Most underrated Nintendo console (excluding Wii U)?

#31Spider5800Posted 8/12/2014 5:46:54 PM
iKhanic posted...
_Five_ posted...
The Cube was weaker than the XB...

The GC's game selection is better, so that pretty much makes up for having weaker tech specs.


I wish people would stop bringing up game selection.

YES. Game selection is important, but only when the hardware has a reason for existing (from a consumer perspective). Otherwise the games are basically just locked behind a paywall of hardware that, on it's own, no one wants/needs.

The main thing the GC brought to the table was it's price, as it was wonderfully affordable. But that's in comparison to two systems that were both affordable AND brought something else to the table.


The only thing we'd have lost if the PS2 and XBox's libraries were available on the Gamecube was the ability to play DVD's on the game system. I can't find any significant differences that would affect the gameplay besides the different controllers and slight power differences, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Disregarding a system's available library they way you do in these topics is ridiculous. These aren't open platforms like PC's, the available games when compared to their competition at the time is actually the most important thing about these systems. Stop hand-waving it away like this.
---
The big brain am winning again! I am the greetest! Now I am leaving Earth for no raisin!
#32iKhanicPosted 8/12/2014 6:10:16 PM
Spider5800 posted...
iKhanic posted...
_Five_ posted...
The Cube was weaker than the XB...

The GC's game selection is better, so that pretty much makes up for having weaker tech specs.


I wish people would stop bringing up game selection.

YES. Game selection is important, but only when the hardware has a reason for existing (from a consumer perspective). Otherwise the games are basically just locked behind a paywall of hardware that, on it's own, no one wants/needs.

The main thing the GC brought to the table was it's price, as it was wonderfully affordable. But that's in comparison to two systems that were both affordable AND brought something else to the table.


The only thing we'd have lost if the PS2 and XBox's libraries were available on the Gamecube was the ability to play DVD's on the game system. I can't find any significant differences that would affect the gameplay besides the different controllers and slight power differences, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Disregarding a system's available library they way you do in these topics is ridiculous. These aren't open platforms like PC's, the available games when compared to their competition at the time is actually the most important thing about these systems. Stop hand-waving it away like this.


As far as I'm aware the XB was also more powerful than the GC, so you lose a bit of gameplay potential there. There was also far better online available on the XB and PS2. The games didn't need to be compressed to fit on a tiny mini-disc either. And like you said there was the DVD functionality.

I don't disregard the system's library in these topics. I look at what value each system brings to the table, and if a system doesn't bring good games, then the hardware doesn't have much value. But if the system doesn't stand out in hardware/software/pricing, the games don't bring much value to the table, because they could theoretically be on any other system to the consumer's benefit, but the hardware essentially "keeps them hostage"

Now in the GC's case, the system stood out in the areas of portability and price, and it had a decent library to boot. So I would never say the system was bad.

But in the case of the N64 and Wii, they also had low price AND brought innovative hardware to the table, so they win out.
---
"Well, they sure don't make evil immortal sorcerers like they used to." - Klarion the Witch Boy
#33SyCo_VeNoMPosted 8/12/2014 6:27:26 PM
iKhanic posted...
Now in the GC's case, the system stood out in the areas of portability and price, and it had a decent library to boot. So I would never say the system was bad.


I would also say reliability
I used to fix systems back then for a pawn shop, and out of the 150 or so systems I had to fix I can remember that I only saw 2 game cubes, and I remember the one the power brick was damaged so I just swapped out the power brick, the other I dunno what the problem was as it was sold to them as broken, but worked fine.
#34iKhanicPosted 8/12/2014 6:32:58 PM
SyCo_VeNoM posted...
iKhanic posted...
Now in the GC's case, the system stood out in the areas of portability and price, and it had a decent library to boot. So I would never say the system was bad.


I would also say reliability
I used to fix systems back then for a pawn shop, and out of the 150 or so systems I had to fix I can remember that I only saw 2 game cubes, and I remember the one the power brick was damaged so I just swapped out the power brick, the other I dunno what the problem was as it was sold to them as broken, but worked fine.


I'll give you that. My launch Wii was broken out of the box, and it broke earlier this year. And I've had friends with the same problem.
---
"Well, they sure don't make evil immortal sorcerers like they used to." - Klarion the Witch Boy
#35TerotrousPosted 8/12/2014 10:25:07 PM(edited)
_Five_ posted...
Because in reality, GameCube is far from being the most overrated console. Most of the system's "praise" goes towards the Wii's backwards compatibility. The actual GameCube is therefore still one of the most underrated systems ever made.

