GBA connectivity vs. Internet play......

[jerkov]

I know that some people dismiss the GBA connectivity with the Gamecube as a lame gimmick, but after playing Legend of Zelda: Four Swords for the first time, I think the whole set up is perfect. The GBA gives each player a lot of freedom to move around and explore in dungeons or buildings without impeding on the quests of your three friends, which I think is great. I've also put significant time into Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, which is also a good game, but not quite in the same league as Zelda. I do like how you can manage all your items and such on your screen so the rest of the party can play on while you manage your belongings in CC, though, which is only possible because of the GBA. And let's not forget the insanity of Pac-Man Vs., which you only need one GBA for. Though it may be a gimmick, I think Nintendo has come up with some great uses for connecting the GC and the GBA and I hope that more games that utilize this feature are in the works.

After buying Four Swords and finally getting a few other people to play it for a few hours on Sunday, I happened across a review of the game in Game Informer magazine, which I thought was a piss-poor review, but that seems to be par for the course for GI lately (back in their earlier reviews, they used to actually write decent reviews that gave fair scores, but now they'll throw a 9 at almost anything, but I'm getting way off track now). One quote that both perplexed and angered me was this: "Of course, the Internet does the same thing, but until Nintendo realizes what this is, it looks like we're going to have to tolerate the GBA/GC connectivity gimmick."

OK, I know there are a lot of online gaming fans around, but I for one do not understand this craze at all. Personally, I think that the GBA/GC "gimmick" is necessary for a game such as Zelda, and I also think that it would be a terrible online game. What's the fun in playing if you're not sitting in the same room as your friends? I wouldn't even want to play if I didn't have that personal interaction: cursing at your friends when they screw you over, laughing at them when you screw them over, yelling orders at each other to solve puzzles, etc. Somehow I think typing this stuff on a keyboard would not have the same effect as actually hanging out and playing the game in person. I know this has somewhat turned into a mini-rant against online gaming, but I just feel that the GBA/GC connectivity thing is unjustly dismissed as a lame gimmick when it actually has some cool uses. Like I said, if Zelda or Final Fantasy: CC were online games, I wouldn't even consider giving them a shot. However, with a few friends, I was eager to try them and I'm currently having great fun playing them. Actually, in my experience, Nintendo is the only company to deliver great four player games: the NES, the N64, and now the GC have all had a rich library of four-player games that my friends and I have put significant time into over the years (and still do). I'm just curious to see what others think about these issues.

[Half Japanese]

While the GBA/GCN connectivity certainly has it's place and it's uses, Nintendo should have also rolled out something a little more....existant...for an online plan. While it may not be profitable (something the console front of Nintendo is growing increasingly familiar with), there is definitely a market there for it, as proven by the 1 million Xbox Live users and the numerous ps2 online gamers (no subscription = no hard numbers).

Nintendo even put out the means to get online, through the modem and the broadband adapter, but the biggest use either of those has been put to so far is half-assed piracy. While I enjoy the hell out of some Four Swords (which, I'll agree, wouldn't be the same without having friends in your presence), Nintendo's head finally emerging from their ass has been a long time coming, otherwise they'll be relegated to third place for the duration of their existence.

[YoshiM]

Connectivity is cool as an extra "fluff" thing-the radar in Splinter Cell, the Tingle Tuner in Wind Waker, the island in Animal Crossing, etc. However to transform a GBA into a mandatory controller for a game is still, I think, a bad decision. I haven't played either FF or Four Swords so they could be very good games. It just boggles my mind that in order to play a game on my Gamecube TV console I need to interface with a HANDHELD separate game system that, if you buy the SP version, costs as much as the console itself. Then I need friends who also have a GBA AND I/they need interface cables. I and a hundreds or thousands of people have just been alienated because the A)don't have multiple GBAs themselves or B)don't have friends that have GBAs.

I can see purchasing special controllers. It's a "niche" thing with a typically low cost to play (well, except if you bought Steel Battalion but that's even more niche). Usually some games include the controller so the issue is moot unless it's a multiplayer/multicontroller game.

Even though online may not be your thing, jerkov, but it's definitely a growing phenomenon as broadband is getting more available and less expensive. If Nintendo just started up a peer to peer setup or something like Kali where people can set up their own servers, you'd see online capable people hopping on and supporting it. It's catering to their fans and showing the competition they aren't afraid to compete in a somewhat untested/little tried medium. I know Nintendo goes to the beat of a different drummer but even Nintendo knows connectivity isn't "The Way (TM)". At E3 there wasn't really a mention on the future of connectivity. As if it practically didn't exist. What does THAT say?

[Drexel923]

It just boggles my mind that in order to play a game on my Gamecube TV console I need to interface with a HANDHELD separate game system that, if you buy the SP version, costs as much as the console itself. Then I need friends who also have a GBA AND I/they need interface cables. I and a hundreds or thousands of people have just been alienated because the A)don't have multiple GBAs themselves or B)don't have friends that have GBAs.

That pretty much sums it up there.

Xbox Live w/headset = $60-70
GBA/GC connectivity (to the fullest extent) = over $400

Don't get me wrong, I would rather be in the same room with the people I am playing any day, but the cost factor alone is ridiculous. While online gaming may not give you the exact same experience, I think it does a damn good job (specifically Live) to emulate it. Even with this though, I don't write the GBA/GC connectivity off as a gimmick...I enjoyed playing FF:CC and I think the ideas behind the other games have merit to them. Maybe if there were more games, but that price is hard to swallow.

