North-American release of:
NES: 1985 (1986 in Canada)
SNES: 1991
N64: 1996
GameCube: 2001
Wii: 2006
Do we see a pattern here? Can expect the next big Nintendo console to be released in 2011?
Sony has a pattern too:
PSX 1994
PS2 2000
PS3 2006
It's probably not something they do intentionally though, it's just a result of Moore's Law or whatever.
Sega (if we don't count the sucky sideproducts):
1986: Master System;
1991: Megadrive/Genesis;
1995: Saturn;
1999: Dreamcast.
Shorter than both Sony and Nintendo, eh?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Speaking of Nintendo consoles, is it just me imagining, or was the GameCube not really a very notorious console?
I mean, the NES and the SNES were just *huge*. They were like the absolute leaders of game consoles of their times with hardly any rivals (only the Sega Genesis came even close). Then came the N64, which got some popularity, but was completely overshadowed by the incredible popularity of the Sony Playstation. People knew the N64 existed, but the Playstation was really the undisputed number one leader of consoles of the time.
Same with the GameCube vs. the Playstation 2, but perhaps even more pronouncedly. The PS2 was simply staggeringly popular. AFAIK, by far the best-selling console of all times with 140 million units sold worldwide. The GameCube was not bad itself in this regard, with 21 million units sold, but once again completely overshadowed by its competitor.
At the time I got the impression that while they tried to advertise the GameCube, it still wasn't just all that notorious. Most people probably quickly forgot about it.
Luckily for Nintendo they made a great comeback with the Wii.
The GameCube was not bad itself in this regard, with 21 million units sold, but once again completely overshadowed by its competitor.
The problem with Nintendo is that they aim for babies as their target audience. Especially the Gamecube. I mean, who still wants to play with cubes when they're 20?
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
nfq wrote:
Warp wrote:
The GameCube was not bad itself in this regard, with 21 million units sold, but once again completely overshadowed by its competitor.
The problem with Nintendo is that they aim for babies as their target audience. Especially the Gamecube. I mean, who still wants to play with cubes when they're 20?
In case you haven't noticed, people continue to be born. Which means that there will always be a younger demographic to cater to.
The GameCube was not bad itself in this regard, with 21 million units sold, but once again completely overshadowed by its competitor.
The problem with Nintendo is that they aim for babies as their target audience. Especially the Gamecube. I mean, who still wants to play with cubes when they're 20?
In case you haven't noticed, people continue to be born. Which means that there will always be a younger demographic to cater to.
In case you haven't noticed, people continue to be born. Which means that there will always be a younger demographic to cater to.
You didn't fully understand. Aiming for a younger demographic doesn't make a system any more popular. Not aiming for an older demographic, though… A good part of the Genesis's success in US and some parts of the Europe was due to the fact that almost none of its games was censored; there was blood and stuff, while Nintendo opted for toning down the violence in any way possible since the NES days (and only a few years ago realized that it in fact hurt the sales). First/second party 13+ games were practically nonexistent until late into N64 era, IIRC, and even those made by third parties were quite scarce.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I'm still of the opinion that the controller is what killed Gamecube. It was a sturdy platform with a lot of great titles to its credit, and early on in its life, developers flocked to it from the PS2 due to the devkit's ease of use and the capability of the hardware. But the most frequent complaint overheard was that the controller was terrible. Face button locations, awkward Z button, completely unusable d-pad both in location and manipulation, and why was the cord eight inches long? Who the hell sits that close to the TV? I lived in a cramped apartment barely big enough for one person, and the cord STILL didn't span the miniscule distance from the TV to the couch.
PlayStation's success was the result of good marketing, strong hardware design, and the fact that Saturn was an architectural monstrosity. PS2's success was simply the result of, "oh, it's like a PlayStation, but better! I want one!" because God knows it had nothing going for it otherwise. Dreamcast, which had a two-year head start, had twice the VRAM, so PS2's textures were right ugly by comparison. It was also an even more difficult beast to tame for developers than Saturn was. Not to mention its competition in Xbox and Gamecube outshined it in every way possible (barring, say, DVD playing capability). And yet, it succeeds, despite being the weakest platform. Thank you, consumers.
Amusingly, the Wii is also succeeding, despite being the weakest platform of this generation. This should prove that hardware capability no longer means a damned thing. But what does? :o
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
However, I feel the Gamecube controller's triggers were so much better. The springs were way too hard on some of the xbox controllers and long periods of gaming made your fingers ache.
Also, I'd just like to point out that the PS3 triggers suck ASS. It's so easy to slip off them and they depress at an awkward angle. Have Sony heard of ergonomics? Though I am pleased the X360 controllers are improved when it comes to trigger strength.
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
My only complaint with the Gamecube's triggers was that they had a bit of a lag time in games like SoulCalibur II, where I really needed them to be there for me. That said, I did like that they still had a solid click to them at the end.
The original beefy Xbox controller was fine, even for my girly hands, minus the triggers with WAY too much resistance. But I take that over the midget controller, just because the midget has horrible black and white button placement. Seriously, whoever decided on that needs to be shot.
The PS3's triggers could be worse, but I have to admit that the 360 controller feels right. I hated the placement of the shoulder buttons at first, but it didn't take me long to get used to. Everything else on it is great, even the d-pad, which I seem to be the only person alive who DOESN'T have a problem with it. But considering I was able to play Street Fighter III on the standard Dreamcast controller for years, I admit I'm probably something of an anomaly.
I'm still of the opinion that the controller is what killed Gamecube.
Comparing the Playstation 2 controller to the GameCube controller, I really see what you mean. The latter looks painful to use (besides looking like a toy for toddlers, those which make funny sounds when you press the huge brightly-colored buttons).
