It's like they read my mind...

[Captain Wrong]

http://nfg.2y.net/grafx/robbed.jpg

Discuss...

[bargora]

It's funny shit, but I think it's a cheap shot. But then, I already have an SNES and the good sense not to drop $30 for a SNES reissue for GBA--at least, not too often. If R-Type 3 ever gets here on GBA, yeah, I'll buy it. But then, I'll be able to play it on the train too.

The thing with this Gameboy Player is that I actually am psyched at the prospect of playing Castlevania:COTM, Pinball of the Dead and Advance Wars 2 on a 27" TV. Tired sequels and licenses? Well, a good game is a good game, sez I. Gotta partially agree, though. There's not enough truly new stuff...

[video_game_addict]

Don't they have anything better to do? :roll:

Personally I'm looking forward to the GBA adapter And I think there's over 1000 reasons why. Gameboy games!! Sure there are alot of remakes coming out, but there are quite a few unique titles that are Gameboy only, that makes owning one of these a must if you want to game on the big screen. And the Super Gameboy doesn't work on the new GBA games, so it's a nobrainer IMHO.

You would think a website that calls itself AtariLabs, would at least give props to the fact that Nintendo is releasing an adapter in 2003 which plays games which were released nearly 15 years ago.

[IntvGene]

LOL

Well, it definitely goes with the signs of the times.. And Capcom is at the top of the list for Recycler #1--Ghouls N Ghosts, Street Firghter 2 and Alpha, Puzzle Fighter, etc. Recently Earthbound for GBA adds more evidence that the GBA is now a portable SNES.

But, I agree, I like the original GBA games and I am looking forward to playing them on my TV.

I just wish I could find a Super Famicom, joystick and Super Ghouls N Ghosts for $20. Anyone?

[Sylentwulf]

Not even REMOTELY a cheap shot, one hundred percent Accurate, the truth, and if anything, they're being NICE about it.

I have NO IDEA why it took people 1-2 years (?) to notice that the GBA is just a SNES emulator. After the first 2 mario games and F-zero, I was convinced. (IT's REALLY easy to program for too! Just blow the dust off your old SNES dev. kit!)

[Kid Fenris]

The accompanying article (http://www.atarilabs.com/meat/2003/0315_gbabad.shtml) makes a number of similar points, but I disagree with its contention that the Game Boy Advance is bereft of good original programming. As a counterpoint, let's list the current first-rate GBA titles that aren't reissues of 16-bit stuff.

Advance Wars
Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance
Castlevania: Circle of the Moon
Golden Sun
Klonoa: Empire of Dreams
Mega Man Battle Network
Mega Man Battle Network 2
Mega Man Zero
Metroid Fusion
Pinball of the Dead
Tactics Ogre: The Knight of Lodis
Wario Land 4

A dozen games? Not an excess of quality, but it's a good selection nonetheless. While I won't deny that the Advance has the greatest amount of crap in its catalog as far as modern systems go, you can still find an excellent GBA game without resorting to reissued classics. And I can see a number of promising releases in the future, from Lufia: The Ruins of Lore to Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow to Advance Wars 2.

The article makes a good point about the laziness of re-releasing older games on the GBA, but there's more to the system than a mass of recycled entertainment. And hey, a SNES won't let me play Metroid Fusion on my TV.

[bargora]

When I called it a cheap shot, maybe I should have said it was "a bit of a cheap shot". What I mean is this: If you don't want to play SNES ports on your GBA, then don't buy SNES ports for your GBA. And if you don't think there are enough original games to justify buying a GBA, or if you don't like the screen, don't buy a GBA.

I still think the picture is funny, though.

Sylentwulf, you sound (in this thread and the SP one) like you feel personally betrayed by Nintendo or something.

[tynstar]

What is wrong with a portable SNES?

As far as the adapter goes I think it is great. I want to plat some of the GBA games on a big screen.

Does anyone know if the adapter will work like the link cable? Can you download stuff from PSO into it like the GBA?

Thanks

[Sylentwulf]

Don't get me wrong, they ARE great games, but I have a VERY strong feeling that ALL of the SNES games wook a total of 20 minutes (Exxageration) to switch over the SNES games to the GBA, THIS makes me feel VERY cheated in the fact that they're charging full price for them, and I DON'T buy the SNES ports (I got F-Zero for $15, because I thought it was worth it).