[Querjek]

I personally love GBA/GCN connectivity. I can see its flaws, but I cannot play games online without buying expensive wireless adapters that are $100+. I never really thought about connectivity as a substitute for being online... it was more like the icing on the cake. Sure, a cake is ok without it, but it's sort of dry and doesn't taste quite as good. I'm only referencing games with connectivity, though, as other games do fine without it.

[dbiersdorf]

Bah, I had more fun with Pac-Man Vs. then Halo.

And I'm 100% serious.

Like Querjek said, its a nice touch for most games. Like the ability to use the e-Reader in Animal Crossing had infinite possibilities due to the large amount of cards they supported. Games like Splinter Cell gave the GameCube version an advantage on what version to buy. Then games like Billy Hatcher even gave you free downloadable games (Puyo Pop) to take on the road with you.

Even the cheap $10 Nintendo Preview Disc was swarming with GBA content, such as downloading a Wario Ware demo (which was actually very fun for a demo), portable Dr. Mario, the new Splinter Cell map system, the Tingle Tuner, etc.

For me, it really isn't a problem, I have Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicals, but I've never quite played it (my brother bought it), because I'm not an RPG buff. Yet when I think about it, I have no problem at all getting access to these games. My brother and I both got original GBA's when they first came out, and we both got an SP when those came out. That right there is 4 Game Boy's, not to mention I've managed to get 3 link cables without even noticing really, with my forth one being in Four Swords (whenver I get it).

Not to mention I don't really have to haul this around either, nearly all of my friends have at least one GBA, heck I think one of my friends might have 6 due to his brothers. They all have link cables, and whenever we were playing Pokemon Colosseum, or Pac-Man Vs. the equipment was always there. So for me, I guess its just fortunate.

I think the connectivity was a great idea, but wasn't exatctly well executed. I don't think Nintendo really wanted to replace the idea of online play with it, personally I just think they don't have a clue or want to have a reason to stall it. Either way Sony is joining the boat now too with PSP connectivity, before you know it Nintendo will be online and this bickering will all go away.

[Nature Boy]

I don't see why connectivity and online gaming are considered the same thing at all, so I'm puzzled why so many people try to equate them. Four Swords is no different than split screen Halo, you just have to use a GBA instead of a normal controller.

IMO it's a way to sell more Gamecubes and GBAs (and link cables), not an attempt to compete in the online market (which, unless I'm mistaken, is a small piece of the very large gaming pie).

[calthaer]

The GBA is useful as a portable gaming device - it's not like people are just buying an expensive controller. Hopefully peoples' friends would be buying the GBAs and one person wouldn't be buying 4 of them.

Even if they were, the $60-70 vs. $400 price comparison is misleading. The Xbox requires you to have an existing internet connection, which means that you have an extra $35-40 per month tacked on to the Xbox Live cost for broadband support.

Nintendo should allow internet connections - like trading Pokemon over the internet. That needs to happen. But I'll still take their connectivity over Live any day. When I want internet mp, I'll use my PC.

[Oobgarm]

It just boggles my mind that in order to play a game on my Gamecube TV console I need to interface with a HANDHELD separate game system that, if you buy the SP version, costs as much as the console itself.

Sorry to derail here, but I agree with YoshiM on this. I took the GCN Four Swords game over to a friend's house to play and then it turned out that one of us had to use the GBA as a controller while the other person got the GCN controller. What a bunch of bull. Kinda wish I hadn't bought it now, since multiplayer was one of the major reasons behind getting it...

OK, back to the internet/connectivity talk... :D

[davidbrit2]

That pretty much sums it up there.

Xbox Live w/headset = $60-70
GBA/GC connectivity (to the fullest extent) = over $400

Mmm, not quite.

XBox ~ $150
XBox + XBox Live + Headset ~ $220
The same for all 4 players ~ $880

Gamecube ~ $100
GBA SP ~ $100
GBA SP to Gamecube cable ~ $10
GBA SP and cable ~ $110
GBA SP and cable for all 4 players ~ $440
Grand total ~ $540

Keep in mind that in either case, each player will likely be buying his own stuff separately (XBox + XBox live or GBA SP + cable) so one person isn't likely to pay the several hundred dollar figure.

[Drexel923]

That pretty much sums it up there.

Xbox Live w/headset = $60-70
GBA/GC connectivity (to the fullest extent) = over $400

Mmm, not quite.

XBox ~ $150
XBox + XBox Live + Headset ~ $220
The same for all 4 players ~ $880

Gamecube ~ $100
GBA SP ~ $100
GBA SP to Gamecube cable ~ $10
GBA SP and cable ~ $110
GBA SP and cable for all 4 players ~ $440
Grand total ~ $540

Keep in mind that in either case, each player will likely be buying his own stuff separately (XBox + XBox live or GBA SP + cable) so one person isn't likely to pay the several hundred dollar figure.

I understand all of that...what I'm saying is that you can pay for Live and instantly play with millions of gamers, yet you have to buy 4 GBAs (regardless of who's paying for them) to play with three friends. Thats a big difference in money having to be spent, and obviously one person isn't going to pay for it all. And I wouldn't bring the console price (or the internet price as calthaer stated) because the money spent on those items/services isn't only used for online gaming...you still spend the same amount of money for the ability to play reg games or just browse the net (online gaming isn't the primary function for either).

