Forgive me if this has been a repeated topic.

I've noticed that in 3-way, or even 4-way Stock matches in Brawl, when all the opponents are AIs (on level 9, but this might apply to lower levels as well), they will often neglect their other AI opponents and solely come after me. They will walk together without hitting each other to reach me. I tested my suspicions by making a course that is basically a cage, and once I was out of reach of the two AI enemies they simply tried jumping to get to me, completely ignoring the other. This would last infinitely.

Has anyone else noticed this? Why does this happen? It never was an issue in Melee.

I really don't get why the GC was a "Failure".

I thought it was fun when I was younger. It had better graphics and games than the PS2, and the PS2 is the most sold console ever.

Only downside was. No online. (I don't count the Japanese broadband adapter thing)

awssk8er716

As stated in my initial post, the Gamecube was the best purchase I ever made. However, it still was a failure because its competition (PS2) sold 5 times as many systems and the Gamecube was 3rd (or a close 2nd with the Xbox, I really don't know) in the generation. By the end of its run it was being largely ignored, and once the Wii hit shelves support for the system was immediately dropped, although most support was dropped before then as well.

How else do you declare a console a failure? Must it be like Dreamcast and simply be discontinued? I loved the Gamecube. It had amazing hardware (my system is still going strong after 6 years of continuous play) in a compact form, excellent graphics that were top-notch at the time, and many first party games that I loved. But its sales were very poor and had little 3rd party support.

Oh, and I feel an example of Wii neglecting its hardcore gamer audience is through Super Mario Galaxy. Yes, Nintendo still produces its 80s franchises, but I feel SMG was simplified to appeal more to children. From what I played of it it was way too easy compared to its predecessors. Nintendo probably felt it would be more profitable to make SMG appeal to the casual gamer fanbase it has drawn in more than its loyal fanbase. However, I never played it through so I can't be sure just how hard it gets, but in Mario 64 and Sunshine it was never this easy.

I never liked the Wii-mote. To be honest, it always felt like a step backwards in my mind. What use to be the push of a button has to be the swing of an arm now. I'm sure most if not all of you disagree with me, but I just never liked it and I'm lazy. I like loafing around when playing my games. :P

I also personally don't like Nintendo's strategy to appeal to casual gamers, since I'm not a casual gamer. I don't blame them for doing this. It obviously was the right idea, but I feel a little more neglected than I did with the Gamecube, another reason why I didn't get the Wii.

Mailer-Daemon, you point out some interesting things. I myself was not aware of the issues with the memory cards. Probably because for one I don't like sports games, but also I bought my Gamecube a year after its launch and by then the black memory card came out that has held more than enough space. I assume the poor memory card you are referring to was the standard gray one. I do recall back in 2002 noticing how little space it held in comparison to the black one, which held roughly 5 times as much space I think for not much more money.

Just curious, has anyone glimpsed the "Playing it Safe" article I mentioned? I'm just wondering how people respond to those issues that plagued the Gamecube and how they stand with the Wii.

3 reasons why imo:

1) Nintendo thought outside of the box when they made Wii and its motion sensing controler.

2) Nintendo came out with good games faster (or it seems that way) for Wii.

3) The main franchise games were a huge step above their GC counter parts (such as SMG compared to SMS).

umcommon

I admit I haven't played the entire SMG, but I did get through a few levels. It really felt way too easy compared to its predecessors. Sunshine didn't feel like Mario 64, but neither did Galaxy IMO. It was in outerspace, after all. SMG also seemed a little more kiddish (Mario dressed as a bee). While I wasn't keen on the cleaning concept, I will say Sunshine was a very well-formulated game that was surprisingly challenging and over-criticized IMO. But I apparently don't fit with the norm when it comes to gaming it seems.

Super Smash Brothers: Melee and Metroid Prime were launch titles for the Gamecube, so the Gamecube did have good games from the start.

