Zelda Wii confirmed for 2010

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

^ Who's saying that?

[Metal Mario]

I don't think anybody is saying that.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

Well, I guess it would have been cool. But I figured as much.

[heh]

well there was an article posted in this very thread... plus some others.

[LASER BEAR ASSAULT UNIT]

Originally Posted by Kargath

You trust Japan's /b/ for news?

Considering the ridiculously good track record 2ch has (Multiple games and manga news before its released) i'd say yes, i do trust it.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

Originally Posted by Out-of-Control Inflatable Gorilla Fire

You must have missed the part where a 9 year wait for the addition of only a total simultaneous 56 possible colors on an unlit screen in the same resolution with the same sound hardware was not a compelling step forward. Not to mention the obvious inability to personally choose color palettes displayed in original Gameboy games, as well as the inability to read Super Gameboy color data.

Compare the increase in color depth from 4 to 56 to the system difference between the SNES and N64, for instance, which had a shorter gap in their respective releases: 256 8-bit to (assuming)32,768 16-bit. Also consider that because of the GBC's lack of lighting, all fine colors it might have been capable of displaying will be blended with medium grey to dull their contrast.

Too little too late.

Huh. I guess I did miss the nine-year wait...but the end result was still pretty sweet.

The colors seemed fine to me. Pokémon Crystal was beautiful.

The unlit screen issue wouldn't be resolved until remakes of the Game Boy Advance was released, so I don't think this is a valid gripe, because you could then say the GBA wasn't a good enough upgrade because it suffered from an unlit screen. And the GBA is probably one of the greatest systems in history.

As for the sound hardware of the GB and GBC, I can't find much information on it, but my weak little reference I can provide is by some random guy from some random forum I Googled named "Exophase." Yeah. Anyway, according to him, the GBA basically uses the same sound hardware as GB and GBC, so again, we aren't going to say the GBA was a poor upgrade will hm?

The screen resolution? You mean that it had the same size screen, that it didn't get bigger? The trend is smaller screens these days, so the same sized screen shouldn't be an issue. I'm probably just misunderstanding you due to my own ignorance though. =/

Yeah, if you compare the upgrade to some crazy jump like NES to SNES, your point comes across clearly. But Sega had a massive leap forward with the Dreamcast and what good did it do them?

[the Octopus]

Well, for starters I have to this day never paid for a GBA. I've found an SP in the woods at the park, and later had someone give me an original GBA because they didn't want it. I actually paid for a Gameboy Player to play Metroid Fusion, Zero Mission, and the Castlevania titles with it. Most of the games being released were awful rehashes or tv/movie franchise cash-ins, so there were no must-haves on the GBA to kick things off. The no-light thing? Yeah, I wouldn't own an original GBA if I had to pay for it.

The sound hardware is an amusing point, because the GBA does have the same sound hardware as the GBC - for GBC games. It also has GBA sound hardware for GBA games. The GBC had no midi-tables, with much-more-simplistic synthesizers and very, very, low-memory support for sampling.

The screen resolution quip means that there was no increase in pixels displayed in the same screen space, it was literally the exact same resolution and AFAIK the exact same size. I mean that the dots on the screen should have been smaller, and there should have been more of them in the same alotted space. A standard 4:3 ratio screen would've been a plus, too, but they stuck with their 1:1 ratio. As a result, the lower resolutions hurt gameplay: SMB, for example, became much more difficult to play on the GBC as it lacked available space on screen to display approaching obstacles and enemies. If you'll notice, the objects in the original Super Mario Land are very small, while the objects in SML2: the 6 Golden Coins are larger, but the speed of the gameplay has been significantly reduced to accommodate the small viewing area:

Click to view video.

Click to view video.

If I compare the NES to the SNES, there was only a 5 year gap in releases for that CA-RAZY jump. The GB to GBC was a 9 year gap. That's 4 more years for a lot of nothing new.

Sega's tank with the DC was due to timing, bad reputation, and a pathetic budget for advertising. By ingloriously dropping support for the Saturn, 32x, and CD systems, Sega insured that many onetime fans were no longer supporters. The timing was bad for Sega because they'd only dropped Saturn support a few measly years prior, and their hardware could've been cooked a bit longer, frankly. The advertising budget was what hurt them most, though - the company literally didn't have the cash to float the system on the market. Also, considering their history with the Saturn, they'd burned a LOT of bridges with the stores they'd need shelf space in.