[ManekiNeko]

Shigeru Miyamoto claimed that online gaming wasn't profitable enough to Nintendo. It raises the question... how much has Sony, Sega, and Microsoft earned (or lost) on their own online services? Microsoft seems to be really fond of its XBox Live service, and I have to assume that they're making some kind of profit on it.

Personally, I think Game Boy Advance connectivity is ridiculous, but it does serve the purpose of chaining the Game Cube to its little brother, increasing its viability in the eyes of Game Boy Advance fans who might otherwise purchase a competing console system.

JR

[davidbrit2]

Personally, I think debating the merits of either method is useless. It's like comparing a road trip to a jet flight. Both have their definite advantages. Just go with whichever you prefer.

[dbiersdorf]

Shigeru Miyamoto claimed that online gaming wasn't profitable enough to Nintendo. It raises the question... how much has Sony, Sega, and Microsoft earned (or lost) on their own online services? Microsoft seems to be really fond of its XBox Live service, and I have to assume that they're making some kind of profit on it.

You need to know that Microsoft has made pracitcally no profit this whole generation.

[YoshiM]

Even if they were, the $60-70 vs. $400 price comparison is misleading. The Xbox requires you to have an existing internet connection, which means that you have an extra $35-40 per month tacked on to the Xbox Live cost for broadband support.

True there is the existing Internet connection fee, however I have a feeling a majority of Live players already had broadband Internet access prior to an Xbox purchase and probably use it for more than just Xbox Live. So in that case the monthly ISP charges is moot. To take it to illogical extremes for either Xbox or GBA/GCN you'd have to tack on rent/mortgage payments and electricity use into the total gaming bill. But we don't, as that stuff's a "given".

The problem with the internet play/connectivity as that pretty much was Nintendo's stance that connectivity was better (or at least as good) of the two (I'll be dipped if I can find the articles at the moment from E3 2003-I remember that was the impression I got from interviews with Nintendo reps). Hence the debate.

[calthaer]

True there is the existing Internet connection fee, however I have a feeling a majority of Live players already had broadband Internet access prior to an Xbox purchase and probably use it for more than just Xbox Live. So in that case the monthly ISP charges is moot.

If we're counting the cost of the GBA that is necessary for playing a GCN connectivity game, then we should also be including the cost of broadband access which is necessary for Xbox Live. On the same line as your argument - a "majority" of people using the GCN GBA connectivity could have had prior access to the GBA because they liked to use it for portable gaming.

[ubersaurus]

Even if they were, the $60-70 vs. $400 price comparison is misleading. The Xbox requires you to have an existing internet connection, which means that you have an extra $35-40 per month tacked on to the Xbox Live cost for broadband support.

True there is the existing Internet connection fee, however I have a feeling a majority of Live players already had broadband Internet access prior to an Xbox purchase and probably use it for more than just Xbox Live. So in that case the monthly ISP charges is moot. To take it to illogical extremes for either Xbox or GBA/GCN you'd have to tack on rent/mortgage payments and electricity use into the total gaming bill. But we don't, as that stuff's a "given".

The problem with the internet play/connectivity as that pretty much was Nintendo's stance that connectivity was better (or at least as good) of the two (I'll be dipped if I can find the articles at the moment from E3 2003-I remember that was the impression I got from interviews with Nintendo reps). Hence the debate.

I know I use my GBA for alot more then just a controller for pac-man vs. I may use my net for more then just Live (once I get live, that is), but it's just a given that most people would be using their GBA for other portable gaming, as well.

[youruglyclone]

this is how I got my set ups

GC 100
gba sp 100
gba 50 afterburned
gba 30 tv adapter'd
gba free stock...for now
gc-gba cable x4 20 2 were bought for 10 the others were free with game purchases.

about 300 for my "connectivity" set up

it's not as expensive if your friends have the stuff as well but even though I was retarded enough to pay for it all it's not as much as you think it would be.

probably cave in on live when doa collection comes out although I was tempted to enter the ninja master tourney (I really wanted a ninja dog shirt)

still 4 swords wouldn't be the same if it was a broadband game I definitely enjoy yelling at my friends when they screw up....and the voting system is always skewed against...hero of the dark my ass!

I don't think connectivity has been truly taken advantage of

[wisekrak]

Hmmm. I usually don't get into the middle of debates like this but since my views on this subject have changed, I'll chime in. I used to scream up a total bitch storm anytime someone mentioned the "connectivity" thing. I was SO pissed that Nintendo had the gall to create and release games that would force me to run out and purchase a gameboy system for each player.

Recently however, I have come to relaize that Nintendo is playing it very smart. They are maximizing the power of their installed base of existing GBA's. If you do not yet realize, the number of GBA's in households worldwide is staggering! If connectivity is a gimmick, then it is a gimmick to sell gamecubes thus increasing the installed base for another system. Remember kids, getting hardware into peoples homes will help sell software well into the era of Next-gen consoles. The connectivity thing has NOTHING to do with internet play. While it would be nice to have Nintendo embrace online play, they don't see it as profitable. So be it. I can get online play from the other vendors. Microsoft has the best online play setup from the developer to the consumer but is it making them money? Microsoft is pushing the X-box live because it works well and is the best thing out there. They are only pushing it to sell more X-boxes. They are deparate to get X-Boxes into your home and they aren't making a profit on them either.

