Games only-for-Gamecube

[Bojay1997]

The difference between a port and a unique game is a matter of how much it affects the experience. If you can get basically the same experience from one that you could from the other, then its a port. If its substantially different, then its a new game.

The REmake is substantially different. As you yourself noted, it has new plot twists and new gameplay. NEW. GAMEPLAY. You can't say it has new gameplay and then say its just a port. That's a contradiction. You might as well refuse to acknowledge Rygar as an NES exclusive because there was an Arcade version, even though the two are nothing alike.

Again, that's a matter of opinion. Any game that has new levels/areas or characters by its very definition has new gameplay. I just don't agree that simply adding new gameplay means something is a new or unique title, especially when lots of multiplatform games do the same thing, especially in this world of DLC exclusivity. If you want to count RE as a Gamecube exclusive in your collection, that's your call. I just don't agree and either do the other people in this thread including the OP apparently.

[Edmond Dantes]

You missed the operative part of my argument, which was: "If you can get basically the same experience from one that you could from the other, then its a port. If its substantially different, then its a new game."

Players of the PS1 version didn't have to deal with Crimson Heads, and never heard about Lisa Trevor, and had less mansion to explore. These are fundamental, substantial differences, and moreso because if you play the Gamecube version you have to deal with this stuff--you can't turn it off. That's the problem with your "its like DLC" argument--DLC is optional, whereas the only way to turn off Lisa Trevor is to not play the game she's in, and she's only in one.

I don't understand why this is such an issue. Everyone acknowledges that Mega Man 6 is a distinct game even though it has a lot in common with Mega Man 5 which has a lot in common with Mega Man 4 etc. Everyone acknowledges that Ninja Gaiden NES, Strider NES, Bionic Commando NES, Rygar NES and Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete are distinct games even though they're based on other games. Nobody thinks that Planet of the Apes starring Charlton Heston and Planet of the Apes directed by Tim Burton are the same movie. Yet for some reason the REmake can't be considered an exclusive just because its a remake? It. Makes. No. Sense.

[Aussie2B]

I don't quite understand exactly what you're looking for, if you're only talking about systems contemporary to the GameCube or not, but Doshin the Giant was originally released for the 64DD.

[Bojay1997]

No, I understand your argument completely, I just don't agree with it. Under your definition, every single release of a game which has a different character, additional story or areas to explore is a different game. That would make virtually every "port" up until the current generation a different game and even then, if one platform had a unique character, area or additional story, that would be a new game as well. I guess you've bought into the Capcom business model that encourages you to buy the same game multiple times simply because they make a minor tweak. That's completely ridiculous in my opinion, but again, if that's how you choose to collect, more power to you.

You missed the operative part of my argument, which was: "If you can get basically the same experience from one that you could from the other, then its a port. If its substantially different, then its a new game."

Players of the PS1 version didn't have to deal with Crimson Heads, and never heard about Lisa Trevor, and had less mansion to explore. These are fundamental, substantial differences, and moreso because if you play the Gamecube version you have to deal with this stuff--you can't turn it off. That's the problem with your "its like DLC" argument--DLC is optional, whereas the only way to turn off Lisa Trevor is to not play the game she's in, and she's only in one.

I don't understand why this is such an issue. Everyone acknowledges that Mega Man 6 is a distinct game even though it has a lot in common with Mega Man 5 which has a lot in common with Mega Man 4 etc. Everyone acknowledges that Ninja Gaiden NES, Strider NES, Bionic Commando NES, Rygar NES and Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete are distinct games even though they're based on other games. Nobody thinks that Planet of the Apes starring Charlton Heston and Planet of the Apes directed by Tim Burton are the same movie. Yet for some reason the REmake can't be considered an exclusive just because its a remake? It. Makes. No. Sense.

[NoahsMyBro]

I always thought "port" meant the original program code was altered in order to run properly on the different hardware, but other than that there were no changes at all to the actual game.

According to that definition, any changes to graphics characters, game areas, etc... would mean the game wasn't a port, no matter how minor or trivial the changes were.

