I will never understand the Gamecube

[Retinend]

Dimensions   5.9 × 6.3 × 4.3 in
149 × 193 × 112 mm
(width × depth × height)

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube

why why why why why? why? Why call it a gamecube but not make it a cube? fine, maybe you design the prototype and only then do you come up with the name 'gamcube'. but surely then your immediate decision would be to make it a bit taller and into something that actually is a cube. why call it gamecube and not make it a cube ?

[Retinend]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=why+is+gamecube+not+a+cube

and why has no one asked this before?

[placeholder]

It's catchier than GameCuboid.

[I accept the terms of the]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22gamecube+is+not+a+cube%22

[Still Not George]

Could have been worse - they could have repackaged the N64 in a different box and pretended it was a new console.

[madhair60]

Loooove my gamecube. <3

[MojoJojo]

It has a handle on the back.

The only console that can be used as an effective one handed bludgeon.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

How come Nintendo repeatedly make shit consoles yet unlike Sega don't ever go bust?

[eluc55]

Because their core games are generally so good, people stick with them?

[madhair60]

How come Nintendo repeatedly make shit consoles yet unlike Sega don't ever go bust?

Fuck your shit.  The N64 is great, the Gamecube is better.  Spent more time with those machines than I had any right to, and they're home to a pile of amazing games.  Wii isn't my cup of tea, but you could hardly call it a travesty on the level of the Mega CD, 32X and Saturn.

[momatt]

How come Nintendo repeatedly make shit consoles yet unlike Sega don't ever go bust?

Because it's shit that sells.  The Mega-CD was an awesome idea, but the world just wasn't ready.

A GameBoy doesn't have a penis.
The XBox isn't technically a box either.

[lazyhour]

"But is the xbox a true box? I dont really think so because of its curves."

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Unfortunately the world just wasnt ready for the Dreamcast either. Despite it being better than the PlayStation and N64 in just about every conceivable way, the public and the publishers opted to remain in the slums.

In my probably not widely shared opinion, the N64, the Gamecube and the Wii are awful consoles, but the Gamecube safely the worst of the three. The software thing is very much down to taste- I don't like the core games, but they aren't really my problem- my problem is that I find the consoles themselves awful in various ways. The last two in particular have been astoundingly unambitious, even if you take into account the Wiimote, and held console gaming back.

[Ignatius_S]

Because it's shit that sells.  The Mega-CD was an awesome idea, but the world just wasn't ready...

More of a case of developers not being ready to produce decent games for it.

Unfortunately the world just wasnt ready for the Dreamcast either. Despite it being better than the PlayStation and N64 in just about every conceivable way, the public and the publishers opted to remain in the slums....

Sega fucked up the marketing, pure and simple.

At the time, the company privately admitted that this was why the platform was tanking and although it did seek to damage limitation and get outside help to repair, or at least limit the damage, by the time it did, it was (no pun intended) game over.

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

The N64 was the greatest console of all time. The Gamecube wasn't fit to lick its boots, yet was still better than any console Sony have ever released, and every Sega console but the Megadrive. I'm not interested in the vast majority of games on the Wii, but it's still a prety cool guy.

THIS IS MY TRUTH, TELL ME YOURS GUY.

[I accept the terms of the]

The N64 was the greatest console of all time.

I can never buy into that. I can accept that people think it, I just don't get it. Surely there weren't that many incredible games on the platform (Perfect Dark, Mario, Goldeneye?) and even fewer groundbreaking ones. It didn't do much for gaming history at all, especially when compared to practically any other successful platform from any gaming generation.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

The 64 was a bit hobbled by having little in the way of third party support, most of the memorable games were made by Nintendo or Rare. Having the built in Multitap was an absolute stroke of genius though.

[I accept the terms of the]

It just seemed like a solid console to me, with a few good licenses. Apart from Mario it just bored me, nothing was particularly innovative or exciting.

[Ignatius_S]

I can never buy into that. I can accept that people think it, I just don't get it. Surely there weren't that many incredible games on the platform (Perfect Dark, Mario, Goldeneye?) and even fewer groundbreaking ones. It didn't do much for gaming history at all, especially when compared to practically any other successful platform from any gaming generation.

If we go by commercial success and take-up by users and developers, then the Playstation was considerably more successful than the N64. However, although the Playstation had far more titles, the quality of games was far more inconsistent than that of the N64, largely due to the amount of shovelware that was produced for the PS.