After playing Zelda 4 swords, I can only dream of what new ideas will come out of developers minds to use the GBA/GC setup. It ROCKS! If you don't like it, don't buy it and you can spend the rest of your days wondering how much fun you really could have had playing the GBA/GC games instead of playing the same old WWII shooter with the Hi-res, normal mapped, "Hey ma look I'm shooting a gun!" game.

[Daria]

The thing about the GBA/GBC connectivity is until Four Swords came out it pretty much WAS a gimmick. I had some fun using it in Animal Crossing, Harvest Moon and Wind Waker but it wasn't crucial to the gameplay. Just a neat extra if I already happened to own both the game and the GBA.

Four Swords however really explored and exploited the potential for connectivity and created a game that was really different and really fucking fun. Personally I thought the way your character jumps from the TV to the GBA and back again was nothing short of brilliant. And the interaction between the players sitting in the same room is a lot more rewarding then compeating against faceless opponates across the internet.

I mean I've enjoyed my fair share of online games in the past but I feel too many games are really focusing on online and lan style gameplay. I find I really miss the days when you could buy a game and play it two player on one system. It seems now adays if it's not a party game I'm going to migrate to the livingroom just to play a game with my boyfriend in the bedroom. It's inconvienant for me, when I could be sitting beside him instead.

I also thing it's poor critism to knock a game for not using one gimmick over another. Since when was it a critera that a game has to be online to be good?

[jerkov]

After playing Zelda 4 swords, I can only dream of what new ideas will come out of developers minds to use the GBA/GC setup. It ROCKS! If you don't like it, don't buy it and you can spend the rest of your days wondering how much fun you really could have had playing the GBA/GC games instead of playing the same old WWII shooter with the Hi-res, normal mapped, "Hey ma look I'm shooting a gun!" game.

I could not have summed it up better.

I agree with what most of you are saying about how the connectivity and Internet play are not really comparable - the only reason I brought it up was because of that dumbass's comment from Game Informer. For some reason, he saw it fit to use the connectivity feature to take a stab at Nintendo not caring about Internet play. I don't get it either, but I did think it was worth making a topic about.

I do disagree with what a lot of people are saying about the "high cost" of connectivity. My friends, my brother and I already had GBA's, my brother had the Gamecube, so all we needed were the cables. We got two free (one for pre-ordering Crystal Chronicles, one with Zelda: Four Swords), and the others spent $10 or $15 on their cables. So the only real cost to us were the games and the cables - I feel that the connectivity is an awesome feature for those that already own a GBA and a GC, which I'm sure that most Nintendo fans do at this point.

[wisekrak]

It seems now adays if it's not a party game I'm going to migrate to the livingroom just to play a game with my boyfriend in the bedroom.

Uhh um what kind of games in the bedroom?

Just kidding Daria, I couldn't resist. LOL

[Daria]

It seems now adays if it's not a party game I'm going to migrate to the livingroom just to play a game with my boyfriend in the bedroom.

Uhh um what kind of games in the bedroom?

Just kidding Daria, I couldn't resist. LOL


Wario Ware... naughty Wario Ware....

>.>

[Rev. Link]

I really love FSA, it's a great game that makes really good use of the GBA connectivity. However, that said, I do tend to think it could have worked better as an online title. My one complaint about FSA is that everyone is chained to the same screen. It's nice to be able to go into a house/cave or the Dark World and escape to your GBA, but it'd be better if you could go anywhere in the level independantly of the other players. Voice support would make it just like playing in the same room as your friends.

I should say, though, that I don't care much for online play. When I do play online, I pretty much only play with people I already know. Also, I refuse to pay to play games online.

According to Nintendo's statements at E3, they also refuse to make gamers pay for online play. I don't know about Sony, but I remember reading that MS has lost a lot of money supporting the Live servers.

As far as the online vs. connectivity debate, I think it's ridiculous. To say that you have to spend hundreds to play a connectivity game is ridiculous. For one thing, there is only one game that actually requires the use of a GBA to play it. That's Pac-Man Vs. (still my favorite use of connectivity, btw). Both FSA and FFCC can be played in single player mode with a normal controller.
Secondly, I've heard far too many people say something along the lines of "I'm not buying 4 GBAs just so I can play this game!" That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. No one, especially not Nintendo, expects you to buy GBAs for your friends. Your friends should already have GBAs, 'cuz it's a great system with lots of great games. If they don't, then you don't get to play multiplayer. No huge loss. You may want to get new friends, though.

[YoshiM]

As far as the online vs. connectivity debate, I think it's ridiculous. To say that you have to spend hundreds to play a connectivity game is ridiculous. For one thing, there is only one game that actually requires the use of a GBA to play it. That's Pac-Man Vs. (still my favorite use of connectivity, btw). Both FSA and FFCC can be played in single player mode with a normal controller.
Secondly, I've heard far too many people say something along the lines of "I'm not buying 4 GBAs just so I can play this game!" That's got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. No one, especially not Nintendo, expects you to buy GBAs for your friends. Your friends should already have GBAs, 'cuz it's a great system with lots of great games. If they don't, then you don't get to play multiplayer. No huge loss. You may want to get new friends, though.

