will be once they get used to it and better developing tools come out that make it easier to use it effectively. Also, the difficulty is not all that bad. If a developer has to make a significant investment in a game they are less likely to make really bad games.
In theory I agree with you. But the truth is that if to exploit a console's capabilities is a hard task, and the developer is a multiplatform supporter, they simply develop for the lowest common denominator. In essence, they go for the crappiest resolution and gameplay they can get away with. Think why XBox has so many mediocre games? It's because people just port to it whatever they have developed for the PS2. Even though the XBox may have superior GPU, people don't exploit it. Halo is the only must have game for it, because it exploits the machine's powers. The PS2 has amazing graphics capabilities, but the fact that developers are only starting the make their games look really good AFTER PS2's been out for over a year shows that how difficult it is to exploit and code for the console.
If power and money are enough to make a great console the x-box should be killing every other console
True. But MS is entering a brand new market, and it fame (and infamy) is a curse upon itself. Nintendo is different. It's at its home turf. Think about it, even though Square is ~20% owned by Sony, it is willing to divert resources (even though through a "third party") to develop for GC and GBA, it does show that Square seens tremendous potential in the GameCube. After all, why would you even risk biting the hand the feeds you unless the alternative looks really promising?
Also, I think the Square factor is a little less threatening now. They sunk way too much money into the FF film, and now they are desperate to recoup their loss... I think FF the movie's flop would definitely affect Square's confidence negatively, so it'll be interesting to see what they do next.
I agree, not all sequels are the same, but most nintendo sequels are. Mario 64 has the same basic game play as all other Mario games except it is in 3d. In M64 you have simple objectives, but that's not enough to call it drasticly different, aside from that, the game play is the same except in 3d
Another example, Zelda, same except in 3d-Star Fox adv. , Banjo Kazooie-Donkey Kong-Banjo Tooie -Conker's Bad Fur day (I never played it, but that's what I heard, correct me if i'm wrong)
True, but look at Quake, Quake II, and Quake III, the premise is the same, the missions are pretty much the same, yet the sequels are also wildly popular! How about Half-Life? When it came out it looked like just any other FPS clone, yet its game play was dramatically different (it ROCKED). What I am saying is, how it appears and how the characters are controlled says nothing about the actual game play itself. Nintendo is fighting mad, so you know they spending resources on their new games like never before.
Anyway, when it comes down to it, the PS2 is amazing, the GC is amazing, and the XBox is... Well, XBox. Any console would blow your perception on what is possible with a console away, it just comes down to what games you like better, and what mega-multi-national corporation you want to support!
-B