For example - taking a game from the Atari 5200 and changing the memory maps and controller-read routines so that the game runs & is playable on an Atari 800 - that would be what I would call a "port".

Taking the same game and moving it to an Apple ][, but intentionally altering the graphics moreso than only what would be due to the different hardware, and changing the game map - that would be a remake, not a port.

That is what I've always thought the word 'port' meant (in the context of this discussion anyway).

[Cornelius]

No, I understand your argument completely, I just don't agree with it. Under your definition, every single release of a game which has a different character, additional story or areas to explore is a different game. That would make virtually every "port" up until the current generation a different game and even then, if one platform had a unique character, area or additional story, that would be a new game as well. I guess you've bought into the Capcom business model that encourages you to buy the same game multiple times simply because they make a minor tweak. That's completely ridiculous in my opinion, but again, if that's how you choose to collect, more power to you.

You are saying you understand his perspective, then obtusely continuing your argument without acknowledging his points at all. Especially with your Capcom crack. He clearly said all that about 'basically the same' experience, so you think the Capcom 'tweaks' offer substantially different experiences? You aren't being consistent if you say you understand his argument. You are taking his argument to the extreme. If we take your argument to the same extreme, then Pac Man Vs. is not a new game because it just adds additional 'mode' to the original game.

Barring obviously silly examples like that (and the Capcom thing), I consider the optional nature of many changes to be an important distinction. This is just what Edmond already said, but if content is optional, then two players could have pretty much the same experience on different systems, versus changes that significantly alter the story and gameplay. To me that's pretty compelling distinction between a port and a new game.

I always thought "port" meant the original program code was altered in order to run properly on the different hardware, but other than that there were no changes at all to the actual game.

According to that definition, any changes to graphics characters, game areas, etc... would mean the game wasn't a port, no matter how minor or trivial the changes were.

For example - taking a game from the Atari 5200 and changing the memory maps and controller-read routines so that the game runs & is playable on an Atari 800 - that would be what I would call a "port".

Taking the same game and moving it to an Apple ][, but intentionally altering the graphics moreso than only what would be due to the different hardware, and changing the game map - that would be a remake, not a port.

That is what I've always thought the word 'port' meant (in the context of this discussion anyway).

I think you are right, that's what I've always thought, anyway. But only on a technical level. In practice 'a port' has come to be used more broadly.

[goatdan]

I always thought "port" meant the original program code was altered in order to run properly on the different hardware, but other than that there were no changes at all to the actual game.

Yeah, I see this in two ways... On one hand, I have always thought of a port as something that is as exact same as possible on another system. But, around the era of the PS1 / N64 thanks to necessity, ports started being drastically altered. Developers realized that they could get more traction claiming a wholly different experience by creating a slightly different one. It was better for the bottom line if the Xbox one had Xbox Live Support while the PS2 one got four player split-screen or something like that, both exclusive. Way easier for promotions to claim, "EXCLUSIVE FOUR PLAYER SPLIT SCREEN!" on the ads to have a hook for selling the game.

Which leaves us in a tough spot though. Where do you draw the line. Based on this, REmake would be a wholly different title, as would Metal Gear Solid, Sonic Adventure, Skies of Arcadia, Soul Calibur 3 (I think it was) and so on.

I think that it might be better to say something like what new titles were only on the GameCube, as that would more clearly draw the line between RE and RE, for instance.

Regardless, here are some points to help...

Beach Spikers was originally an arcade game.
Bloody Roar: Primal Fury came out on the Xbox but was called Bloody Roar: Extreme I believe.
Bust-A-Move 3000 is a port of the game Super Bust A Move which came out for the PS2.
F-Zero GX was released as an arcade game first. I am happy to report I know where one is available to play near me
Metal Gear: Twin Snakes is a retelling of Metal Gear Solid. Honestly, it's less of a remake than REmake is.
Phantasy Star I and II Plus is a combining of the Dreamcast titles with some enhancements.
Sonic Mega Collection was released with slight extra bells and whistles for Xbox and PS2. Besides that, it is just ports of titles on other consoles with no enhnancements whatsoever.
Legends of Zelda: Collector's Edition, if that is referring to the collector's discs, both of those were compilations of released titles.

