So, "GameCube 2.0"...

win = ninty make powerful hardware & add novelty. get all multplats & nice eclusive

CaptainGamespot

Let's say that Nintendo would, hypothetically, create a sort of "spiritual successor" to the GameCube, meaning more emphasis on hardware (much more powerful than current-gen systems and comparable to, or even better, than next-gen Sony and MS machines), less emphasis on controller (pretty much a standard, dual analog gamepad, maybe just with a touch surface), more emphasis on new IPs (including M-rated ones), better 3rd party support, a competitive online system and low price.

Would you buy it?

This is a serious question because we all seen how it went with GC, in sales terms.

It may be true that it had some shortcommings like no online, mini DVD and some missing 3rd party support (no Rockstar games), but still it was a competitive system with it's own, unique library of games.

I have a feeling that even if Nintendo listened to the "core" gamers, people would still largly ignore their system...

After all, there is a reason why they made the Wii... (you can guess two times - because "core" gamers tended to ignore "kiddytendo", no matter what they did)

Discuss.

It would depend highly on exclusives (other than Mario, Zelda, Metroid that dont interest me in the slightest)

As it stands Bayonetta 2 is the only Wii U exclusive I'm jealous of

Yes. For it's lack of 3rd party support later in life, The gamecube still held some of the better games I played when I was younger.

And at least the Gamecube had several awesome multi-plats(that were enhanced and didn't suffer with performance) and exclusives at launch

Maybe if they gave it Skies of Arcadia 2.

I mean the GC got the Directors Cut of the game on DC sooooo...give a sequel and I'd buy it?:P

As much as I loved the Wii and also love my Wii U, I think the Gamecube was one of the greatest systems ever. And when Nintendo has chosen to compete directly they have made amazing hardware. Many times, as you pointed out, it's a more competent machine than their competitors (see; SNES, N64, Gamecube).

So yes I would buy it and love it if they did this. More for the respect they would gain back than anything. Like I said I LOVE the Wii U, but gamers have become fickle and boring. The innovation scares them in lieu of groundbreaking graphics. So I'd like for people to see why Nintendo is still the best company in the biz. But I don't see it happening. C'est la vie...

gamecube 2.0 = wii

wiiU = gamecube 3.0

I don't think it's financially viable to do that anymore.
But I bought a GC immediately. And I would have bought a GC2. I don't think it's a sound strategy though, it wouldn't be succesful enough no.

No, I don't think the market can support 3 "mainstream" consoles. Nintendo doing their own thing is the right move for them, I just think they missed the mark with the Wii U. It might be viable when $ony go bust though...

The GodCube was the best console in its gen. princeofshapeir

no

win = ninty make powerful hardware & add novelty. get all multplats & nice eclusive

The GodCube was the best console in its gen. princeofshapeir

if u ignored what offered by eveything else, yes.

child do that alot.

Let's say that Nintendo would, hypothetically, create a sort of "spiritual successor" to the GameCube, meaning more emphasis on hardware (much more powerful than current-gen systems and comparable to, or even better, than next-gen Sony and MS machines), less emphasis on controller (pretty much a standard, dual analog gamepad, maybe just with a touch surface), more emphasis on new IPs (including M-rated ones), better 3rd party support, a competitive online system and low price.

Would you buy it?

nameless12345

Aren't most of the things you're talking about part of Nintendo's plan with the Wii U? They dealt away with the accessible, motion-based scheme as the primary control feature and mass-market appeal that defined the Wii for what they felt was an evolution of the conventional controller with the Gamepad (and followed that up with an even more conventional Pro controller) and built a system they believed focused on everything the original Wii supposedly lacked (power, third party support, online infrastructure, etc). The final product just hasn't proved to be very appealing, and in a sense, that's what makes the Wii U itself a "spiritual successor" to the GameCube. The only potentially major difference between what you're talking about and the Wii U would be just how powerful the system actually is. That said, I struggle to see how Nintendo could make a system as potent as one you're talking about and also manage to keep it affordable.

To answer your question, maybe. The Wii U currently doesn't give me much hope, and I feel that a GameCube 2.0 would only go further down an undesirable direction in terms of its potential and future. I say that also having a pretty big collection of GCN games, but I still don't want to see more of the same from Nintendo. Instead, I'm probably one of the few people that believes Nintendo should continue to try to find ways to keep their platforms unique. Simply put, going back to expand on the model on its least successful console simply doesn't come across as something that works in Nintendo's best interest, and from a gaming point of view, I think Nintendo can actually do a lot better.

id get it, but too me wiiu will do about the same as gamecube. and it was a really good consolse.

GameCube 2.0? That's low, since at least the GameCube offered people decent games while it wasn't selling.lamprey263

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]The GodCube was the best console in its gen. Vatusus

no

Yes.

[QUOTE="Vatusus"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]The GodCube was the best console in its gen. Darth-Samus

no

Yes.

[QUOTE="Darth-Samus"]

[QUOTE="Vatusus"]

no

Willy105

Yes.

[QUOTE="Willy105"][QUOTE="Darth-Samus"]

Yes.

heeweesRus

Wii U pretty much is gamecube 2.  ...And it's also a Wii.

Best of both worlds.

i would be interested.

The GodCube was the best console in its gen. princeofshapeir

Sometimes I think it's the best console of all time.

That'll change this generation one way or another though.

Let's say that Nintendo would, hypothetically, create a sort of "spiritual successor" to the GameCube, meaning more emphasis on hardware (much more powerful than current-gen systems and comparable to, or even better, than next-gen Sony and MS machines), less emphasis on controller (pretty much a standard, dual analog gamepad, maybe just with a touch surface), more emphasis on new IPs (including M-rated ones), better 3rd party support, a competitive online system and low price.