PS2's success was simply the result of, "oh, it's like a PlayStation, but better! I want one!" because God knows it had nothing going for it otherwise.
AFAIK one reason which added to its popularity was its support for video DVDs, which effectively made it a DVD player. At the time it was much cheaper than a real DVD player (which were quite expensive at the time).
Add to that its humongous library of high-quality games and its popularity...
Dreamcast, which had a two-year head start, had twice the VRAM, so PS2's textures were right ugly by comparison. It was also an even more difficult beast to tame for developers than Saturn was.
I remember reading developer rants about the PS2 as a platform, and how difficult it was for the developers to make things which were very easy in the Dreamcast and other consoles of the time. The Dreamcast also had technical features which the PS2 lacked completely. (Do I remember correctly that the Dreamcast had hardware support for antialiasing, which was quite rare at the time, and which the PS2 lacked?)
The death of the Dreamcast was a real shame. Basically people simply stopped buying it for the simple reason that Sony had announced that their Playstation 2 is on the way, and will be "much better". Everyone started waiting for the PS2, and the Dreamcast got killed. In the end, the PS2 was *not* much better than the Dreamcast, but people bought it anyways.
Amusingly, the Wii is also succeeding, despite being the weakest platform of this generation. This should prove that hardware capability no longer means a damned thing. But what does? :o
Tell me about it. If I'm not mistaken the Nintendo DS is technically rather inferior to the Playstation Portable, yet the DS is hugely popular while the PSP is still struggling (popular enough to not to die, thankfully, but sufficiently unpopular to get an undeserved negative fame).
The PS2 had AA AND AF support, but it was never used. The DC didn't really use it either(Nor did it use the EMBM support).
Really, though, the PS2 and DC don't really belong in the same category. the PS2 can pull off way more polygons, while the DC wasn't even close in that regard but had better texturing(Though the PS2 being an effective 16x1 or 16x0 on it's pipes was just frigging amazing from a design curiosities point of view).
Two different design philosophies.
The death of the Dreamcast was a real shame. Basically people simply stopped buying it for the simple reason that Sony had announced that their Playstation 2 is on the way, and will be "much better". Everyone started waiting for the PS2, and the Dreamcast got killed. In the end, the PS2 was *not* much better than the Dreamcast, but people bought it anyways.
Joined: 3/14/2008
Posts: 152
Location: United Kingdom
superjupi wrote:
I'm still of the opinion that the controller is what killed Gamecube. It was a sturdy platform with a lot of great titles to its credit, and early on in its life, developers flocked to it from the PS2 due to the devkit's ease of use and the capability of the hardware. But the most frequent complaint overheard was that the controller was terrible. Face button locations, awkward Z button, completely unusable d-pad both in location and manipulation, and why was the cord eight inches long? Who the hell sits that close to the TV? I lived in a cramped apartment barely big enough for one person, and the cord STILL didn't span the miniscule distance from the TV to the couch.
IMO, the Gamecube controller is the second best to date, the first being the xbox 360 controller.
As Raiscan said, I like the triggers, especially the way they are analouge, and digital (with the "click in" when you push them all the way down")
I think the z button is in a good place.
Also, <3 wavebirds :P
The PS2 had AA AND AF support, but it was never used. The DC didn't really use it either(Nor did it use the EMBM support).
Incorrect. The PS2 does not natively support either FSAA or AF. Instead, developers must fake the effect of AA through painful framebuffer tricks. I don't recall AF ever being used in any way, shape, or form, through framebuffer abuse or otherwise.
Really, though, the PS2 and DC don't really belong in the same category. the PS2 can pull off way more polygons, while the DC wasn't even close in that regard but had better texturing(Though the PS2 being an effective 16x1 or 16x0 on it's pipes was just frigging amazing from a design curiosities point of view).
Yet the Dreamcast would be plenty adequate to compete against it if you were to look at, say, Wii vs 360/PS3. More triangles per second doesn't necessarily make up for ease of development platform.
IMO, the Gamecube controller is the second best to date, the first being the xbox 360 controller.
As Raiscan said, I like the triggers, especially the way they are analouge, and digital (with the "click in" when you push them all the way down")
I think the z button is in a good place.
Also, <3 wavebirds :P
I don't HATE the Gamecube controller, I was more trying to say that most consumers wouldn't even give the thing a chance due to its design. I thought the face buttons felt almost natural after a few minutes, and my only lasting complaints were the atrocious d-pad and laughable cord length. Though yes, a Wavebird does make all the difference in the world, sans vibration.
It's still not a favorite controller of mine, by any stretch, but I can think of far worse. You know, like, say, the original American Saturn controller. x_X
The PS2 had AA AND AF support, but it was never used. The DC didn't really use it either(Nor did it use the EMBM support).
Incorrect. The PS2 does not natively support either FSAA or AF. Instead, developers must fake the effect of AA through painful framebuffer tricks. I don't recall AF ever being used in any way, shape, or form, through framebuffer abuse or otherwise.
I'm unable to find the old magazine that had that info... It was info from the unveiling, so I'm sure it's accurate, but given I cannot back up my claim I'll withdraw it for now.
Yeah, I have an issue of Next-Generation that claims it was capable of both effects, but the claim was made under false pretenses. It is technically capable of AA, by using a vaseline-like effect on the screen with the framebuffer, but natively, it lacks true FSAA. AF is, I'm rather certain, completely absent. But hey, Sony also claimed PSP was fully capable of rendering NURBS, and that has yet to be seen, to my knowledge.
Also, to be fair, Dreamcast was only capable of FSAA while in SDTV mode. Once in VGA mode, FSAA is automatically disabled. AF will always work, regardless.
