LOL!

General and high profile video game topics.
Steerforth

LOL!

Postby Steerforth » July 22nd, 2007, 3:14 pm

I think all of these GC controller beefs are legitimate, which is a shame, because it was a very comfortable controller and did a few things right as well.

My question is, why were 3rd party controllers maker identical to Nintendo's? Why not realeas a GC controller with the SNES abxy button config? Plus a better d-pad? Water on the bridge, but talk about missing the boat!

Which reminds me, where are my 3rd party Wii Controllers? Especially cheaper nunchucks and classic controllers?

gleebergloben1
Posts: 687
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

LOL!

Postby gleebergloben1 » July 22nd, 2007, 4:40 pm

i haven't played the wii yet (still in search of the intellivision IV), but nintendo was brilliant in creating that system.  they knew there was really no way that they could compete graphically with either PS3 or the 360, so they basically came up with a gimmick controller.  and that controller got people talking about the wii and got non-gamers into gaming.  it was marketing brilliance, and the wii controller is probably the only reason why nintendo is in the lead.  whether they can maintain that lead is an issue for another thread, but give credit where credit is due.


qubit

LOL!

Postby qubit » July 22nd, 2007, 5:44 pm

[QUOTE=The Video Game Critic]The only beef I have with the GameCube is the controller.[/QUOTE]

Critic: if you have problems with the real GameCube controller, use a Hip Gear 3rd-party controller, which I have used for many years and love it.  It's a bit wider than the standard GCN one and the buttons are larger, making for a better experience for adult gamers.

JustLikeHeaven1
Posts: 2971
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

LOL!

Postby JustLikeHeaven1 » July 26th, 2007, 11:23 am

I can't believe I missed this post...its LOL alright.  The gamespot lineup the Orignal Poster has us look at is pretty much identical to the PS3 one...with the exception of a few exclusives for each system.

He makes note of how many games are coming out in one particular week (24 games) and almost all of the dates are wrong on the gamespot website.  For a better idea check out IGN's release dates.  They at least update the list more often. 

The PS3 and 360 are going to have roughly the same games for the systems.  There is no denying this fact.  Its the best way for companies to make the most money for their IPs.  Most studios are going to start make the PS3 the lead platform for mulitplatform games. The reason developers are making that choice is because it's much easier to port from the PS3 over to the 360 rather than vice versa.  So it makes sense to be able to make them without any trouble on the PS3 and then easily port it over to the 360 hardware to take advantage of the larger install base.  Plus as the install base levels out in a year or so, they are going to want the versions to be as identical as possible to maximize sales.

So yes I did LOL at this post, but not for the reasons the OP stated.  The fall lineup is almost virtually identical between the two systems. 



m0zart1
Posts: 3117
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

LOL!

Postby m0zart1 » July 26th, 2007, 12:52 pm

I actually liked the Gamecube controller.  It was my favorite last-gen controller.  Of course, I am not an FPS player, and I can easily see how hard the GC controller would be to use in that genre.  I still think MP (though I don't really consider that to be an FPS) had a good control scheme though, but that's largely because I came into that game without any preconceptions on how a game like that should play.


Blah

LOL!

Postby Blah » July 26th, 2007, 7:56 pm

[QUOTE=m0zart]

I actually liked the Gamecube controller.  It was my favorite last-gen controller.  Of course, I am not an FPS player, and I can easily see how hard the GC controller would be to use in that genre.  I still think MP (though I don't really consider that to be an FPS) had a good control scheme though, but that's largely because I came into that game without any preconceptions on how a game like that should play.

[/QUOTE]

I agree with the fact that the gamecube was my personal favorite last-gen controller. After getting used to the X Y button configurations, you have handles that fit into your palms perfectly, and buttons that don't all look the same, making it easier to identify each one (it's a nightmare with the other controllers because I have trouble remembering which one is which). Sure, the controller doesn't work well with an FPS, but I suck at those games so it doesn't matter to me. I will admit that the C stick is unresponsive at times, but it's still an amazingly intuitive controller.


Luke

LOL!