If they were to release them at $15-$20 brand new, I would be saying Nothing :) It's kinda like charging $5.00 for the E-reader NES games, you KNOW that no work went into that, and you're paying $5 for a couple piece of paper you can print out at home. That's REALLY cheesy to me (Especially after paying $40 for the E-reader itself :o )

I love nintendo, I chose their system over the xbox Easily, I think they DESERVE to own the handheld market, I just don't think they deserve to ABUSE it.

[tynstar]

I agree with you on the price of the games. But at the same time a lot of kids have only had the Gameboy color. So to them the graphics and games seem new to them. But for the people who have both it is a waste at 29.99 a game when you could get the SNES versions for cheap.

[maxlords]

Yeah, I agree that they're porting WAY too much for the GBA, but at the same time, I'm buying the player for all that original content 16 bit goodness that was mentioned above by Kid Fenris. That's why it's worth it to me. If it was just the reissues, I wouldn't bother. In fact, I haven't bought a single reissue yet, and I have no plans to as such...I have all the originals :)

[NE146]

fuck that. BRING ON THE SNES PORTS!!!! :D

That article doesn't mention that Ghouls and Ghosts for the GBA has a bunch of NEW stages which gets Ghouls and Ghosts fans like me 100% hyped up to buy it. So it's far from a straight port... play past the 1st stage and you'd have noticed that :P

But I digress.. bottom line. If they bring out the games I love and add on the extra shiznit (like G&G). Then SNES all the way! WOOOHOOOOO!!!!!!!! :D :D :D

Personally, I think the chances of the PS3 coming prior to late August 2006 is about 3 percent, with about 97 percent that it will come out sometime after late August. I'm thinking it will launch on the 6 year anniversary of the PS2 in late October.

But I'm sure that a few of you out there actually take Sony on their word for a Spring Launch.


The fact of the matter is that no "major" home console other than the Sega Saturn has ever launched prior to August in the United States. Most "major" consoles have launched in September or more recently in October and November. The Sega Saturn launch was a fluke, it happened to be a panic move by Sega after seeing what the Playstation could do, they decided to rush it out to try to get people to spend their money on the Saturn before they even had a chance at the Playstation, but that was very much out of the norm.

Now you might be wondering why would Sony say they are going to launch Spring 2006 if they have absolutely no intentions of doing so?

It's very simple. They know that there are enough people out there that will actually believe them. And they know that some of these people will be people who are considering buying either the XBOX 360 or the PS3, and they know that if some of these gamers really believe that the PS3 is coming in Spring of 2006, that they would be willing to hold out 6 more months, to be able to buy the PS3 instead.

They also know that if they came out and said October 2006, that many gamers would say, "Well, damn that's a whole nuther year away, might as well get the 360 this November and then worry about the PS3 next Xmas." But by planting this thought that it's Spring instead of Fall, some gamers will say, "Well, I could get the 360 now, but man, I probably should wait a few more months for the PS3".

Then what happens is that in February, Sony announces that they unfortunatley have to push back the launch date from Spring to October 2006 due to shortages in key components needed to manufacture the system.

YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE BANK!


I don't blame Sony for this tactic, it's a standard tactic, we've heard it many times before. Any time a company is coming out with their system a year behind another company they always talk about a spring launch and then later announce a setback that causes the launch to be moved to fall. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will always be, when it comes to "major" home consoles.

Personally, I think the chances of the PS3 coming prior to late August 2006 is about 3 percent, with about 97 percent that it will come out sometime after late August. I'm thinking it will launch on the 6 year anniversary of the PS2 in late October.

But I'm sure that a few of you out there actually take Sony on their word for a Spring Launch.


The fact of the matter is that no "major" home console other than the Sega Saturn has ever launched prior to August in the United States. Most "major" consoles have launched in September or more recently in October and November. The Sega Saturn launch was a fluke, it happened to be a panic move by Sega after seeing what the Playstation could do, they decided to rush it out to try to get people to spend their money on the Saturn before they even had a chance at the Playstation, but that was very much out of the norm.

Now you might be wondering why would Sony say they are going to launch Spring 2006 if they have absolutely no intentions of doing so?

