The Cube
I’d quite like to get into this. “Climax James” as I’ve come to call him* has just returned from the XBox 360 XFest and refused to tell me anything about it despite my probings. He did say, however, that he regarded it as a superior platform and that it is extremely easy to develop for. I was pleased with this as I hope to work on the 360 at some stage.
What he said about the GameCube was interesting: he said that it’s just as easy, if not the easist console to develop for. I’d never really considered the GameCube before and I couldn’t tell you why either. I took the opportunity that evening to have a poke at a ‘Cube and I still hold by my original thought that it’s an extremely weird looking console. Now that the “next generation” of consoles all look like they’ve been designed by failed graphic design students turned alcoholic, it seemed to look slightly better when I held it.
I’ve heard it said that the ‘Cube is the most difficult console to chip, which is not surprising considering its unique approach to various things such as data storage. It’s got an ATi graphics card in, which I was impressed with. Seeing Mario Sunshine played on it with it’s water shader and subtle little effects made me think that there’s more in that funny-looking purple box than I originally gave it credit for. It has a LAN connector and apparently there are wireless adapters out there. Sounds lovely to me. Of course, the 360 does all this but better, but that’s a whole new generation of console. I’m surprised the ‘Cube didn’t make more of a show of these features in it’s day.
I think I will write to the University and see if I can convince them that GameCube development kits are a really good idea.
* I know so many James’ that I have to give them tags. 
July 27th, 2005 at 9:08 am
I won’t consider having a GameCube or developing for it becasue of its type of games.
Nintendo has developed a certain kind of games that essentailly were fictional, fun and light-weighted, and their audience are now accostumed to these types of games, so when you decide to start developing for it you have to stick to a certain type of games that the community usually expects, and to me this type is not my favorite.
I’m all for PC games, complexity, realism and challenge.
July 27th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
I agree that the Gamecube is an odd looking little machine - so odd it’s misleading. When I first bought the thing (b’day gift for the youngling) and set it up, I stared at it for a good five minutes and mentally called it “a toy”.
Then, we started to actually use it. And it wasn’t so toylike anymore.
Indeed - my son has managed to get me to buy quite a collection of games for the `Cube (now at 18 games), most of them look great, and all of them seem to have great usage of graphical fx in a sort of background-ambient way. Like the water shader you mentioned - it just seems like it belongs, so you don’t really notice it until you’re looking for it. That’s a mark of some quality design.
Nintendo is a veteran of social engineering. They’ve successfully created a loyal fanbase because of the kinds of games they make and promote - fun ones - family ones - ones with cute and familiar characters. It really is directed at children, because children are the most efficient at spending their parents money (and I speak from experience!). I’ll buy Nintendo gear for my kids before Sony or MS for the simple reason that I trust them more - I mean, you’ll likely *never* find hidden GTA-esque game content in a mario game.
July 27th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
codetwister, that’s exactly what I meant, Nintendo has its own audience that are accostumed to that specific type of games.
So GameCube developers should be really into these types of games, which are a bit harder than the others, coming with fun concept and characters and story.
July 27th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
I agree. The Nintendo audience has always been a “family” one (which I think is a good thing).
If I were at the head of a professional games development company I would want to have 3 different teams. One team will be working on The Sims: Not Again, or something equally rubbish but it will bring in the money, while the other two teams concentrate on the original (and therefore risky) titles. One team I hope will cater for the family market, and the other will concentrate on the PC market.
Of course, I’m not the head of a company (yet?) but some companies loosely adopt this business model. Like Blitz. The downer is that the bad titles give your company a reputation for bad games.
July 27th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
You know, the industry is pretty harsh on developers, and I realize that, but it just breaks my heart to see companies like Troika or Ion Storm close their doors, while other worthless developers keep generating the same type of games all over the place, especially on consoles.
And quality titles are getting fewer and far between, gamers are now interested in the quick, heavy-action type of games, casual gamers are dominating the market and thus affecting the developers, who despite everything need money to survive.
I fear for the future of games, especially the PC platform.
July 28th, 2005 at 12:21 am
That is so very unfortunate and sadly it couldn’t be closer to the truth. Particularly in the case of Troika and Ion Storm Austin - it’s very, very sad indeed. I wanted to work for Ion Storm Austin once. Alas, that dream is no more. It seems that any company that turns out original works goes bust pretty soon. Troika, Ion Storm Austin, Looking Glass… I bet even id Software wouldn’t have survived in today’s market if it wasn’t for their already overused IP.
However, some companies turn out exceptionally unique stuff and still go strong: Ubisoft (Far Cry and Prince of Persia in particular), Lionhead (Black & White, and some new works that they’ve shown off at the San Fransisco GDC), and a few others that are less established. All these produce original and in the case of Ubisoft in particular, very outstanding titles. So there is hope. We just have to hope EA dies a horrible, painful death.
There’s also the Indie scene to consider, but it’s rare that games from the indie scene even get noticed, let alone make “the Big Score”. I have feeble aspirations of “bringing balance to the industry” to quote that amusing Orange advert. Heh. Yeah, right.
The industry is “growing up” according to some developers, but I fear it’s growing up to be a sadistic little brat to likes to pull the legs of bugs.
July 29th, 2005 at 12:01 am
Although I share your contempt against EA, the gamers are to blame in the first place, back in the old days, most gamers were the safisticated bunch and those can really appreciate g0od games and even support them, recently casual gamers are dawrfing others and inflicting their viewpoint on the whole industry.
One time I told my friend, that I would like to slap everyone buying a Sims game, when quality games are sitting on the shelf (Vampire, Thief III).
But on the other hand, as you said there are a number of developers that are doing a very nice job and survivng in the same time, like Bioware one of the few big RPG companies left beside Bethesda, and IO Interactive, Ubisoft who miraculosuly survived a buy out from EA, Lionhead, Bungie, Rockstar and many others
The job is getting harder and harder for developers who seek to make money and good games at the same time.
July 29th, 2005 at 12:38 am
Haha, I said that very same thing
Yet everyone went out and bought the Sims anyway.
I would hate to see the day when “good” games are looked on as for Geeks Only. I fear that this might be the case already - good games require time and effort, and the casual gamer wants to put neither of these things in (or at least not consciously). Can you imagine a casual gamer talking about what route they took when infiltrating the Statue of Liberty in Deus Ex? No - that’s for hardcore people, and such people are going to be drowned out very soon.
The industry is becoming like the TV market - good, stimulating television programs still exist, but they’re drowned out with things like Pop Idol and constant advertisements.