Pac Man Vs. aside, FFCC and FSA WERE designed from the get go to be multi-player games (more so on the former) and that's where the fun factor and "meat" of the games lie (from what I've read). And with what seems to be a lack of non sports co-op style games of course people are going to want to play them with friends. So in essence, these "console" games are "crippled".

The major rub for many is that in order to play these games the way they were intended is to hook up another game system. Not some gun controller or bongos or anything like that but an unrelated, independent, handheld game console. For some time now many special controlled games either came with the controller (Samba D'Amigo, Seaman, Steel Battalion come to mind) or could be played with a standard pad (many gun games, dance/beat style games, etc.). Multiplayer games typically could be played with a mixture of controllers with one having a handicap (moving cross hairs in a gun game for example) or an advantage (like a Dance Dance game with a controller while the friend is huffing, puffing and boucing around on a floor pad). If the other player(s) wanted to get involved with the proper controller the cost was relatively small depending on the device needed. But these were typically niche style games geared to a specific audience. However, FFC and FSA aren't really "niche", now are they?

When one buys a Gamecube game (or any video game for that matter, and I'm talking non-online games) one expects to be able to play it out of the box with all of its features without any additional hardware purchase EXCEPT perhaps extra controllers (for multiplayer, they are accessories-brain control isn't available on current consoles) and a memory card (a mandatory accessory). A GBA is NOT an accessory and shouldn't be a worry when determining what game to get for an unrelated game console. What Nintendo should have done was made games like FSA more like a gauntlet game when GBAs aren't available (then offering more abilities when GBAs are attached) or make the game split screen (then offering the feature of separate adventuring via GBA for faster play and more strategy for competition). Done, problem solved and everyone would pretty much be happy.

[Daria]

You know what's sad though, you really will end up paying as much for an SP to play Four Swords as you will some of the special controllers avialable. Guns are expensive, joysticks are expensive, dance pads etc...

Hell if I have to shell out a $100 for a controller, at least it's a gaming machine that I'll use infinately more then the shotgun we bought for House of the Dead 3. :P

It's also evident that you haven't played Four Swords yet Yoshi (you said you just read about it)... the multiplayer is very fun but no it's not the crux of the gameplay. In single player mode you play the exact same adventure you would with friends, and the cooperation element is supplemented by manipulating these four characters yourself to solve puzzels. It's still challenging, it's still a lot of fun and it still feels like Zelda.

FSA is perfectly playable straight out of the box, just like DDR is with a controler or cross hairs in a gun game (although personally I feel it's less then a handicap then either of those) but if you want the full experience then yes, you'll have to get a GBA. At least used non-SPs are dirt cheap.

[YoshiM]

You know what's sad though, you really will end up paying as much for an SP to play Four Swords as you will some of the special controllers avialable. Guns are expensive, joysticks are expensive, dance pads etc...

I never said one wouldn't spend money, but it's still cheaper than an SP. If there was a DDR 4 player (I dunno, is there?), pads start at $20. Depending on the light gun, they start at $35. If there were niche games that handled four players that allowed use of special controllers for four players if one went on the cheap it'd probably be less or maybe a few bucks more than ONE GBA SP.


Hell if I have to shell out a $100 for a controller, at least it's a gaming machine that I'll use infinately more then the shotgun we bought for House of the Dead 3. :P

I understand that, but HotD 3 is playable (although difficult) without the shotgun controller and has multiplayer intact without the controller. The gun is purely optional.


It's also evident that you haven't played Four Swords yet Yoshi (you said you just read about it)... the multiplayer is very fun but no it's not the crux of the gameplay. In single player mode you play the exact same adventure you would with friends, and the cooperation element is supplemented by manipulating these four characters yourself to solve puzzels. It's still challenging, it's still a lot of fun and it still feels like Zelda.

FSA is perfectly playable straight out of the box, just like DDR is with a controler or cross hairs in a gun game (although personally I feel it's less then a handicap then either of those) but if you want the full experience then yes, you'll have to get a GBA. At least used non-SPs are dirt cheap.

Okay, so I'm wrong about the emphasis on multiplayer. I'm a big boy, I'll admit that :D . However out of the box it's playable...for one person if you don't have a GBA. The multiplayer is not a "bonus" like a Tingle Tuner or the Animal Crossing island, it's a heavily advertised feature of the game. It cannot be unlocked playing the game in single player. No "code" to invoke it. In my eyes, without that separate piece of unrelated hardware (as it is marketed as a separate line from the Cube) the game is essentially "crippled".

That's the point I'm trying to make and that's why I dislike this approach Nintendo made with these connectivity games. I'm sure the games are very fun, as people on this board have mentioned in times past. But it doesn't make Nintendo "right" in their choice.

For the record, I don't think "online" is the bee's knees either, so don't think my posts are anti-Nintendo or pro-online gaming.

[Rev. Link]

FSA and FFCC are just as good single player as multiplayer. In fact, I found FFCC's multiplayer to be severely flawed and enjoy it much more as a single player game.

FSA's multiplayer is indeed a lot of fun, but it's just as fun by yourself. IMO, of course.

The point is this. There are only 3 games that are really connectivity-heavy. FSA, FFCC, and Pac-Man Vs. All the other games that use connectivity do so in an "extra" fasion. I think we can all agree on this, right?

