Gamecube

[Pilgrim John]

kingofevil said:

Happy GCN Owners = "I should buy a Revolution!"

e.g. myself.

And there's why Gamecube owners ought to be made happy, Greg.

[Greg-RN]

Well, we'll see of course. It really depends on what Nintendo emphasizes at E3, and whether or not TP will take advantage of Revolution features as has been speculated. Still, I can name a handful of people that I know who passed on the Cube or sold it because they didn't make the Spaceworld Zelda, and released Wind Waker instead (which sucks, because the Cube library rocks and I wouldn't trade it for anything!) Even something as little as displaying that the next Nintendo system (Rev) will have the realistic Zelda could get those people to buy the Revolution. Surely you don't want them to buy Cubes this late in the game, when they could be the first Revolution adopters.

You also have to assume that most of the GCN owners that are still patiently waiting for Zelda will probably be getting the Revolution anyway, so it wouldn't hurt marketing it for the Revolution, even if it is being released on the Cube.

It also depends on when it releases. If it releases a few months before the Revolution, there'd be no reason to not market it as a GameCube release. But if it releases around the same time, I'd try to avoid self-competition

[Pilgrim John]

The DS and GBA are in the same market, so Cube and Rev would probably end up like that, with the Rev obviously prevailing in the end.

[Justin-RN]

I really don't see your point. Even if it release a week before Revolution, they're going to market it as a GameCube game because it is in fact a GameCube game. Sure they'll make mention that it can play, and possibly be enhanced, by playing it on Revolution, but it isn't a Revolution title.

[Pilgrim John]

justinrn said:

I really don't see your point. Even if it release a week before Revolution, they're going to market it as a GameCube game because it is in fact a GameCube game. Sure they'll make mention that it can play, and possibly be enhanced, by playing it on Revolution, but it isn't a Revolution title.

Yeah, I really don't think third parties advertised their late PSone games as early PS2 games just because both the games and the PS2 system released near each other... So why does this whole "Zelda should be advertised for Rev "thing" end up controversial?

[Greg-RN]

Do you realize how little sense that makes? Why release the Cube's biggest game ever right when your next system releases? People who don't own a GameCube, and are interested in Zelda, certainly aren't going to buy GameCube now when TP is likely one of the last games to come out on it. Close to two million more people bought OoT than Wind Waker, and those people are still out there.

Keep in mind that a system launch, with a limited library, by default enhances sales of its games. Look at games like Super Monkey Ball, which sold amazingly well. I doubt it would have become such a success if it came out later. Games like Madden, SSX, Tony Hawk, Star Wars, which were at the GameCube launch, sold far more copies than their GameCube sequels.

Majora's Mask sold far less than Ocarina of Time, and that released a year before GameCube, and against the PS2. Twilight Princess will be releasing against the PS3, Xbox 360 and Revolution. Using the Revolution launch to give TP a sales boost, you could see Zelda getting the sales that a game so long in development deserves, and in return you'd see the Revolution getting a potential sales boost.

Advertising it primarily as a GameCube title this late in the game could limit it to Majora's Mask numbers, maybe even less. Sure, GameCube owners would be smiling, but advertised as a Revolution launch title, we could see long-term sales numbers rivalling what Melee got as Cube launch title.

I'm not saying "don't advertise it for the Cube," they should if it's coming out on that system, but if they plan on releasing Zelda close to the Revolution's launch, I'd be showing clips of it in their Revolution commercials and in their Revolution pamphlets and whatnot. I don't see why you wouldn't.

EDIT: If I remember correctly, PS1 didn't have too many gargantaun titles on a Zelda scale coming out when the PS2 did. Also, the PS1 had late adopters due to a system redesign and a steady stream of titles because the PS1 sold a ton of units. None of these conditions exist for GameCube.

[Justin-RN]

The thing is, you talk is if it is a Revolution game and it isn't. If you include it in every Revolution only pamphlet, it's going to give off the idea that it is in fact a Revolution title. People are going to see this and notice it's GameCube graphics and wonder why the hell it looks so inferior. Obviously, from a GCN point-of-view it looks great, but despite the fact that the Revolution won't have graphics as good as 360 or PS3, it's still going to be a big step up in terms of power. And although innovations are great, and what Nintendo has is something truly unique, your average person is going to care about looks, and Zelda's graphics aren't going to hold a candle to Oblivion or Fight Night and they're going to be turned off right from the start.

On top of that, there is no official comment saying that it will be Revolution enhanced. Will it happen? Maybe, but it isn't exactly a shoe-in feature at this point so if it doesn't, then why exactly would you market it as something it isn't? It wouldn't used the features of the FHC, and it certainly wouldn't look as good. Are you sure that would help Revolution sales? I wouldn't think so.