Postby Luke » July 27th, 2007, 2:05 am

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]I can't believe I missed this post...its LOL alright.  The gamespot lineup the Orignal Poster has us look at is pretty much identical to the PS3 one...with the exception of a few exclusives for each system. He makes note of how many games are coming out in one particular week (24 games) and almost all of the dates are wrong on the gamespot website.  For a better idea check out IGN's release dates.  They at least update the list more often.  The PS3 and 360 are going to have roughly the same games for the systems.  There is no denying this fact.  Its the best way for companies to make the most money for their IPs.  Most studios are going to start make the PS3 the lead platform for mulitplatform games. The reason developers are making that choice is because it's much easier to port from the PS3 over to the 360 rather than vice versa.  So it makes sense to be able to make them without any trouble on the PS3 and then easily port it over to the 360 hardware to take advantage of the larger install base.  Plus as the install base levels out in a year or so, they are going to want the versions to be as identical as possible to maximize sales. So yes I did LOL at this post, but not for the reasons the OP stated.  The fall lineup is almost virtually identical between the two systems.  [/QUOTE]No, it's not. Did you fall asleep during math class or something? And for the record, I'd be very surprised if they're still manufacturing PS3's in a year from now.

Atarifever1
Posts: 3892
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

LOL!

Postby Atarifever1 » July 27th, 2007, 6:17 am

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven] Most studios are going to start make the PS3 the lead platform for mulitplatform games. The reason developers are making that choice is because it's much easier to port from the PS3 over to the 360 rather than vice versa.  So it makes sense to be able to make them without any trouble on the PS3 and then easily port it over to the 360 hardware to take advantage of the larger install base. 

[/QUOTE]

The problem with that logic is that it assumes developers wouldn't try to optimize games going to the larger install base.  If the 360 has the larger base, as you say it does, then a developer will worry first about reaching that base.  With many system exclusives there already trying to reach that base, developers will very frequently want the games they release on there to have all the bells and whistles in order to "stand out" against the crowd.  Making a weak port aimed at the big market where the money is so that you can have a stronger port on the smaller market where the money isn't, doesn't make any sense.  No one would do that to maximize profit, as that wouldn't maximize profit.  The only games I can see following the approach you mentioned is the licenced stuff, where the movie/TV show marketing and name brand is all that they sell anyway. As getting the prettiest movie tie ins is like winning a "who gets the most scurvy" contest, I don't think it bodes well for the PS3.

JustLikeHeaven1
Posts: 2971
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

LOL!

Postby JustLikeHeaven1 » July 27th, 2007, 8:23 am

[QUOTE=Luke]No, it's not. Did you fall asleep during math class or something? And for the record, I'd be very surprised if they're still manufacturing PS3's in a year from now.[/QUOTE]

Are you insane?  Unlike you I clearly don't have a biased towards one system or the other.  Sony is worth BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars.  They aren't going anywhere anytime soon.  Everybody made a huge deal when they posted those huge losses a few months ago...well guess who followed up with there own finacial blunder....yea Microsoft.  Microsoft doesn't make nearly as much money as Sony does in the gaming industry and they have never made a single cent of profit...not once...ever.  In fact they've lost billions.  The only console making cash and lots of it is Nintendo.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=26905

Every thing I wrote is based off what I have read.  I didn't go make some crap up. 

JustLikeHeaven1
Posts: 2971
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

LOL!

Postby JustLikeHeaven1 » July 27th, 2007, 8:33 am

[QUOTE=Atarifever]

The problem with that logic is that it assumes developers wouldn't try to optimize games going to the larger install base.  If the 360 has the larger base, as you say it does, then a developer will worry first about reaching that base.  With many system exclusives there already trying to reach that base, developers will very frequently want the games they release on there to have all the bells and whistles in order to "stand out" against the crowd.  Making a weak port aimed at the big market where the money is so that you can have a stronger port on the smaller market where the money isn't, doesn't make any sense.  No one would do that to maximize profit, as that wouldn't maximize profit.  The only games I can see following the approach you mentioned is the licenced stuff, where the movie/TV show marketing and name brand is all that they sell anyway. As getting the prettiest movie tie ins is like winning a "who gets the most scurvy" contest, I don't think it bodes well for the PS3.
[/QUOTE]


Well its not my logic.  Its what developers and industry analysts are reporting.  Its not about making the PS3 games better than the 360...its making them at least equal.  By starting a games life cycle on the PS3 instead of the 360 it guarentees that the company makes both products great and do it in a timely manner.  Going from the PS3 arcitechture over to the 360 is pretty simple, and its cost effiecent.  Going from the 360 to the PS3 is very difficult and very time consuming...which is why you see games coming out several months after the 360 version.  The longer developement cycle on these ports means that they are eating up more money.  Its not cost effiecent for developers.  When they switch it around they will have spent less money and both games come out with pretty much idenetical quality and at the same time. 

That in theory is what is supposed to happen.  I'm not saying it will, I'm just saying it might.



Return to “Video Games General”