The Video Game Critic

[QUOTE]If a system as about a dozen or so killer games, its not a failure  [/QUOTE]Then the saturn, dreamcast and neo geo pocket were highly successful.

Kind of a failure.

It certainly goes without saying that Gamecube suffered the same issues as N64, and some cases, they were even worse.  Lack of third party support (barely better than N64), not enough adult oriented games (and the ones that came out didn't sell well) lack of RPGs (and again, the ones that came out sold badly), a limited amount of disc storage space (which resulted in many games having to come out on 2-discs), and inferior ports (like the Splinter Cells), to name a few.

In particular, Nintendo really shot themselves in the foot with the GBA-GC connectivity thing and their arrogant attitude that people didn't want online games (yes, they actually said that).  That would have been bad on its own, but why did they bother making an online adapter if they weren't going to use it? It's like the Expansion Pak all over again.

And speaking of underutilization, I was really bummed by Nintendo's refusal to make use of the technology they had at hand.  Why were they so reluctant to improve the music production in their games? The Gamecube discs can hold music performed with real instruments or live orchestras, so why did so few Nintendo games to take full advantage of that ability?

As far as the Nintendo games go, they were all quite good, but they weren't quite as much of an evolution, gameplay-wise, as their N64 counterparts were, which may have disappointed some and kept them from being truly sold on the Cube (although I'm not counting Metroid Prime or new series like Eternal Darkness or Animal Crossing).

And a lifespan from 2001-2006? Please.  The system was basically finished in early 2005, when Resident Evil 4 came out.  Metroid Prime 2 underperformed, and RE 4 was also hitting PS2.  As such, there weren't many exciting and system selling exclusives after that. And it basically ran on fumes from that point on (most of the best selling games on the system each month were old games or the latest new game, and even they weren't doing that well).   

Thankfully, Nintendo's 3rd place finish last console cycle seemed to be enough of a wake-up call for them to come roaring back this time with the Wii.  And now, Sony seems to be in Nintendo's Gamecube situation with PS3.  Amazing how the tables can turn, eh? 

I think the Gamecube was a failure compared to the other consoles of last generation. It didn't have enough games, and it really didn't do anything unique. But I suppose in my eyes it isn't a failure. Since I bought the Wii I've gone out and purchased a few Gamecube games to play, and I realized that over half of my Gamecube games come from 3rd parties. It has enough games to keep me pleased, but it was nowhere near as good a console as the PS2, although at least it doesn't break so often.

Kind of a failure.

It certainly goes without saying that Gamecube suffered the same issues as N64, and some cases, they were even worse.  Lack of third party support (barely better than N64), not enough adult oriented games (and the ones that came out didn't sell well) lack of RPGs (and again, the ones that came out sold badly), a limited amount of disc storage space (which resulted in many games having to come out on 2-discs), and inferior ports (like the Splinter Cells), to name a few.

I think it was set up to be a loser, honestly. I remember went it was released that there were several reports that Nintendo was going to support the cube, but most of it's energy was going into portable gaming.

I would say not a failure. I think it overachieved given the fact that Nintendo didn't even believe in it at the beginning.

Funk

Good points, Atarifever.

I think to some degree we've gotten spoiled by having three major players all being able to more or less support their systems in the last generation.

I could be wrong, but when I was growing up it always seemed like the scene was limited to one or two major players (obviously Nintendo and Sega) and a bunch of also-rans that barely registered, with systems that were hard to find and sometimes extremely expensive (Neo Geo, Jaguar, 3DO, CD-i, etc.).

Gamers are fortunate the industry has grown to the point where it can support three "mainstream" systems at once.

-Rob

      I think one thing the N64 "beats" GC on is for origional games. There is no question that Nintendo layed the groundwork for many 3-d games with Mario 64 and Zelda OoT. Goldeneye by Rare is also a benchmark game. Don't you feel, in retrospect, that Nintendo did not live up to their own innovative standards in the GC era, but focused more on fine tuning already established game mechanics with more impressive visuals? 

       Pikmin is an exception, similar to some games but really creative and different. Windwaker is a beautiful game, it really took guts to go the graphic style they took, but essentialy it owns all that it is to Orcarina of Time. Mario Sunshine is a fine game, but the waterpack took away more than it added, and people wanted more of M64 and didn't quite get it. My point is, there were great games for both systems, but N64 had far more "legacy" games.

      I'm not saying you have to bury everything that has worked for you in the past, but Nintendo has always been on the cutting edge of gaming. When you look at all the obstacles N64 had against it,  in terms of how much more expensive their format was, and not having the advantage of CG movies, especially for advertising, it is AMAZING it did as well as it did. And the only reason it did was because of its great, groundbreaking games that could not be ignored.

      GC was obviously not a failure in any respect (including financialy, the most important one), but it was not near as successful as the N64, which many people regard as a complete piece of garbage, and that is a joke.

     Looking ahead, I think the Wii will be a success because Nintendo is a generation ahead of their competition, offering something new and different. And they may well be the only software publisher who could make the games that will pave the way for their hardware. It takes guts for Sony to decide to bank so highly on the Playstation brand name and accept the losses for developing and manufacturing the PS3 hardware. But it takes guts AND singular creativity for Nintendo to reinvent the wheel and implement the Wimote as THE principal way (not just a half measure, ala Sixaxis) to program for the Wii. Call me a fanboy, but that is what sets Nintendo apart from everyone else, in my mind.

     I highly doubt the 360, Wii, or PS3 will approach the sales of either PS1 or the PS2, (which proved this Christmas that it is far from dead, and is going unbelieveably strong for a 5 year + old system), and that portends more good than bad for gamers. You can't say you don't have very different choices on how you want to spend your money this generation.

     Sorry I wrote a book, but I wanted to completely articulate my thoughts. Feel free to completely ammend, deny, and disagree!