By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - N64 & Cube are abominations

Jumpin on 04 March 2012

To elaborate a little more on the Gamecube. The way it was intially described (although I couldn't find the articles I remember reading) was as a console that should have had the motion capabilities of the Wii. It was supposed to have a really special controller. Rather, I think Nintendo couldn't get the tech cheap enough on time, so they came out with a filler console instead. That filler console was the Gamecube.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
Squilliam on 04 March 2012

Nintendo are being beat by low end disruption and non market disruption and aren't competing against the higher end sustaining strategies of their traditional competitors. I guess the Wii U is an acknowledgement of the problems with their current strategy because it looks to address both main concerns.



Tease.

happydolphin on 04 March 2012

Nintendo lost at the Red Ocean battle with the N64, I think that is clear enough for all of us at this point.

Their failure is due to:

  • launch timing,
  • console cost and bundling,
  • HW design choices (that alienated 3rd parties),
  • poor 3rd party relations,
  • weaker marketing and mainstream penetration than Sony,
  • Improperly managed console image.

The reasons have been discussed ad nauseam, and it is really quite clear at this point that Mario had little space to counter the circumstance.

The Gamecube rectified the HW design choices, but still failed at everything else, even Mario (I'm looking at Sunshine).

--------------------

Having said that, having gone blue ocean with the N64 (SW-wise), I doubt they could have countered the Playstation's incredible lead, at least not in places other than NA. All the other circumstancial factors were there to make it fail anyways.



Jumpin on 04 March 2012
happydolphin said:

 

Nintendo lost at the Red Ocean battle with the N64, I think that is clear enough for all of us at this point.

Their failure is due to:

 

  • launch timing,
  • console cost and bundling,
  • HW design choices (that alienated 3rd parties)
  • poor 3rd party relations.
  • weaker marketing and mainstream penetration than Sony
  • Improperly managed console image.

 

The reasons have been discussed ad nauseam, and it is really quite clear at this point that Mario had little space to counter the circumstance.

The gamecube rectified the HW design choices, but still failed at everything else, even Mario (I'm looking at Sunshine).

 

It used mini-disks while the others used DVDs, and it had this really awkward controller with barely usable trigger buttons and D-pad, and a very strange pattern for face buttons with this giant green button in the middle (made it nearly impossible to transition between the B, Y, and X buttons). So I am not really sure the hardware was up to standard.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

happydolphin on 04 March 2012
Jumpin said:
happydolphin said:

 

Nintendo lost at the Red Ocean battle with the N64, I think that is clear enough for all of us at this point.

Their failure is due to:

 

  • launch timing,
  • console cost and bundling,
  • HW design choices (that alienated 3rd parties)
  • poor 3rd party relations.
  • weaker marketing and mainstream penetration than Sony
  • Improperly managed console image.

 

The reasons have been discussed ad nauseam, and it is really quite clear at this point that Mario had little space to counter the circumstance.

The gamecube rectified the HW design choices, but still failed at everything else, even Mario (I'm looking at Sunshine).

 

It used mini-disks while the others used DVDs, and it had this really awkward controller with barely usable trigger buttons and D-pad, and a very strange pattern for face buttons with this giant green button in the middle (made it nearly impossible to transition between the B, Y, and X buttons). So I am not really sure the hardware was up to standard.

Yeah, the image factor still failed with GC. For HW very few design choices were still at issue, so I wouldn't base the system's failure on them per se. They was leap-wise improvements over the N64's mistakes that's for sure.



Around the Network
happydolphin on 04 March 2012
RolStoppable said:

3) Super Mario World sold 3.54m copies in Japan, a slight drop from Super Mario Bros. 3's 3.84m. That's perfectly acceptable for a rushed sequel (in order to launch with the SNES) that to this day generates debates on whether an 8- or 16-bit title is the better game. But honestly, would you say that all main series Pokémon games after the initial combo are less legitimate Pokémon games? Probably not, because you are afraid of the Pokémaniacs on this website.