Pac-Man Vs. is the only game that requires a GBA. But Pac-Man Vs. isn't even available as a stand-alone purchase. It's basically an extra for buying Pac-Man World 2, or for pre-ordering some other Namco games. FSA and FFCC, while some might say you need to play them multiplayer to get the full effect, don't require GBAs to be played, or even to be fun in some folks' opinion.

So where is the real connectivity beef? Do you own a GBA? If so, I'm assuming you bought it because of the wealth of great games it has to offer. If not, no one expects you to buy one solely to use it as a controller for 3 games.

Nintendo did the connectivity thing the way they did for two reasons. One, to reward their fans who own both a GC and GBA. Two, because they're Nintendo and they like to do different things. It's not like they put a chip in the GC that makes it not work at all unless a GBA is attached. They made a few games that use the GBA as a controller 'cuz they thought it would be cool to have a separate screen for some things.

If you don't have a GBA, fine, you miss out on one game, and on the multiplayer mode of 2 other games. I'm sorry. But this shouldn't be the end of your gaming life. It's okay. You can move on. There are plenty of other games out there that don't use a GBA in any way, shape or form. :)

[YoshiM]

FSA and FFCC are just as good single player as multiplayer. In fact, I found FFCC's multiplayer to be severely flawed and enjoy it much more as a single player game.

FSA's multiplayer is indeed a lot of fun, but it's just as fun by yourself. IMO, of course.

The point is this. There are only 3 games that are really connectivity-heavy. FSA, FFCC, and Pac-Man Vs. All the other games that use connectivity do so in an "extra" fasion. I think we can all agree on this, right?

Pac-Man Vs. is the only game that requires a GBA. But Pac-Man Vs. isn't even available as a stand-alone purchase. It's basically an extra for buying Pac-Man World 2, or for pre-ordering some other Namco games. FSA and FFCC, while some might say you need to play them multiplayer to get the full effect, don't require GBAs to be played, or even to be fun in some folks' opinion.

So where is the real connectivity beef? Do you own a GBA? If so, I'm assuming you bought it because of the wealth of great games it has to offer. If not, no one expects you to buy one solely to use it as a controller for 3 games.

Nintendo did the connectivity thing the way they did for two reasons. One, to reward their fans who own both a GC and GBA. Two, because they're Nintendo and they like to do different things. It's not like they put a chip in the GC that makes it not work at all unless a GBA is attached. They made a few games that use the GBA as a controller 'cuz they thought it would be cool to have a separate screen for some things.

If you don't have a GBA, fine, you miss out on one game, and on the multiplayer mode of 2 other games. I'm sorry. But this shouldn't be the end of your gaming life. It's okay. You can move on. There are plenty of other games out there that don't use a GBA in any way, shape or form. :)

All good debates, this is great!

To answer your question, yes I do own a GBA. Two in fact, as I have broken down and purchased an SP. My wife likes the old style and I got used to the new style (and it's easier for me to see).

I don't think you quite understand where I'm coming from. You and others are passing this off as some neat bonus for GBA/Cube owners. A couple of $50 games that have solid single player that happen to have *extras* like multiplayer if you have GBAs. That's the impression I get: it still has single player and the rest is pretty much fluff. Your perception seems to be "can *I* play the game" as that is a priority, and there is nothing wrong with that. However it seems as though that perception is somewhat narrow.

There are others who don't share that perception. To them (and myself) they see what Nintendo advertises: games with multiplayer action (if you go to Nintendo's site, the fact the games are multiplayer is usually within the first or second sentence). It is not extra or fluff, it's a feature of the game and it probably says so on the back of the box and they want that.

Typically when one buys a Gamecube (or any console) they expect to be able to play 99% of the games available for that system (I think I'm repeating myself, but oh well). The only hinderance that should keep a player from playing a game besides personal taste is how much money that person has. There is always that small percentage of games that are specialized that require some special accessory designed specifically for that game but most if not all of the time that accessory (or at least one) is bundled with the game. These accessories are system specific and remain accessories. People accept that and judge with their money appropriately and the publishers know that as such games ARE very niche and don't bring in the money as much as a "normal" game.

Now we come across games one cannot completely play on their console. There is no accessory designed for that console. The game is not bundled with it. In fact, it's a game system. Like many at the time said when Connectivity was introduced "Say...what?" A similar situation nailed Phantasy Star Online for Xbox: you needed a network connection AND be on Xbox Live in order to play the single player game. Again, "Say...what?". A feature advertised out of the box but requires something a person may not be interested in order to function.

I'm not saying you guys who like connectivity are wrong. I'm trying to get you to see the perception of others and show that they have legitimate gripes. Even if I did own those games I would still think the same cause yeah, it does suck when a high profile game creeps across your console and you can't play the main features because you need unrelated hardware you may not want.

[Rev. Link]

A similar situation nailed Phantasy Star Online for Xbox: you needed a network connection AND be on Xbox Live in order to play the single player game. Again, "Say...what?". A feature advertised out of the box but requires something a person may not be interested in order to function.

There's one problem with this particular part of your arguement. You don't *need* a GBA to play these games (except for Pac-Man Vs., which I've already pointed out isn't available on its own and is basically an extra anyway). You *need* to be on Xbox Live to play PSO, even single player. These particular examples don't match up.