It's very simple. They know that there are enough people out there that will actually believe them. And they know that some of these people will be people who are considering buying either the XBOX 360 or the PS3, and they know that if some of these gamers really believe that the PS3 is coming in Spring of 2006, that they would be willing to hold out 6 more months, to be able to buy the PS3 instead.

They also know that if they came out and said October 2006, that many gamers would say, "Well, damn that's a whole nuther year away, might as well get the 360 this November and then worry about the PS3 next Xmas." But by planting this thought that it's Spring instead of Fall, some gamers will say, "Well, I could get the 360 now, but man, I probably should wait a few more months for the PS3".

Then what happens is that in February, Sony announces that they unfortunatley have to push back the launch date from Spring to October 2006 due to shortages in key components needed to manufacture the system.

YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE BANK!


I don't blame Sony for this tactic, it's a standard tactic, we've heard it many times before. Any time a company is coming out with their system a year behind another company they always talk about a spring launch and then later announce a setback that causes the launch to be moved to fall. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will always be, when it comes to "major" home consoles.

Personally, I think the chances of the PS3 coming prior to late August 2006 is about 3 percent, with about 97 percent that it will come out sometime after late August. I'm thinking it will launch on the 6 year anniversary of the PS2 in late October.

But I'm sure that a few of you out there actually take Sony on their word for a Spring Launch.


The fact of the matter is that no "major" home console other than the Sega Saturn has ever launched prior to August in the United States. Most "major" consoles have launched in September or more recently in October and November. The Sega Saturn launch was a fluke, it happened to be a panic move by Sega after seeing what the Playstation could do, they decided to rush it out to try to get people to spend their money on the Saturn before they even had a chance at the Playstation, but that was very much out of the norm.

Now you might be wondering why would Sony say they are going to launch Spring 2006 if they have absolutely no intentions of doing so?

It's very simple. They know that there are enough people out there that will actually believe them. And they know that some of these people will be people who are considering buying either the XBOX 360 or the PS3, and they know that if some of these gamers really believe that the PS3 is coming in Spring of 2006, that they would be willing to hold out 6 more months, to be able to buy the PS3 instead.

They also know that if they came out and said October 2006, that many gamers would say, "Well, damn that's a whole nuther year away, might as well get the 360 this November and then worry about the PS3 next Xmas." But by planting this thought that it's Spring instead of Fall, some gamers will say, "Well, I could get the 360 now, but man, I probably should wait a few more months for the PS3".

Then what happens is that in February, Sony announces that they unfortunatley have to push back the launch date from Spring to October 2006 due to shortages in key components needed to manufacture the system.

YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE BANK!


I don't blame Sony for this tactic, it's a standard tactic, we've heard it many times before. Any time a company is coming out with their system a year behind another company they always talk about a spring launch and then later announce a setback that causes the launch to be moved to fall. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will always be, when it comes to "major" home consoles.

Personally, I think the chances of the PS3 coming prior to late August 2006 is about 3 percent, with about 97 percent that it will come out sometime after late August. I'm thinking it will launch on the 6 year anniversary of the PS2 in late October.

But I'm sure that a few of you out there actually take Sony on their word for a Spring Launch.


The fact of the matter is that no "major" home console other than the Sega Saturn has ever launched prior to August in the United States. Most "major" consoles have launched in September or more recently in October and November. The Sega Saturn launch was a fluke, it happened to be a panic move by Sega after seeing what the Playstation could do, they decided to rush it out to try to get people to spend their money on the Saturn before they even had a chance at the Playstation, but that was very much out of the norm.

Now you might be wondering why would Sony say they are going to launch Spring 2006 if they have absolutely no intentions of doing so?

It's very simple. They know that there are enough people out there that will actually believe them. And they know that some of these people will be people who are considering buying either the XBOX 360 or the PS3, and they know that if some of these gamers really believe that the PS3 is coming in Spring of 2006, that they would be willing to hold out 6 more months, to be able to buy the PS3 instead.

They also know that if they came out and said October 2006, that many gamers would say, "Well, damn that's a whole nuther year away, might as well get the 360 this November and then worry about the PS3 next Xmas." But by planting this thought that it's Spring instead of Fall, some gamers will say, "Well, I could get the 360 now, but man, I probably should wait a few more months for the PS3".