BTW, my sister has a Wii, and my parents didn't give a crap about it after playing it. However, I hear parents are loving it across the globe so I'll believe you guys.

I've played the Wii many times so I do understand the concept behind it. While I do not own it, I've tried some of its games and do like some of them. The question I have is not why the Wii is so popular, but why it's so popular when the Gamecube wasn't?

The Gamecube was the best purchase I ever made. I loved its games and got more use out of it than any system. However, I was confused on just why the Gamecube's sales were low until I came across a very insightful article by IGN.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/561/561400p1.html" title="http://cube.ign.com/articles/561/561400p1.html">http://cube.ign.com/articles/561/561400p1.html

While the article may be pushing 4 years of age now, its points continue to remain true and I'd strongly recommend reading it.

The article states how Nintendo is defined by aging franchises from the 80s and early 90s that have been recycled continuously, with their biggest hits being from these franchises with few new additions being brought forward to great success. The Wii appears to have followed the same trend, with top sellers being Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Brothers: Brawl, Mario Party 8, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, ...and you see where this is going. Of course there may be a few that aren't first party games, but the same went with the Gamecube. The point is that the Wii seems to rely on the same franchises the Gamecube did, yet there no longer seems to be an issue with it.

I suppose one big selling point is the motion sensing additions. While I never liked them (this being the reason I haven't purchased a Wii) and still can't understand why it's such a big hit, I'll accept people like it and digress.

However, the price point isn't a very good argument. If you remember, the Gamecube was $200 when it was first released, and at the time it had graphics that competed with all its rivals. Sorry, but I've seen the Wii's graphics, and they are barely a step up from the Gamecube if they are at all. Even with a price that was 2/3 of the PS2, the Gamecube was largely ignored.

I heard many didn't like the Gamecube because it was "for kids". During the Gamecube's era Nintendo seemed to try very hard to appeal to older groups with Resident Evil games and such, but now it seems like Nintendo isn't even trying. The name "Wii" sounds kiddish, and a lot of the games are certainly more marketable for children than adults. I'm not against this, mind you, but I'm just pointing it out. Sure, it has games that are for older audiences as well, but so did the Gamecube yet the Gamecube was called a "kiddy console". Now it's considered "OK" for an adult to like the Wii when some people would have to take abuse for liking the Gamecube.

I suspect a strong reason for the Wii's success is the availability issues it has. It's apparently very hard to come by (although I've encountered it accidentally in stores many times) and many buy it off impulse purchases.

So, can someone point out why the Gamecube struggled so much while the Wii has succeeded?

For the record, I've been with the MGS series since Metal Gear Solid came out for the Playstation. I really enjoyed all three of those games, and while the story for the 2nd and 3rd couldn't compete with the 1st, I feel MGS2 and MGS3 had greater gameplay.

MGS4 was way over-hyped to me, and I was extremely disappointed with it. I suppose the largest problem with the game was the fact that the movies dominated literally 90% of my game time. The game certainly had the potential to be very fun, but it wasn't executed. There were only a few hours of actual gameplay and I found myself most of the time watching the movies. MGS4 felt like a $60 movie.

I wasn't opposed to the movies in the past, but this time around they clearly dominated the game and were longer than ever. The story itself, at times, was very moving (with Snake continuing to fight as he approached death) while other parts were just stupid. For example, at the end Big Boss turns out to be alive, only to die again for a 3rd time. MGS seems like a comic book series, with constant resurrections of characters that should just remain dead. At first it turned out that Big Boss was alive, but in Eva's possession and as a vegetable. Then it's revealed that this was actually Solidus, as if Big Boss being alive at all wasn't enough of a ludicrous twist. And then we have the situation with Ocelot's hand controlling him, which made no sense back in MGS2 and up until the end of the game was actually believed to be Liquid. Some parts of the movies were just plain boring, such as watching Sunni repeatedly make eggs.