As for your arguement about some games requiring an accessory (gun games, dance games, etc.), I rarely see these games actually come with their accessory. There are exceptions, of course. Usually Namco's Guncon games come with one. But I still see plenty of light gun games that don't. Same for dance games. Some come with the pad, some don't. Those games that do come with their required accessory (Samba de Amigo and Steel Battallion come to mind) are more expensive. Usually much more expensive. Look at Steel Battallion! Many times these accessories can't be used with any other games. If they can, it's rarely more than a handful.

You're right that the GBA is a separate system and not an accessory. You're right that it costs more than your standard light gun. But doesn't the Steel Battallion controller cost as much, if not more? Didn't the Samba maracas cost about $100 (or was that with the game?)? I know I've seen high end dance pads cost about that much. The difference with the GBA is exactly that it's not an accessory, but a whole other system. There are hundreds of games for it, not to mention hundreds more GB and GBC games that can be played on it. When you look at it that way, isn't it so much better to spend extra on a new system that can play so many other games than, say, a dance pad you'll only use for a handful of games? Also, let me point out that both FFCC and FSA come with GC/GBA cables.

Yes, I know Nintendo advertises the multiplayer aspects of FSA heavily. And yes, it is pushed as a multiplayer game. But they also make it clear that you need a GBA for every person in multiplayer mode. It's not like people are buying this and then finding out they'll need GBAs. They know what the deal is before purchasing.

One more thing (I know this is long). If you have a GBA, then why does the connectivity thing bother you so much?

[YoshiM]

A similar situation nailed Phantasy Star Online for Xbox: you needed a network connection AND be on Xbox Live in order to play the single player game. Again, "Say...what?". A feature advertised out of the box but requires something a person may not be interested in order to function.

There's one problem with this particular part of your arguement. You don't *need* a GBA to play these games (except for Pac-Man Vs., which I've already pointed out isn't available on its own and is basically an extra anyway). You *need* to be on Xbox Live to play PSO, even single player. These particular examples don't match up.

I think you are not quite grasping the "feature" aspect. I used PSO Xbox as an example from another platform to show a similar situation. Maybe not exact (hardware vs. online access and subscription) but still similar. PSO Xbox is featured to have a single player mode. Single player meaning "by one's self". Yet in order to use this feature you have to have your Xbox connected to the Internet AND be signed up to the basic subscription service (not necessarily signed up with the PSO servers). The player is denied the ability to access a PRIMARY feature of a game (even though the game is designed to be an MMORPG, it's still a feature that allows you to play the same game sans other humans thus it's primary) because of those two things. You shouldn't have to be online to play the single player feature of the game, as shown by the Cube version.


As for your arguement about some games requiring an accessory (gun games, dance games, etc.), I rarely see these games actually come with their accessory. There are exceptions, of course. Usually Namco's Guncon games come with one. But I still see plenty of light gun games that don't. Same for dance games. Some come with the pad, some don't. Those games that do come with their required accessory (Samba de Amigo and Steel Battallion come to mind) are more expensive. Usually much more expensive. Look at Steel Battallion! Many times these accessories can't be used with any other games. If they can, it's rarely more than a handful.

I think I already touched on this but I'll do it again anyway but this time I'll break it down some.

Gun games, dance games and their "ilk": Yes these games can be played with specialized accessories to make the experience that much better. HOWEVER these games are still perfectly playable as ALL of their major features (the main reasons we buy the game) are intact without the use of a special controller. The console owner is not jipped from being able to buy a game for their system because they need some fancy doodad in order to play the game in its entirety (as in all of its primary features).

True "niche" titles: these are the games that MUST be used with either a special controller or requires an additional service in order to work. In the case of the former the special controller is always included as to not "double dip" the customer's wallet and make them not want to buy the product. The only real problem the console owner has to overcome with those games is the cost as it usually is expensive. Typically (though I'm not sure if the Steel Battalion sequel was the game only or if it was bundled so the following may not be true) you cannot find the game new without its special controller.

The latter are examples like PC MMORPGs. It is fairly rare to run into a game beyond that which is strictly online only in the console market. Even a majority of games (probably most, but I'd have to research) that offer online multiplayer STILL have a multiplayer mode for those who don't have online. Crimson Skies, Mechassault, Halo (albeit limited to co-op without system link) are examples of games that offer multiplayer and deliver it without the need for special services or even specialized devices.


You're right that the GBA is a separate system and not an accessory. You're right that it costs more than your standard light gun. But doesn't the Steel Battallion controller cost as much, if not more? Didn't the Samba maracas cost about $100 (or was that with the game?)? I know I've seen high end dance pads cost about that much. The difference with the GBA is exactly that it's not an accessory, but a whole other system. There are hundreds of games for it, not to mention hundreds more GB and GBC games that can be played on it. When you look at it that way, isn't it so much better to spend extra on a new system that can play so many other games than, say, a dance pad you'll only use for a handful of games? Also, let me point out that both FFCC and FSA come with GC/GBA cables.

I'm not denying that the GBA has a variety of games to play. That's why I own it. But the thing you have to remember is not everyone LIKES handheld games so it having over a thousand or so titles available don't mean a rat's patoot. They don't want to own another video game system in order to access the primary features of a game for their particular system.


Yes, I know Nintendo advertises the multiplayer aspects of FSA heavily. And yes, it is pushed as a multiplayer game. But they also make it clear that you need a GBA for every person in multiplayer mode. It's not like people are buying this and then finding out they'll need GBAs. They know what the deal is before purchasing.