Hope that helps

[Bojay1997]

No, that's not what I said at all. I said I understood his argument. I'm not required to acknowledge his points or agree with any of them. How are we supposed to define "basically the same experience"? Obviously, we can't. It's not an extreme when he stated that as long as any element of the game requires you to do something that can be avoided or doesn't exist in other versions of the same game, it's new. That would mean that almost every multi platform game is unique simply because it has one additional area, one different enemy or one different cut scene. That would in fact make RE on the PSOne and Saturn two completely new experiences. I don't agree with that and while I agree that the Gamecube is a tough system to define uniques on simply because some games have different titles and minor enhancements from their PS2 versions, from my perspective, for a title to be considered Gamecube exclusive, it has to be a wholly different game, not just something that plays slightly differently.

You are saying you understand his perspective, then obtusely continuing your argument without acknowledging his points at all. Especially with your Capcom crack. He clearly said all that about 'basically the same' experience, so you think the Capcom 'tweaks' offer substantially different experiences? You aren't being consistent if you say you understand his argument. You are taking his argument to the extreme. If we take your argument to the same extreme, then Pac Man Vs. is not a new game because it just adds additional 'mode' to the original game.

Barring obviously silly examples like that (and the Capcom thing), I consider the optional nature of many changes to be an important distinction. This is just what Edmond already said, but if content is optional, then two players could have pretty much the same experience on different systems, versus changes that significantly alter the story and gameplay. To me that's pretty compelling distinction between a port and a new game.



I think you are right, that's what I've always thought, anyway. But only on a technical level. In practice 'a port' has come to be used more broadly.

[Edmond Dantes]

No, that's not what I said at all. I said I understood his argument.

And yet you prove you didn't:

That would mean that almost every multi platform game is unique simply because it has one additional area, one different enemy or one different cut scene. That would in fact make RE on the PSOne and Saturn two completely new experiences.

Last I checked, RE on the Saturn does NOT have additional areas, new enemies or different cutscenes. Everything that's present on the Saturn is also on the PS1 version. It is as close to a 1:1 port of the original as you can get on the Saturn's hardware. There are NO fundamental changes, especially nothing as fundamental as a whole new subplot or new types of zombies that have to be dealt with in a new way.

I've got a question: Do you consider Strider NES a different game from Strider Arcade? How about Bionic Commando NES versus Arcade? Lunar: Silver Star versus Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete? Super Ghouls n' Ghosts SNES versus GBA?

[Bojay1997]

Straight from Wikipedia (sorry, it's been a few years since I have played the Saturn version, so I couldn't remember the specifics):

The Sega Saturn version added an unlockable Battle Game minigame in which the player must traverse through a series of rooms from the main game and eliminate all enemies within them with the weapons selected by the player. This minigame features two exclusive enemies not in the main game: a zombie version of Wesker and a gold-colored Tyrant. The player's performance is graded at the end of the minigame. The Saturn version also features exclusive enemy monsters, such as a re-skinned breed of Hunters known as Ticks and a second Tyrant prior to the game's final battle. Exclusive outfits for Jill and Chris were added as well.

Seems to fit your version of a new version as far as I can tell.

The NES version of strider is not based on the arcade game, it was never designed to be an arcade port of the game in any way. It simply shared the name. On the other hand, Strider on the Commodore 64 is the same game as the arcade game, it just has music and graphics that don't meet arcade quality.

Lunar Silver Star is the same game as Lunar Silver Star Complete in my opinion. The graphics and sound have been updated, cut scenes were added and some new characters and story elements were added, but anyone who has played the original will have no issue quickly working through the game. It is a remake in the same sense that RE is for the Gamecube.

I don't know anything about Bionic Commando or Super Ghouls and Ghosts and couldn't tell you if they were arcade ports or new games.

And yet you prove you didn't:



Last I checked, RE on the Saturn does NOT have additional areas, new enemies or different cutscenes. Everything that's present on the Saturn is also on the PS1 version. It is as close to a 1:1 port of the original as you can get on the Saturn's hardware. There are NO fundamental changes, especially nothing as fundamental as a whole new subplot or new types of zombies that have to be dealt with in a new way.