Then what happens is that in February, Sony announces that they unfortunatley have to push back the launch date from Spring to October 2006 due to shortages in key components needed to manufacture the system.

YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE BANK!


I don't blame Sony for this tactic, it's a standard tactic, we've heard it many times before. Any time a company is coming out with their system a year behind another company they always talk about a spring launch and then later announce a setback that causes the launch to be moved to fall. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will always be, when it comes to "major" home consoles.

[NvrMore]

I'm not sure I see the argument against the GBA player, especially under the argument presented by that picture.

It's a peripheral, you're not obligated to buy it and if you already have a SNES and you don't want to play GB (also available to snes owners with a super gameboy) , GBC and GBA games on your TV then you don't have to buy it.

For anyone who didn't have a SNES or likes any of the GB/C/A games it's a great option to have.
For all those who want to play games which they used to have but don't want the hassle of finding the old carts and a SNES and want the added ability to play them on the move if they also have a GBA then it's a great option.
For anyone who already has a cube and a GBA + pleanty of games and wants another (arguably better, or at least bigger) way of playing them without having to spend money just to buy the older games (doubles) and a console to play it on, it's a great option.
Basically, for anyone who's not a collector and and wants to play those games and the non-snes games available for the GB/C/A on a big screen and/or with the hardware they have, it's a great option.

Most people aren't collectors and they don't intentionally buy what they don't want to play, even if it's a game they used to own. We buy games we used to own, how is it any different if they're buying it for a newer system. Maybe it's just retro-gaming on a wider but more subtle scale.

Besides, I'm a SNES collector so I have most of the games Ported to the GBA, but theres a LOT/majority of games I'd like to play which are GB/C/A only and I like having the option of playing them on a big screen as well as on the move with a GBA.

[josekortez]

You guys also forgot to mention that GBA games are some of the cheapest next-gen games you can buy new for under $10. These are good games like Car Battler Joe, Smash Pack, and Urban Yeti, if you know where to look. And could you play Genesis games like the ones on Smash Pack on your Super Nintendo? I know I'll be the first one in line for Sega Arcade Gallery, and I want to play Space Harrier and Afterburner on my GameCube just because I never thought that such a feat would never be possible! BTW, check your local TRU for the best game deals.

Originally, I bought my GBA so I could use it for the GC link-up, but now I buy more games for it than any other system. It's funny when you consider that I owned only 4 games for the original Game Boy when I had it as a kid, although I wish I hadn't sold those games now.

BTW, did anybody in this forum ever get Namco Museum or Pac-Man Collection for GBA for $10 at Target? Thought I heard that a while back...

[buttasuperb]

Side note, I got that Hori controller and it works great for SC2 and seems like it'll be perfect for the GBA player.

[Eternal Champion]

I have NO IDEA why it took people 1-2 years (?) to notice that the GBA is just a SNES emulator

GBA is NOT a SNES "emulator". GBA is a 32-bit system, more comparable to the Saturn. Look at Super Metroid vs. Metroid Fusion, or SF Alpha 3, or the Castlevania games vs. Castlevania 4, etc. etc. etc. The prospect for original titles is huge, and I think so far that's been proven.

Sure, it's "easy" to port SNES games to it, but why not? The complaint that it's a cheap shot to port games you already have is made a VERY SMALL niche market of game collectors. The vast majority of consumers probably don't remember the SNES anyway, added to the consumers who are young and playing these games for the first time, even kids who are too young to have played the Playstation.
Again, why not? Contra 3 portable? Why wouldn't that kick ass? And you get extras, e.g., the GBA Zelda III.

I have the SNES, have a lot of the originals, and still love the GBA and the fact that they are resurrecting these games. Plus, when I go to Europe for 2 years, I can take Zelda III, which I played years ago, and re-live it without having to haul my SNES and get an NTSC-PAL convertor and have to buy a TV. Granted, I haven't bought many yet--I will agree that $30 is a lot, but they are new games on a current console. GBC games weren't much cheaper, if at all.

[portnoyd]

Hey, what better way to introduce the younger generation to what we grew up on? 2D!

I have about 30 GBA games, and yes, 2/3 of them are ports. I don't care. Having Bof I and II on the go is well worth it. I don't feel cheated in the least.

dave