Would you buy it?

This is a serious question because we all seen how it went with GC, in sales terms.

It may be true that it had some shortcommings like no online, mini DVD and some missing 3rd party support (no Rockstar games), but still it was a competitive system with it's own, unique library of games.

I have a feeling that even if Nintendo listened to the "core" gamers, people would still largly ignore their system...

After all, there is a reason why they made the Wii... (you can guess two times - because "core" gamers tended to ignore "kiddytendo", no matter what they did)

 

Discuss.

nameless12345

Yes I would. But they would have to shelf Mario and Zelda and bring out more of their other franchises. If they wanna make 10 Mario games a generation that is not gonna work. But 2 F-Zero's, 3 Starfoxes, and 3 Mario Karts would work.

I loved my gamecube, but looking back, 3rd party support was lacking.

It wouldn't be good as your only platform, but I wouldn't mind a 'gamecube 2' alongside my PC.

kinda hoping that's what the WiiU is.

Here's a better idea. A SNES 2. Kjranu

What would that be?

NES 3?

Wii U pretty much is gamecube 2. ...And it's also a Wii.

Best of both worlds.

Chozofication

Agreed ^

gamecube 2.0 = wii

wiiU = gamecube 2.5

AmnesiaHaze

I wouldn't immediately shoot down the idea of Nintendo releasing another console with hardware on par with the competition aimed at the core group simply because of the gamecubes shortcomings.

Depending on how the Wii-U goes this gen (or continues to go), the same could be said about their strategy of being different with low end hardware and going after a casual market.

Then what :|

[QUOTE="AmnesiaHaze"]

gamecube 2.0 = wii

wiiU = gamecube 2.5

starwarsjunky

The GodCube was the best console in its gen. princeofshapeir

Not by a long shot, even if it did have the best version of RE4 first. It lacked Ninja Gaiden and GTA.

[QUOTE="heeweesRus"]

[QUOTE="Willy105"] Notice how he said console instead of game library. Because the Gamecube is still the most amazing piece of hardware ever designed by a manufacturer, from it's insides to out. It also has the best game library, but who cares about that?Willy105

and the best

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Let's say that Nintendo would, hypothetically, create a sort of "spiritual successor" to the GameCube, meaning more emphasis on hardware (much more powerful than current-gen systems and comparable to, or even better, than next-gen Sony and MS machines), less emphasis on controller (pretty much a standard, dual analog gamepad, maybe just with a touch surface), more emphasis on new IPs (including M-rated ones), better 3rd party support, a competitive online system and low price.

Would you buy it?

Madmangamer364

Aren't most of the things you're talking about part of Nintendo's plan with the Wii U? They dealt away with the accessible, motion-based scheme as the primary control feature and mass-market appeal that defined the Wii for what they felt was an evolution of the conventional controller with the Gamepad (and followed that up with an even more conventional Pro controller) and built a system they believed focused on everything the original Wii supposedly lacked (power, third party support, online infrastructure, etc). The final product just hasn't proved to be very appealing, and in a sense, that's what makes the Wii U itself a "spiritual successor" to the GameCube. The only potentially major difference between what you're talking about and the Wii U would be just how powerful the system actually is. That said, I struggle to see how Nintendo could make a system as potent as one you're talking about and also manage to keep it affordable.

To answer your question, maybe. The Wii U currently doesn't give me much hope, and I feel that a GameCube 2.0 would only go further down an undesirable direction in terms of its potential and future. I say that also having a pretty big collection of GCN games, but I still don't want to see more of the same from Nintendo. Instead, I'm probably one of the few people that believes Nintendo should continue to try to find ways to keep their platforms unique. Simply put, going back to expand on the model on its least successful console simply doesn't come across as something that works in Nintendo's best interest, and from a gaming point of view, I think Nintendo can actually do a lot better.

To an extent, yes, but "too little, too late", imo.

I find the WiiU is in a kinda awkward position as it doesn't manage to significantly outperform the current-gen systems neither has the capacity to compete with the next-gen systems due to lacking hardware.

Plus there is too much emphasis on the controller when the majority of "dedicated" gamers care more about the games themselves.

I do believe it's possible to make a system with impressive hardware for an affordable price as that is what the N64 and NGC essentially were.

It's also not true that 3rd party games can't do well on Nintendo's systems.

For example the SNES had very good 3rd party support besides Nintendo's stellar 1st party line-up as well as impressive hardware and an affordable price and it is often mentioned as one of the best systems of all times.

So if Nintendo managed to obtain it all (i.e. stellar 1st party, good 3rd party support, good hardware and affordable price), their system would probably fare a lot better.

But of course it's hard to predict the "market trends".

So even if your system may fill the things listed, it may still flop. (see Sega's Dreamcast, as an example)

I am done with Nintendo systems. I might get a WiiU when they have 10 Exclusives that I want (Not Mario related) and the price goes down to $150.

N64 was the best era nintendo owned rare so they had first party rare and miyamoto games. Now it's just nintendo they cant pump out as many first party exclusives as they could back then because they no longer have rare.Consolessuck187

True, Rare were pretty much N64's "saviours", in terms of diverse, exclusive games.

But I think that Retro could fill the gap if Nintendo invested more into them. (read: expand the studio and give them more resources)

Besides, they can also collaborate more with 3rd party devs like Platinum, Ubi and Sega. (which they already are to an extent)