|
|
Post by mrmolecule on May 4, 2005 16:38:06 GMT -5
I believe the DS will replace the Game Boy Advance...
1. Despite Nintendo's claim for it to be "3rd pillar", no 3rd pillar product has ever really worked for Nintendo. The Virtual Boy comes to mind.
2. Game Boy Pocket, the redesigned Game Boy, came one year before GBC.
Likewise, GBA SP came one year before DS.
3. A new Game Boy would be said by now. Game Boy Advance specs were revealed in 1999.
4. Nintendo DS can play GBA games.
5. If you believe Nintendo DS is not the logical successor to Game Boy, Nintendo will release adaptors, like the Atari 5200.
6. Uhh...any more?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Almighty Narf on May 4, 2005 17:15:51 GMT -5
1. Despite Nintendo's claim for it to be "3rd pillar", no 3rd pillar product has ever really worked for Nintendo. The Virtual Boy comes to mind. That's becouse it was a poorly designed system that no one liked anyway. Not the case with DS. Actualy, 2 years in both cases. Have you not heard of GameBoy Evolution? Nintendo's been talking about it since before they were ever talking about DS. I'm fairly certain it will be shown off at E3. So can GCN. What's you're point? Release adaptors for what.... ? |
|
|
|
Post by Andronicus on May 4, 2005 20:02:36 GMT -5
Whilst I don't think that the DS is the replacement, per say, of the GB line, and Nintendo has mentioned a new GB for the future, I wouldn't bet at all on seeing it at this year's E3.
Why would you confuse the market like that?
It makes no sense to release a new handheld, expect everyone to buy it, and then it does really well, so you release an entirely new handheld system... I think we won't see any new GB systems for some time yet.
Plus, Nintendo can't expect the public to be able to afford a DS handheld, follwed a year later by a new handheld (and a new home console)...
|
|
|
|
Post by Yamato.EXE V2 on May 4, 2005 20:16:55 GMT -5
GBA SP is a masterpiece to all the older Game Boy Systems
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on May 5, 2005 3:12:28 GMT -5
I seriously doubt we'll see the new GB this year. Maybe next year, but there's too much at stake getting another handheld console onto the market considering the current state of the gaming industry.
Handheld and console development teams are usually separate, with lower-budget, cheaper games traditionally in the hands of the handhelds. The DS is catering to both, allowing for larger 3D games, and also traditional 2D handheld titles. The PSP is opting for flash and bang, and companies are carefully opting not to jump right in the boat with huge budgets.
The GB3 will probably take advantage of a changed market, but give it a year before we see or hear anything of the sort. But I don't think the Game Boy name is something Nintendo wants to kill off, seeing as it represents the biggest success in all videogaming history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dances in Undergarments on May 5, 2005 6:10:19 GMT -5
Wouldn't it be GB4? GB, GBC and GBA would be 1,2 and 3 (respectively), wouldn't they?. I dunno. At this point, I don't think it will, but if it does succeed, then I can picture nintendo using some of those unique features (like the dual/touch screen) in a few years on another handheld, which may very well be classified as a GB. And I doubt they'll show it this year. If they reveal anything, it'll be the Rev. With Zelda already drawing the attention of everyone, and Rev being discussed and shown, as well as the DS's killer aps (online, too, hopefully), they wont need another big announcement in terms of a new handheld. Especially if they want people to look at the DS stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on May 5, 2005 7:15:25 GMT -5
Meh, the GB and GBC still register as a single entity in my mind. The GBC wasn't backwards compatible... it was just that it used nearly identical games, but with a bit of colour. The GBA, on the other hand, had to be forced to play GB and GBC games... and so is backwards compatible  |
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on May 5, 2005 8:13:48 GMT -5
Wouldn't it be GB4? GB, GBC and GBA would be 1,2 and 3 (respectively), wouldn't they? Nah, there are Game Boy, Game Boy Pocket, Game Boy Light, Super Game Boy, Super Game Boy 2 (Just the SGB in clear blue colour (cool!), check that in Nintendo's website), Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, Game Boy Player, Game Boy Advance SP, Game Boy Horror..... Oops. And I doubt they'll show it this year. If they reveal anything, it'll be the Rev. With Zelda already drawing the attention of everyone, and Rev being discussed and shown, as well as the DS's killer aps (online, too, hopefully), they wont need another big announcement in terms of a new handheld. Especially if they want people to look at the DS stuff. I agree. Actually just the Rev, its launch titles, some new GBA and DS games and Zelda GC are too much. (Only if I can have a chance to go to US just because of E3.... I can't. If I ever have money to buy air tickets, why not save it for at least 200 games?) What I am hoping for the E3: Revolution, Mario 128, New Super Mario Bros, Kirby GC (I don't know why, but since SSBM was released, I started to love Kirby games. Too bad Sakurai left HAL) and... Revolution controller ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Dances in Undergarments on May 6, 2005 6:31:30 GMT -5
Meh, the GB and GBC still register as a single entity in my mind. The GBC wasn't backwards compatible... it was just that it used nearly identical games, but with a bit of colour. The GBA, on the other hand, had to be forced to play GB and GBC games... and so is backwards compatible But the GB can't play GBC games, can it? Which in my mind makes them 2 seperate systems. And all of those other things the YL listed don't count as they are just the same consoles, though they look different (in most cases), or peripherals for home consoles. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on May 6, 2005 7:29:12 GMT -5
Well, there's two kinds of GBC games... ones that play on the original GB but not in colour (DMG), and the ones that could only play on GBC (CGB). Seeing as they're both actually GBC titles, would you say half of them are GB games and half are GBC games? Are they all GBC games?
But generally I go by the rule that GBC is an update, rather than a successor, to the original GB. The others: Pocket, Light, Super, etc. I also consider updates rather than successors. The only successor is the GBA, which was a whole new system, built from the ground up, that required extra software to run original GB/GBC games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dances in Undergarments on May 8, 2005 5:45:33 GMT -5
Well, there you go. I didn't know about the DMG / CGB games. In that case, I'd still consider the GBC a seperate console, personally, but I'm no longer as sure of it as I was when I made the first post.
|
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on May 8, 2005 7:55:32 GMT -5
This is a strange case. Since there are some games that support BOTH DMG and CGB, it's hard to say whether those games are GB games or GBC games. In that case, I'll just mix them and consider them as one console.
|
|
|
|
Post by missingno.is back? on May 8, 2005 8:19:50 GMT -5
I wouldn't usually agree with this, since GBA games sell very well... but I have to agree because I've noticed a massive decrease in GBA games being released.
So I don't know, I have mixed feelings on this matter.
|
|