I've got a question: Do you consider Strider NES a different game from Strider Arcade? How about Bionic Commando NES versus Arcade? Lunar: Silver Star versus Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete? Super Ghouls n' Ghosts SNES versus GBA?

[thegamezmaster]

What about Ikaruga? Mine has the "Only For" on it.

[Edmond Dantes]

Straight from Wikipedia (sorry, it's been a few years since I have played the Saturn version, so I couldn't remember the specifics):

The Sega Saturn version added an unlockable Battle Game minigame in which the player must traverse through a series of rooms from the main game and eliminate all enemies within them with the weapons selected by the player. This minigame features two exclusive enemies not in the main game: a zombie version of Wesker and a gold-colored Tyrant. The player's performance is graded at the end of the minigame. The Saturn version also features exclusive enemy monsters, such as a re-skinned breed of Hunters known as Ticks and a second Tyrant prior to the game's final battle. Exclusive outfits for Jill and Chris were added as well.

Seems to fit your version of a new version as far as I can tell.

And again you prove you didn't understand my argument:

Players of the PS1 version didn't have to deal with Crimson Heads, and never heard about Lisa Trevor, and had less mansion to explore. These are fundamental, substantial differences, and moreso because if you play the Gamecube version you have to deal with this stuff--you can't turn it off. That's the problem with your "its like DLC" argument--DLC is optional, whereas the only way to turn off Lisa Trevor is to not play the game she's in, and she's only in one.

Why is it that you keep lopping "optional minigame" and "extra costumes" in the exact same bin as "whole new type of zombie that the main game is now packed with" and "major revisions to the storyline?" Can you honestly not tell the difference?

[Bojay1997]

And again you prove you didn't understand my argument:



Why is it that you keep lopping "optional minigame" and "extra costumes" in the exact same bin as "whole new type of zombie that the main game is now packed with" and "major revisions to the storyline?" Can you honestly not tell the difference?

The ticks and the second Tyrant are mandatory parts of the Saturn game. Per your definition, that would make it a Saturn unique, correct? They can't be shut off, you have to encounter them to complete the main game and they don't appear in the Playstation version. Again, you haven't made any coherent argument. All you have done is outline some arbitrary standard which can't be applied with any consistency in some weak attempt to support your position that RE on the Gamecube is some entirely new game just because it has some new areas and enemies.

[Edmond Dantes]

The ticks and the second Tyrant are mandatory parts of the Saturn game. Per your definition, that would make it a Saturn unique, correct? They can't be shut off, you have to encounter them to complete the main game and they don't appear in the Playstation version.

I would have to see these "ticks" and the second Tyrant in context to really judge if they affect the experience much, if at all, or indeed if the Wikipedia statement is even correct.

Again, you haven't made any coherent argument.

"Again?" This is the first time my coherency has been called into question.

All you have done is outline some arbitrary standard which can't be applied with any consistency

Proving you don't understand said standard. there is nothing arbitrary or inconsistent about it. If the basic, fundamental experience is changed then its a new game. Its no different than how 1960s Time Machine and 2000s Time Machine are considered different movies even though they're based on the same book.

[Bojay1997]

Ok, so the standard is essentially you playing a game and determining how much various elements impact the experience and at some point, a line gets crossed and it's so much new stuff that it becomes a new game. Got it. No need to continue this discussion since I think you just said it all right there. There actually is not a standard, it's all just your opinion. Great, so all we need to do is have you play every multiplatform game ever made and we can finally have a comprehensive list of unique games on each platform. Give me a break.

I would have to see these "ticks" and the second Tyrant in context to really judge if they affect the experience much, if at all, or indeed if the Wikipedia statement is even correct.



"Again?" This is the first time my coherency has been called into question.



Proving you don't understand said standard. there is nothing arbitrary or inconsistent about it. If the basic, fundamental experience is changed then its a new game. Its no different than how 1960s Time Machine and 2000s Time Machine are considered different movies even though they're based on the same book.

