Lunchbox wrote:IGN wrote:
Namco's Soul Calibur II is another issue entirely. I'm sure many consider the inclusion of Link in the GCN version of Soul Calibur II to be a very positive thing, but what message is it sending? That third party titles can sell better on the GCN than their PS2 and XBX counterparts, but only if Nintendo hands over its most revered mascot character? It is almost depressing to think of just how niche the user base of GameCube (and Nintendo consoles in general) has become. An incredible fighter like Soul Calibur II would have sold worst on the GameCube if not for the inclusion of Link. Nintendo's audience is so segmented that sports games, role-playing games, and a multitude of other genres are under represented on the Cube because, well, they don't sell.
Same thing applies here too, don't you think?
IGN in retarded speculation shocker! Film at eleven.
SC2 would have sold best on GC even without Link in it.
Why?
There is no DOA or Tekken to compete with it on the GC, its pretty much that, or SSB:M, but you go ahead and state poorly founded speculation on what 'mighta' happened as fact, IGN.
Maybe third party developers would sell more copies of their games on the GC by:
a) not doing lazy shitty half-assed ports that look only slightly better than a PS2, and usually have choppier framerates
b) don't sign exclusivity deals with other consoles so their games come out 6 months later
c) not release shitty generic licenced games where there is a Nintendo brand product that will show it up as the lazy half-assed cash in it is.
PS.
DAMN YOU NINTENDO FOR MAKING ME EVEN VAGUELY CONSIDER BUYING ANOTHER EA GAME. AN EA *SPORTS* GAME AT THAT.
Nothing pisses me off more than buying a game for the 'extras' and then finding they are vastly superior to the actual 'real' game: see also DK64, Shenmue
EDIT: I'm pretty sure I know which 'version' of IGN spouted that crap with their 'sports games and RPGs dont sell' BS, but I'd be interested to have it confirmed for me.