Playstation 2, Xbox, GameCube reviews

Let me know what you think about my reviews.
sega saturn x

Playstation 2, Xbox, GameCube reviews

Postby sega saturn x » April 16th, 2006, 8:27 pm

[QUOTE=Zen444]"WAAAAAAH!! MY CONSOLE GOT A LOWER GRADE IN CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS THEN THE OTHER CONSOLE! I HATE YOU CRITIC!!!!111331 *Posts biased links.* HAHHAHAh CRITIC! FIX YOUT REVIEW!!!!!!!!111112121"-You people.

[/QUOTE]
that's priceless.  Come on just give it up, they ARE nintendo games since they are all properties owned by nintendo and not the developers.

conn

Playstation 2, Xbox, GameCube reviews

Postby conn » April 17th, 2006, 2:40 am

[QUOTE=Leo Ames]If Sega goes to Sumo for them to port over Outrun 2 to the Xbox, I don't care what the technicalities are, it's a Sega game in my eyes. Sega paid for it, had oversight over it, used their intellectual properties, etc. So I guess the Oracle games, Minish Cap, and the GBA port of Link to the Past aren't Nintendo games anymore? I disagree.
[/QUOTE]

The difference is that Sumo is simply porting an arcade game SEGA already made. In the case of the recent potable Zelda games, Nintendo had no involvement in the development other than Shiggy overseeing it- Capcom did the rest.

bluemonkey1
Posts: 2444
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Playstation 2, Xbox, GameCube reviews

Postby bluemonkey1 » April 17th, 2006, 5:49 am

By the same token Soul Calibur 2 is a Nintendo game because it has Link in it.

 

And those awful Zelda games on CDI are Nintendo games because they use Link in them.

 

 


sega saturn x

Playstation 2, Xbox, GameCube reviews

Postby sega saturn x » April 17th, 2006, 11:33 am

[QUOTE=bluemonkey]

By the same token Soul Calibur 2 is a Nintendo game because it has Link in it.

 

And those awful Zelda games on CDI are Nintendo games because they use Link in them.

 

 

[/QUOTE]
Not really, namco had nintendos permission to use link that's really it.  Everything else is still owned by namco, making it a namco game.  And those CD-i zelda games are only nintendo games if they own the rights to them, if they do than yes they are. 

bluemonkey1
Posts: 2444
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Playstation 2, Xbox, GameCube reviews

Postby bluemonkey1 » April 17th, 2006, 1:53 pm

But that is my point, just because a game features a Nintendo IP does not make it a Nintendo game.


Damon Plus

Playstation 2, Xbox, GameCube reviews

Postby Damon Plus » April 17th, 2006, 3:11 pm

Wasn´t the 7800 the first system to be backwards compatible (not the PS2)?

Dennis

Playstation 2, Xbox, GameCube reviews

Postby Dennis » April 17th, 2006, 4:46 pm

My only comment is that I think the PS2 is the ugliest console ever made. My urine-colored SNES looks better than that hideous black hunk of plastic.

Adamant1
Posts: 2088
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Playstation 2, Xbox, GameCube reviews

Postby Adamant1 » April 17th, 2006, 10:30 pm

The CD-i Zelda games were published by Philips and programmed by some company called Animation Magic. Apart from the fact that Nintendo owns the license to the characters, they had no hand in it, and I'm certain they don't, and never did, own the rights to them.

Funkmaster V

Playstation 2, Xbox, GameCube reviews

Postby Funkmaster V » April 18th, 2006, 12:02 am

Yeah, take that backwards compatibilty off of the PS2 there, dude.... that belongs to the mortal 7800.

 

Also, I would mention that the lack of wide spread online play hurt the Gamecube. Me and you might not like online gaming, but many peeps do.

 

Cousin Vinnie

 

 


bluemonkey1
Posts: 2444
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Playstation 2, Xbox, GameCube reviews

Postby bluemonkey1 » April 18th, 2006, 5:11 am

That's my point, Nintendo didn't program them so they aren't Nintendo games.  Same thing for the Nintendo published games made by Hudson, Namco and Sega.

 



Return to “Review Feedback”