[The 1 2 P]

Uh, no, no. It retells the first story, but other than that it has to be considered a new game.

I haven't played the GC version but I knew it had a few extra bells and whistles, as do most games that get ported to other systems. Despite all the info laid out over the last several post I'd still consider it an updated version of the original and not a completly new game. I know that the Saturn version of Castlevania: SOTN has an extra playable chararcter and new areas of the castle to explore not available in the PS1 game but I still consider them pretty much the same game except one has extra content. So in that regard I wouldn't call the GC version of RE an exclusive.

What about Ikaruga? Mine has the "Only For" on it.

It's also on the Dreamcast.

[Edmond Dantes]

No need to continue this discussion

Finally something we can agree on.

I haven't played the GC version but I knew it had a few extra bells and whistles,

There's a lot more to it than that. Fundamentals of the gameplay and story have been changed. Series creator Shinji Mikami himself said the remake was "70% different."

The biggest one is the Crimson Heads. Basically, in this version you have to either decapitate zombies, or else burn their bodies. If you don't, then eventually they'll turn into a new, faster, acid-breathing type of zombie that can't be killed. This is not only a difference from the original RE, its a new element for the series as a whole. There's other huge changes besides, but I think anyone with even the barest familiarity with Resident Evil can see how this changes the entire way you approach the game.

[Sunnyvale]

You are saying you understand his perspective, then obtusely continuing your argument without acknowledging his points at all. Especially with your Capcom crack. He clearly said all that about 'basically the same' experience, so you think the Capcom 'tweaks' offer substantially different experiences? You aren't being consistent if you say you understand his argument. You are taking his argument to the extreme. If we take your argument to the same extreme, then Pac Man Vs. is not a new game because it just adds additional 'mode' to the original game.

Barring obviously silly examples like that (and the Capcom thing), I consider the optional nature of many changes to be an important distinction. This is just what Edmond already said, but if content is optional, then two players could have pretty much the same experience on different systems, versus changes that significantly alter the story and gameplay. To me that's pretty compelling distinction between a port and a new game.

This. QFT. Re-read it. Whatever.

All you have done is outline some arbitrary standard which can't be applied with any consistency in some weak attempt to support your position that RE on the Gamecube is some entirely new game just because it has some new areas and enemies.

It's a new game. It appeals to different collectors', it has different content, different console, different package, different graphics, different gameplay...
Or will you trade me your Saturn version for my GameCube version? I gots a minty one...

Edit: Dualshock PS1 is also acceptable for my GC version. Black label, of course.

[The 1 2 P]

There's a lot more to it than that. Fundamentals of the gameplay and story have been changed. Series creator Shinji Mikami himself said the remake was "70% different."

The biggest one is the Crimson Heads. Basically, in this version you have to either decapitate zombies, or else burn their bodies. If you don't, then eventually they'll turn into a new, faster, acid-breathing type of zombie that can't be killed. This is not only a difference from the original RE, its a new element for the series as a whole. There's other huge changes besides, but I think anyone with even the barest familiarity with Resident Evil can see how this changes the entire way you approach the game.

I see what you're saying. Having never played the GC version I figured that despite the differences they were still pretty much the same game(like my example of Castlevania: SOTN) but you're saying it's a wholly unique experience. I guess I need to check out the GC version sometime to find out.

[Bojay1997]

This. QFT. Re-read it. Whatever.



It's a new game. It appeals to different collectors', it has different content, different console, different package, different graphics, different gameplay...
Or will you trade me your Saturn version for my GameCube version? I gots a minty one...

Edit: Dualshock PS1 is also acceptable for my GC version. Black label, of course.

This argument makes even less sense than the previous guy's argument. Your definition would apply to every game ever released on more than one platform. The whole point of this thread is to identify games unique to the Gamecube. Applying your definition, every game on the Gamecube would qualify because the architecture is different than the Xbox or PS2 and therefore a 100% direct conversion or port is not possible from any other console. Also, how would my trading you a copy of RE Saturn for a GC copy prove anything other than that one is more valuable than the other just like many multi platform versions are more valuable on one console or another?