[Metal Mario]

Originally Posted by Out-of-Control Inflatable Gorilla Fire

Most of the games being released were awful rehashes or tv/movie franchise cash-ins

Well, that's true enough. It's a shame that a system with such potential had to be used as such a dumping ground for remakes and licensed crap. Why the hell didn't we get New Super Mario Bros. way back in 2001?

[Robotazy]

Because the GBA can't process 3d graphics.

duh.

[Metal Mario]

We didn't need any 3D graphics in a new Mario side-scroller! If Nintendo could give us GBA ports of SMB 2, SMB 3, SMW, and SMW 2, then they should have gotten off their ass and given us something new.

[X-3]

Does Mario v.s. DK count?

[Metal Mario]

^It's a good game, but I was thinking along the lines of Super Mario World 3.

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

Originally Posted by Out-of-Control Inflatable Gorilla Fire

Well, for starters I have to this day never paid for a GBA. I've found an SP in the woods at the park, and later had someone give me an original GBA because they didn't want it. I actually paid for a Gameboy Player to play Metroid Fusion, Zero Mission, and the Castlevania titles with it. Most of the games being released were awful rehashes or tv/movie franchise cash-ins, so there were no must-haves on the GBA to kick things off. The no-light thing? Yeah, I wouldn't own an original GBA if I had to pay for it.

Well, you're a lucky one, but it would have been your loss to never play the GBA.

Originally Posted by Out-of-Control Inflatable Gorilla Fire

The sound hardware is an amusing point, because the GBA does have the same sound hardware as the GBC - for GBC games. It also has GBA sound hardware for GBA games. The GBC had no midi-tables, with much-more-simplistic synthesizers and very, very, low-memory support for sampling.

Huh. Alright.

Originally Posted by Out-of-Control Inflatable Gorilla Fire

The screen resolution quip means that there was no increase in pixels displayed in the same screen space, it was literally the exact same resolution and AFAIK the exact same size. I mean that the dots on the screen should have been smaller, and there should have been more of them in the same alotted space. A standard 4:3 ratio screen would've been a plus, too, but they stuck with their 1:1 ratio. As a result, the lower resolutions hurt gameplay: SMB, for example, became much more difficult to play on the GBC as it lacked available space on screen to display approaching obstacles and enemies. If you'll notice, the objects in the original Super Mario Land are very small, while the objects in SML2: the 6 Golden Coins are larger, but the speed of the gameplay has been significantly reduced to accommodate the small viewing area:

Yeah, I thought so. Alright, fair enough I suppose. But it still did LOOK pretty good anyway, I thought.

Originally Posted by Out-of-Control Inflatable Gorilla Fire

If I compare the NES to the SNES, there was only a 5 year gap in releases for that CA-RAZY jump. The GB to GBC was a 9 year gap. That's 4 more years for a lot of nothing new.

But who's counting years here? Well, you I guess, and four years is a while, but ya get it when ya get it.

Originally Posted by Out-of-Control Inflatable Gorilla Fire

Sega's tank with the DC was due to timing, bad reputation, and a pathetic budget for advertising. By ingloriously dropping support for the Saturn, 32x, and CD systems, Sega insured that many onetime fans were no longer supporters. The timing was bad for Sega because they'd only dropped Saturn support a few measly years prior, and their hardware could've been cooked a bit longer, frankly. The advertising budget was what hurt them most, though - the company literally didn't have the cash to float the system on the market. Also, considering their history with the Saturn, they'd burned a LOT of bridges with the stores they'd need shelf space in.

Yeah, I know. But, that bigger jumps don't always mean better is what my ill-made point was. I can more properly convey this with a comparison between the DS and PSP. One is more powerful (PSP) but one arguably has a larger library of better games; the DS. The DS was still a good enough jump from the GBA to be successful, but it isn't nearly as powerful as the PSP; and they both came out ina close enough time period to be considered of the same generation.