Uh, yeah, no it doesn't. You clearly haven't been in a lot of these discussions lately. In the last 5 years or so people have started hailing Gamecube as being Nintendo's glory era when they put out all the best games and really gave PS2 a run for its money, which really isn't true at all. If you were around during the GC era itself, it was widely accepted that GC was a terrible console and that Nintendo was all but doomed to irrelevancy.


iKhanic posted...
I wish people would stop bringing up game selection.

YES. Game selection is important, but only when the hardware has a reason for existing (from a consumer perspective).

Game selection is literally the only thing that matters. From a technical standpoint, there's nothing on NES that couldn't have been done (and likely much better) on Master System, but it didn't work out that way. PS2 was the weakest system, but it had by far the best selection of games, so it was the best system. The power doesn't enter into it at all.


The main problem with GC is that its library just pales horribly to PS2. It has some multiplats, sure, but many of its multiplats are either functionally identical to their PS2 counterparts or the PS2 version is actually superior. Beyond this, PS2 has literally 3000 exclusives that GC doesn't, while GC has maybe about 10 third-party exclusives that anyone really cares about.

It's worth noting that XBox is far worse even than Gamecube. While GC at least has 20 or so great first-party exclusives that give it some extra value, XBox has maybe 10 exclusives total that are worth caring about period, and most of those have been remade since then. At least some of its multiplats are better than the PS2 versions, but not usually by enough to really matter.
---
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - My novel, updates weekly
#36iKhanicPosted 8/13/2014 12:00:48 AM
Terotrous posted...

iKhanic posted...
I wish people would stop bringing up game selection.

YES. Game selection is important, but only when the hardware has a reason for existing (from a consumer perspective).

Game selection is literally the only thing that matters. From a technical standpoint, there's nothing on NES that couldn't have been done (and likely much better) on Master System, but it didn't work out that way. PS2 was the weakest system, but it had by far the best selection of games, so it was the best system. The power doesn't enter into it at all.


The main problem with GC is that its library just pales horribly to PS2. It has some multiplats, sure, but many of its multiplats are either functionally identical to their PS2 counterparts or the PS2 version is actually superior. Beyond this, PS2 has literally 3000 exclusives that GC doesn't, while GC has maybe about 10 third-party exclusives that anyone really cares about.

It's worth noting that XBox is far worse even than Gamecube. While GC at least has 20 or so great first-party exclusives that give it some extra value, XBox has maybe 10 exclusives total that are worth caring about period, and most of those have been remade since then. At least some of its multiplats are better than the PS2 versions, but not usually by enough to really matter.


So if Nintendo's next console has the power of the NES and costs $600 with no online, but it has great games, we can consider that a great console?
---
"Well, they sure don't make evil immortal sorcerers like they used to." - Klarion the Witch Boy
#37GafemagePosted 8/13/2014 12:28:39 AM
None of them, really. N64 is probably the most overrated console of all time, the Gamecube received undeserved flak for a while but has recently reached sleeper hit status, and the Wii was Nintendo's worst, but garnered generally unsavory opinions.

I guess I'll go with the Wii since there were actually quite a few good, third-party titles that went under the radar.
---
Fire walk with me.
#38TerotrousPosted 8/13/2014 6:06:41 AM
iKhanic posted...
So if Nintendo's next console has the power of the NES and costs $600 with no online, but it has great games, we can consider that a great console?

Sure, if they could somehow pull that off, it'd be way better than what we have now. The thing is, such a console would be unlikely to sell well, which would prevent it from getting great game support, so the system specs may indirectly affect the game library, but in the end the game library is everything.
---
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - My novel, updates weekly
#39iKhanicPosted 8/13/2014 7:05:34 AM
Terotrous posted...
iKhanic posted...
So if Nintendo's next console has the power of the NES and costs $600 with no online, but it has great games, we can consider that a great console?

Sure, if they could somehow pull that off, it'd be way better than what we have now. The thing is, such a console would be unlikely to sell well, which would prevent it from getting great game support, so the system specs may indirectly affect the game library, but in the end the game library is everything.


I completely disagree. At the end of the day I have to ask "What did this system bring to the industry". If it was nothing, i can't help but think of it as a rip off. It's just acting as a paywall to line Nintendo's pockets, when, if the system didn't exist and all the exclusives were on another platform, everyone would be better off.

I'd say each system should be valuable on it's own without games. Then we can start considering what the quality of the games themselves is.
---
"Well, they sure don't make evil immortal sorcerers like they used to." - Klarion the Witch Boy
#40JurassicBondPosted 8/13/2014 7:16:06 AM
Definitely the Wii. Both the N64 and Gamecube get plenty of love these days, and in fact I think the N64 is a little overrated nowadays.
---
Reading: The Giver - Lois Lowry
http://i.imgur.com/AUbFA.jpg http://i.imgur.com/nYklT.jpg