Twists like Big Boss being alive are basically an insult to the fans. You're told repeatedly that he's dead for several games, only to have him turn out to be alive. These types of twists are only twists because you wouldn't expect something so ludicrous. It wasn't like the twists in MGS1 where Naomi Hunter injected Foxdie into Snake which is what caused people to die around him, or that McDonald Miller was Liquid. These were solid surprises that actually were feasible in accordance to the story.

Now onto the gameplay. As I said, it had potential, with all the new weapons and new CQC and movement options for Old Snake. However, besides the limited amount of time you actually get to play as Snake, I also never got to play the game like I did in the first three games. You're basically always trying to sneak through an army. This makes it extremely difficult to ever stalk a soldier because there are so many others around in open sight. In the old games Snake would often be in building with a limited number of enemies so you could have more fun with them. In a war environment you're just better off avoiding them altogether, as combat isn't really an option. What I mean by this is that once an Alert is raised, the soldiers often would show up infinitely. This never happened (at least on very easy) with the old games, and severely reduce the fun. What's the point of killing anyone if they'll re-spawn in a matter of seconds? You have to resort to either leaving the area or just hiding until the alert goes away. You lose the option to simply wipe out the enemy and their reinforcements. I feel MGS3 was the most absolute fun with this.

I started to realize the game was going to be a big disappointment after I realized just how short Act 3 was excluding the movies. All it consisted of was stalking a resistance member (which I found to be boring after it dragged on for over 10 minutes), then a motorcycle chase (which was moderately fun), and a boss battle against Raven. That was it. The long cut scenes put a veil over the fact that the game is just too short, and I found it outrageous that IGN actually would give it a 10 for lasting appeal.

The war-zone aspect which controlled the first two parts of the game (and the ones with the most gameplay) did not feel appropriate for a Metal Gear Solid game. Trying to be stealthy through a battlefield seems unfitting, and it also doesn't make sense why alerts form only when the enemy sees you yet every other rebel firing doesn't cause any reaction. MGS4 doesn't have the atmosphere that made the first 3 games excel. Those games had the setting for stealth.

I will say I enjoyed parts of Act 4, if not mostly for nostalgia's sake. I did find avoiding little robots to be rather boring after a while. Such an environment would be the ideal place for the type of gameplay that I loved from the previous games. Areas with up to 5 troops that you have to avoid or kill are what made MGS thrive. The battlefields made this game feel a bit more like Call of Duty. Perhaps one act of it would have been fine for some change that some may have liked more than others, but the fact is that even in the last act on Outer Haven, you're forced to dodge what appear to be battalions of soldiers and machines. What used to be a few guards has become an army. You basically are restricted to solely be stealthy because if a gunshot is heard by the enemy, an alert will form where countless (and infinite troops) will shoot endlessly. What used to be 2 or 3 backup soldiers became limitless enemies.

Whether or not any game should get a perfect score is not the case here. From the reviews I was convinced I'd really enjoy MGS4, but the reviews were way off in my opinion. How could a game that gets only a few hours of gameplay (which is often not that fun) receive the ultimate score for lasting appeal (according to IGN). A 10 for lasting appeal should only be for games that will be fun for years. Super Smash Brothers is an example of such a game by my view. From my standpoint it's hardly a game. The story overshadows the gameplay. So much was put into the story that Konami seems to have neglected what made MGS so fun. Like I said, a little change is fine, but change is all there was. Gone are the buildings with a few guards, now replaced with armies of futurist machines and soldiers who can jump on walls. I was shocked at the fictional changes in technology that occurred in only 5 years from when MGS2 took place.

The game disappoints more because of all the praise it has received. I feel like I must have skipped over a major part of the game. It's good to have extras and online features, but the main game is so severely lacking when it could have been so much more. Gorgeous graphics, excellent mechanics, all hindered by the small quantities of gameplay and new settings Old Snake is in and the enemies he now faces which have severely limited options for how to proceed with the game.