...and guys, the GBA really did have great games. Mega Man Zero and Battle Network, Golden Sun series, and Pokémon just to name a few big ones. And this is just off the top of my head, I could easily bring forth a list of badass games a few pages long.

[the Octopus]

I'm not sure what you're going on about, the Dreamcast was still a huge improvement over the Saturn. Did you know that that Saturn had no language support, everything it ran had to be written in Assembly? The system had 3 processors, and it was a nightmare to get 3D software running on it.

Anyway, the PSP and the DS are a different case - Nintendo might've released a system that doesn't do texture filtering, but their hardware is actually relatively comparable. One of the big things you'll note here is that Nintendo offered alternative features that the PSP did not - namely multiple screens and touch functions. Something else Sony did wrong was use an easy-to-damage media on a portable system. Load-times are also a no-no on portables. Still, the three things that really got in the way of the PSP's success (that Sony is apparently oblivious to) are its questionably high launching price, its lack of titles, and the fact that it had to compete with the DS when the DS already had a legup on the market. The PSP wasn't an incumbent franchise that we were waiting for an installment of, we had no idea it was launching until it was announced. For 15 years, Nintendo had already been the go-to guys for portables. And, the lack of titles really cinched it; nobody really cares how good your hardware is, if it doesn't have any software to run.

Of course, that's no argument against how dodgy the system upgrades Nintendo churned out were, since the games aren't the system. Nintendo were capable of making titles, we all see that, but the talent of the game designers can in no way be considered a product merely of the platform. The platform enables the titles, and the GBC didn't enable much, if anything more, than the GB.


Ya get it when ya get it is right, and we did get it when the GBA SP finally came out in 2003. That was a frigid 14 year wait for improvements in portable gaming, gotta say, and practically anyone with the startup and the incentive could've launched a system to top the GBC. They're lucky Sony had cold feet for the portables market, and Sega were too stupid to design a system with a battery life over an hour (or that cost anything reasonable).

[I REALLY HATE POKEMON!]

*Pokes you in the chest*

At least admit the GBA had a glorious line-up of must have games. =|

[t3hDarkness]

Namely Golden Sun.

[the Octopus]

Golden Sun was decent, but the cliffhanger end was a blatant cop-out. Metroid Fusion and Zero Mission are must-haves for me, and the Castlevania games all turned out beautifully. Mega Man Zero sure as hell brought the Mega Man X franchise back from the dead, but I don't think they really hit their stride until the first ZX on the DS. The Mario games were all throwaway re-releases with sloppy "improvements" hamming up the classic formulas. A port of LttP was a fantasy of mine for a long time, although the annoying voice clips and pointless script changes kind of brought that down a notch. The first fourswords was a mundane effort at a brilliant concept, and was never fully realized on the GBA. Minish Cap was fun, but also par-for-the-course in the way of handheld Zelda games - some say less and I'd like to give them a nod in saying that the overworld, graphical style, and cast really could've used some more effort.

I'm having a hard time remembering anything else that either wasn't crap or wasn't just another port. Maybe Sonic Advance? If you like that kind of thing, it might be good. The GBA had a lot of potential, but it seems like Nintendo avoided making much anything new for it.

Oh, just remembered. Kirby and the Amazing Mirror is tight, although it was also pretty damn hard to find in any stores at the time of release.

So yeah, there were some titles for it. I was thrilled about the Metroid games, although crap like the fusion suit was pretty awkward. It's like Nintendo operates out of another reality sometimes, where messing with your fanbase is a great way to get more money. I mean, it's like MM said up there: Was there even a decent Super Mario Bros game on the GBA? Besides those butchered ports? Nah, there wasn't. Dubya tee eff.

[Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds]

He means the five hundred Pokemon titles.

[the Octopus]

I thought we were talking about games, here.

[Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds]

Also, like, seven Dragon Ball games.

And I'm just teasin', man. You can like the GBA all you want, but in literal facts, it wasn't anything incredible in terms of what improvements they should have started out with in the time frame.

So, a quick glance over the GBA release list, I assume everyone else's idea of "must haves" on the systems included: Advanced Wars, FF Tactics, Mega Man Battle Network and Mega Man Zero, Mario & Luigi, and possibly the Wario Ware games. Am I close? Because I don't own any of those games (no appeal to me).