On the other hand, if you market it as a GameCube you're going to gain huge sales from anyone not getting a Revolution, but already with a GameCube. But obviously you can't stop there, which is what I think you think I'm getting at. I'm all for them marketing it as something that can be played with on the Revolution. They could easily squeeze it into any pamphlet by saying how backwards compatible the Cube is and spotlight Zelda for obvious reasons. It would be a lie though to say that Zelda is a Revolution title, and market it as a Revolution exclusive because it isn't that at all.

So basically to sum up what I said, they should market it for both, but call it a GameCube game because that is exactly what it is. Include it on any Revolution ad for all I care, but there's no reason to try and pretend like it's a Revolution game with all the features most Revolution games will have, because no matter how they implement the FHC, it still will likely be more limited than your average Revolution title.

[Greg-RN]

Yeah, but I get the impression that first gen Revolution titles may not exactly blow GameCube graphics out of the water, much less the GameCube's final opus.

Like I said, if it doesn't use the FHC, I would be marketing it for GameCube first and foremost, especially if it comes out before the Revolution. If it does use the FHC, I see no harm in calling it a Revolution title, as the GameCube version would technically be different. If it doesn't, I agree 100% with you, it shouldn't pretend to be a Revolution title.

Again, this is all speculatory, I just think that they are planning something with Zelda that will use the Revolution. I don't think they'd need another whole year for polishing it up, though if that's the case, the worst case scenario is that we'll get one of the best games ever!

But I think the logical thing would be to use all of your resources to make the Revolution's launch as good as possible. If using the Zelda/Revolution names will be a win/win situation for TP and the Revolution, I think they should do whatever they can. But I also agree with you, if the Revolution features (if any) in Zelda aren't a big deal, make it the GameCube swan song that it deserves to be.

But I also feel that even if there are no FHC features, if they plan on releasing Zelda ridiculously close to the Revolution, they should do some sort of promotion tying the two together, so long as it can be as beneficial to Nintendo as possible.

[Pilgrim John]

Gamecube? Inferior to 360? Dude, the GCN version of Resident Evil 4 AND Twilight Princess look just as good as most 360 games out there right now. That goes to show you just how little graphics have left in the world before they become so realistic, nobody is going to care.

[Greg-RN]

Artistically, I agree, but not technically. The texture and lighting qualities of RE4 and TP pale in comparison to 360 games, but on the other hand, if the artistic qualities are low it doesn't matter how powerful a system is. But I fully suspect that next-gen games built from the ground up, and those from developers like Capcom and Konami, etc. will look outstanding. Just take one look at RE5 or MGS4 footage.

Even if the Revolution is only 2x more powerful than GameCube, you'll still get amazing looking games from those developers whose games ooze great art direction. Games like Metroid Prime 3, Smash Bros. 3, etc. on Revolution will look terrific, maybe without the detail of Xbox 360 or PS3 games, but it doesn't matter if the art direction is top-notch. Just think about how amazing RE4 looks, and then think about how it would look on a system 2-3 times as powerful. It'd have the same great art direction, but it'd look even better due to improved technical specs. And I bet 360 games will look vastly superior to their Xbox counterparts, if developers can keep a high-standard of art direction.

Revolution games may not look as good as Xbox 360 games, and they probably won't, but by no means will they look "bad." They'll still look spectacular.

Art direction is just as important as technical specs, it's certainly not a one-way street. I agree that Zelda and RE4 may look better than some Xbox 360 games due to artistic merit, but once some of the heavy-hitters when it comes to art start making 360 games, the 360 games will win out in the end.

[Justin-RN]

I agree with you Greg. The 360 is definitely far superior graphically, but a lot of the games took a bad art direction, like Perfect Dark, which makes them look pretty bad. Still, the GameCube couldn't even come close to being able to handle the punch the game packs. That's more of a problem with developers, not the system itself. I can pick out many GameCube games that lack a good art direction and look terrible because of this, it just happens.

[KoE_Hades]

My friends bag out Gamecube just cuz it's Nintendo, haha. And one of them doesn't really like the design of the controller. Ah well, I like GC and that's good enough for me.

[southbark]

conorsla said:

we all know that the gamecube hasnt done as well as its 2 rivals xbox+ps2. one of the reasons i think is because it doesnt have a dvd player! also because it is seen as a kiddys console because of it launch colour. any one agree?

I don't agree. People like the Xbox and PS2 becuase it has a dvd player but the point of a Game console Is to play games not watch DVDs

[Waffle Monger]

southbark said:

conorsla said:

we all know that the gamecube hasnt done as well as its 2 rivals xbox+ps2. one of the reasons i think is because it doesnt have a dvd player! also because it is seen as a kiddys console because of it launch colour. any one agree?

I don't agree. People like the Xbox and PS2 becuase it has a dvd player but the point of a Game console Is to play games not watch DVDs

I bought an XBOX because I wanted to play the shooting games and I didn't own a DVD player. XD

[Pilgrim John]

I have a PS2. Although I do believe that having a DVD player in a game console is a dumb idea, now I can watch Napoleon Dynamite in my room. So that's a mixed plus.