@bold. I'm not afraid of anyone like you would be, I'm not like you. I say things as they are.

So, SM64 a launch title sold 2M units in Japan. That's in line with SMW as a sequel to SMB. If SMW can go 50% of SMB, then why can't SM64.

Checkmate bud.

@pokemon. A sequel is a sequel, I have little issue with it selling less unless there is some potential it can tap into to reinvigorate it (See NSMB, SMG).


4) This is a combination of bad communication and selective quoting. You asked:

 how many more N64s would have sold by the merits of SM64

...which I read as how many more consoles would have been sold; and to avoid miscommunication I expanded my answer:

"I would put that number at zero. Zero more N64s would have been sold, if Super Mario 64 had been bundled with the system. But obviously there would have been more copies of Super Mario 64 in the market. It's a good thing that the game wasn't bundled, because this way we can see the game's actual value to the market. And just like future 3D Mario games, this value is considerably lower than that of a 2D Mario game."

...which you cut off.

This is neither of the two. It's me not seeing any more sense in the explanation, and not finding worth in even posting it. It was better off being cut off, since it was even less sensical than the sentence it was meaning to disambiguate.

A truly ridiculous opinion tbh. Be it the actual claim, or its disambiguation. No wonder we have such a hard time understanding each other, you're terribly illogical at times.

To explain one more time:

If the Mario 64 experience could be played at a cost of 300$, or at a cost of 370$, which would sell more copies of the experience (N64+M64)? The answer is obvious.



brendude13 on 04 March 2012

Gamecube rules, N64 sux!



happydolphin on 04 March 2012
RolStoppable said:

1) Um, what? SMW sold about the same as SMB3, both about half of what SMB sold. SM64 sold half of what either SMW and SMB3 sold, so only about 25 % of what SMB did. If you want to count SM64 as a main series Mario game, it's a damn failure, because it performed even worse than the original SMB2.

2) It's not my problem, if you can't read.


@1. Your bringing in SMB2 is utter fail, and you know why, and the reason is Doki Doki panic. Not only is it not a mainline mario game, it isn't a mario game. Geez.

SM64 did 25% of SMB, in line with 50% of SMW, and SMW being 50% of SMB. I'm considering the best metric. First mainline Mario game for the system (this removes the SMB3 doubt of being a sequel on the same platform).

My numbers are fine, your denial isn't.

2) If I couldn't read, I wouldn't be able to write coherently. It's your problem. Why am I wasting my time trying to convince myself of anything. You're totally out of whack. Not always, but here you clearly are.



Rath on 04 March 2012
Wyrdness said:
Jumpin said:

Dreamcast was the only 128 bit system that gen, believe it or not.
GameCube and PS2 had 64 bit chips.
Xbox had a 32 bit chip.

 

The N64 was 64 bit capable; but it was never utilized, the data operations were 32 bit for all games. The console was bottlenecked in several areas, and was an absolute nightmare to develop for.


When people say 128bit they don't mean the chips they mean performance wise, PS2 had a 64bit chip with a double core, hence why the EE is called the 128bit emotion engine while the GC had a similar style set up with a faster processor, the DC chip itself was a 64bit double core.

???

When people say 128 bit they can only mean that it has a word size of 128 bits. You can't talk about two 64 bit processors being 128 bits. It'd be like saying that two cars are a truck.

The 128 bit being referred to in both the DC and the PS2 is the vector processing unit, not the architecture of the CPU.



oniyide on 04 March 2012
spurgeonryan said:
brendude13 said:
Gamecube rules, N64 sux!


Name me 10 great GC games, and I will name you 20 Great N64 games. Now you could add all the multi plat games from the GC and it might win, just because the N64 was basically missing any multi plat support. I never was that excited for the GC.

SO.... in the end your basically agreeing with brendude. I dont think N64 sucks BTW. Only one Ninty console that I thought was subpar and its not VB