One more thing (I know this is long). If you have a GBA, then why does the connectivity thing bother you so much?

No I'm not upset about possible deception on Nintendo's part. It is obvious that you need GBAs. The point is Nintendo is shipping out in essence cripple-ware and the only way to use a primary part of these games is to own another unrelated game system.

It's like buying a stove with a range on it. You can use the range top to fry, boil and cook foods but in order to bake or broil you have to buy and connect a microwave in order to use the oven part. Sure the microwave can cook food by itself and has many cookbooks devoted to microwave cooking but not everyone likes microwaved food. Sure you could not eat baked foods, there are plenty of recipes available for range top cooking. Yeah, the example is the "illogical extreme" but hopefully I'm able to convey my point.

As for my dislike for connectivity even though I own a GBA-I don't like the concept of having to use a separate unrelated game system in order to use a primary advertised feature of a console game. I don't think it's right or fair to force a person who wants to partake of a primary feature to have to own a completely separate, completely different game system in order to invoke it. Connectivity should always be a bonus. Period. Multiplayer is *not* a bonus when it's an advertised primary feature.

[Daria]

Yoshi: I think RevLink understands your points fine. Except you keep insisting that FSA's primary feature is the multiplayer content when it's not. Yes it's advertised as such, because it's a new concept that Nintendo's using to sell the game.

Single player FSA's in no way compares to Single Player PSO (which is reduced to a dull gauntlet clone and pale shadow of the multiplayer experience). And unlike PSO for XboX it's not as if single player FSA is locked unless you own a GBA. They're completely different situations.

[YoshiM]

Yoshi: I think RevLink understands your points fine. Except you keep insisting that FSA's primary feature is the multiplayer content when it's not. Yes it's advertised as such, because it's a new concept that Nintendo's using to sell the game.

Single player FSA's in no way compares to Single Player PSO (which is reduced to a dull gauntlet clone and pale shadow of the multiplayer experience). And unlike PSO for XboX it's not as if single player FSA is locked unless you own a GBA. They're completely different situations.

Wait, wait.... "It's advertised as such, because it's a new concept that Nintendo is using to sell the game". So how is this not a primary feature? Why put emphasis on something that is "extra" or "secondary"? That'd be like if Ford has this really neat car with great gas mileage, lots of power under the hood and roomy interior but uses "has adjustable cup holders" as a major selling point. Don't take offense, I'm just trying to understand your logic on that point you made.

So basically you are telling me that multiplayer in FSA and FCC is essentially a "bonus". Or better yet, it's "fluff". Even though Nintendo spends the advertising dollars pushing the fact it's got multiplayer and even includes a GBA/GCN interface cable in the games' box (does FCC still include cables, I don't recall) multiplayer ranks up there with unlockable concept art or music tests. Is this what you are telling me?

[ubersaurus]

The primary feature is that the game itself lets you control 4 links, either with a friend, or by yourself. If you check the commercials, thats basically what they're advertising.

[Daria]

So basically you are telling me that multiplayer in FSA and FCC is essentially a "bonus". Or better yet, it's "fluff". Even though Nintendo spends the advertising dollars pushing the fact it's got multiplayer and even includes a GBA/GCN interface cable in the games' box (does FCC still include cables, I don't recall) multiplayer ranks up there with unlockable concept art or music tests. Is this what you are telling me?

It is a bonus. But it's not fluff. I'm telling you that if you don't have a GBA and go out and buy the game and play it alone, you'll still have a lot of fun (assuming you normally like Zelda anyway). If you have a couple GBAs and some friends and play the game you'll still have a lot of fun. Because it's the same game no matter how you play it. It's certainly not "cripple-ware" without a GBA.

[Dobie]

It is possible to have BOTH connectivity and online play... PSO has downloadable GBA games in their online play portion of the game. They are unlockables, but it is a nice little bonus. Sure connectivity is a bit gimmicky, so what? I'm a gimmicky kind of gamer. If its new and different, I'll buy it. That's what gaming is all about for me.

[YoshiM]

It is a bonus. But it's not fluff. I'm telling you that if you don't have a GBA and go out and buy the game and play it alone, you'll still have a lot of fun (assuming you normally like Zelda anyway). If you have a couple GBAs and some friends and play the game you'll still have a lot of fun. Because it's the same game no matter how you play it. It's certainly not "cripple-ware" without a GBA.

Ahhh, this answers my question and makes things so much clearer.

Y'see, this is really about perception, not what it says on the box or what Nintendo advertises. You (and I'm assuming Rev. Link) see the multiplayer as a bonus, a little extra from Nintendo saying "thanks for buying our product". Your primary focus and desire for these games is the single player function. If you happen to have some friends over and GBAs are available, hey it's a possible party game! Nothing right or wrong about this viewpoint. You probably wouldn't care if the game even had multiplayer (from what I'm gathering anyway).

However myself and others DON'T see multiplayer as a bonus. Tingle Tuner is a bonus. The prize inside of a box of cereal is a bonus. When a game is obviously centered upon some sort of somewhat constant multicharacter cooperation AND has multiplayer, multiplayer is not a mere bonus. To those who ignore the GBA as a viable game platform the game is crippled: they cannot play it with their friends because no Gamecube accessory will allow them to do multiplayer. This is also neither right or wrong, it is our perception.

It's a toe-MAY-toe, tah-mah-toe situation we have here. :D