As Claude says, the N64 didn't have great third-party support. Arguably this was a combination of Nintendo being an absolute nightmare for games developers to deal with and the physical cost of games production; whereas it cost pounds to produce to a N64 games cartridge, it was pennies (actually, it might have been a quid) to produce a PS disc. On the other hand, these two factors arguably did also contribute to a more consistent gaming experience for the punter.

Although I tended to prefer the Playstation (and that was the platform, I owned), there seemed to be a few titles (e.g. Goldeneye) that really appealed to a lot of people that I knew, especially 'non-gamers'. In certain cases, there are PS games (e.g. Wipeout and Tekken) that the same people loved, but today don't talk about with the same kind of affection of the N64 ones that they enjoyed. Ultimately, this kind of thing comes down to personal preference.

[I accept the terms of the]

In my opinion, wild and varied quality also means a lower barrier to entry (as you've pointed out with Nintendo being rotters for smaller developers), and that's what tends to make a platform exciting and revolutionary. The N64 was a dull thing, even if its four games were high quality.

And its pad was a stupid thing with a wobbly stick. Yeah, I said it.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

You'll get no argument from me there. The N64 pad was a truly terrible bit of design.

[The Boston Crab]

I think you forgot Ocarina of Time & Majora's Mask.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

In my opinion, wild and varied quality also means a lower barrier to entry (as you've pointed out with Nintendo being rotters for smaller developers), and that's what tends to make a platform exciting and revolutionary. The N64 was a dull thing, even if its four games were high quality.

That's interesting. I found PS games to be almost without exception to be dull and unimaginative but many N64 games gripped me.

And its pad was a stupid thing with a wobbly stick. Yeah, I said it.

OK, that's just objectively wrong.

I think you forgot Ocarina of Time & Majora's Mask.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE

NOT ALL OF OF US, BRO. I would almost go so far as to say if these were LOL NO only 2 games on the N64, it would still have been better than PS.

[vrailaine]

Unfortunately the world just wasnt ready for the Dreamcast either. Despite it being better than the PlayStation and N64 in just about every conceivable way, the public and the publishers opted to remain in the slums.

Well, no publisher could possibly have any faith in sega after the saturn, mega cd and 32X.
The dreamcast was not competing with playstation, it was competing with the playstation 2, publishers of multi format games couldn't be bothered developing next-gen games for the dreamcast alone until the ps2 came around, and why would they?

dreamcast was good, but they were doomed from e3 1995.

[Still Not George]

That's interesting. I found PS games to be almost without exception to be dull and unimaginative but many N64 games gripped me.

The mistake you made was in going to the "dull and unimaginative" aisle. The "interesting and unique" aisle was only a couple of yards over. But you did have to look out or you'd trip over the small shelf of N64 games YES THAT'S RIGHT I WENT THERE

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

The "interesting and unique" aisle was only a couple of yards over.

Containing such games as?

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Silent Hill?

[I accept the terms of the]

Come on, there were so many interesting and unique Playstation games. Yes, there was a lot of tat and shit licenses, but that's because there was a lot of everything.

You can't pretend that this list doesn't have lots of important games in it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation_games

Where I am struggling to find any that would have altered gaming history here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N64_games

Mario 64 definitely, and maybe one of the 3D Zeldas. Wetrix?!

[Ignatius_S]

In my opinion, wild and varied quality also means a lower barrier to entry (as you've pointed out with Nintendo being rotters for smaller developers), and that's what tends to make a platform exciting and revolutionary. The N64 was a dull thing, even if its four games were high quality.

It wasn't just with small developers, but all developers - Nintendo played no favourites. It also acted like a swine with games magazines - it would give a review copy for a small window (say, a week) and threaten that it would never supply any more review copies if it was returned late.

As I say, these things tend to be a personal experience. Quite a few people that I was talking about in my last post, used to play only one or two games on the N64, but played those games again and again, more often than not, in groups as a social thing – dull it was not! (Unless someone does find playing games in a group boring, of course.)

[I accept the terms of the]

As I say, these things tend to be a personal experience. Quite a few people that I was talking about in my last post, used to play only one or two games on the N64, but played those games again and again, more often than not, in groups as a social thing – dull it was not! (Unless someone does find playing games in a group boring, of course.)

That's the impression I got. Everybody I knew who had an N64 essentially used it as a Goldeneye machine.