• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

GC version of Splinter Cell ... Gamespot review .. ugh ...

it's not that it's hard, it's that developers are fucking lazy. :)
 
That's sad for those who enjoy Splinter Cell and have only a Gamecube but it's simple logic: The money is not made on the GC = the money is not invested in GC games.
Sadly, this game here slaps you this logic in your face without warning.
 
no that's if you rotate it 180 degrees.

If you flip it, it's 9.L :)
 
How much did the first 2 sell on GCN? And I don't blame them for being lazy, before I got my xbox I didn't buy a lot of games that now I buy on the xbox... maybe it's the controller or something, but there is something about the litte cube that makes you not wanting to play some games (same with ps2 and xbox, but usually with GCN type games anyways, so I just buy them for the gamecube.), this is this type of game. If they port the game at least put as less effort as possible in order for them to make some profit. Though, if the games sell on the cube fuck them. Developers sould respect the buyers :p
 
Just buy the Xbox or PC version, there really isn't any other option.

I actually bought the Xbox version over the PC despite having a monster setup since I prefer the controls and online community. I played the demo and the multiplayer beta on the PC and I enjoyed my time more on the console iterations.
 
The GameCube version of the game is sadly missing the innovative four-player competitive mode featured in Chaos Theory (and its predecessor) for the PC, Xbox, and PlayStation 2. And while that's the biggest omission, unfortunately it's just one of the numerous corners that have been cut to make Chaos Theory for the GameCube a mockery of its PC and Xbox counterparts. It's mostly similar to the half-baked PS2 version, but with no versus mode, clunkier controls, a useless Game Boy Advance connectivity feature, and a bunch of GameCube-exclusive glitches.

Damn.
 
This is kinda why I support Nintendo getting a bit crazier with their next console.

Maybe third parties would make fewer games for it than they are with the GCN currently, but I think there might be more unique/platform specific software.
 
Drensch said:
Fixed. People don't buy halfassed pieces of shit.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Why is the GC in third place (or almost)? Why is that the PS2 sells 4x more?
I make a game now and have X amount of money to put in. Will i put my money on the PS2 or the GC version? If you look at things right now, you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to tell that it's having more chances to sell on the PS2.
I don't mean that devellopers just give us half-baked products though. If it was by business i would choose not to release the game on the GC instead of releasing it "half-baked". But then again, things are more complicated than this. But i won't go deeper into the question until you understand the beginning.
 
Odd how they tossed in GBA connectivity but didn't work on the gameplay or glitches spoke of in the review.

Also, your pistol now has a secondary firing mode, which can temporarily disable electronics--useful for creating darkness as well as distraction.
Click to expand...
What kind of pistol is that?
 
If you are lame enough to only own a gamecube then you deserve this version of the game.

6.7 hoooweee thats bloody average.
 
Ryudo said:
If you are lame enough to only own a gamecube then you deserve this version of the game.

6.7 hoooweee thats bloody average.
Click to expand...

I have no words for this.. actually I do have some words, and I guess I just typed them..
 
Ryudo said:
If you are lame enough to only own a gamecube then you deserve this version of the game.

6.7 hoooweee thats bloody average.
Click to expand...

I think you misspelled 'lamecube' there.
 
This shouldn't be shocking. This is something that has been going on for the last couple of years. It used to be that if you didn't have a Xbox, the GC version of multiplatform game was usually the way to go. Today, I wouldn't even bother with the GC version because you know it's going to be fucked some how.

Things have definately fizzled on the GC, even though it is nothing like the last year of N64.
 
The real question is, which is better:

1) Half-assed support
2) No support

No support might be better in some cases, but at least the half-assed support puts the game on the shelves (destined to fail, which will eventually lead to "no support")
 
BuzzJive said:
The real question is, which is better:

1) Half-assed support
2) No support

No support might be better in some cases, but at least the half-assed support puts the game on the shelves (destined to fail, which will eventually lead to "no support")
Click to expand...

I'd say save the money and just not support it. It's just going to sit on the shelf anyway while GC owners buy 1st party games and one of those extremely rare 3rd party exclusives.

It'll we make the fanboys grin or growl depending on who they support, but most consumers do not and have not cared in my experince.
 
ge-man said:
I'd say save the money and just not support it. It's just going to sit on the shelf anyway while GC owners buy 1st party games and one of those extremely rare 3rd party exclusives.

It'll we make the fanboys grin or growl depending on who they support, but most consumers do not and have not cared in my experince.
Click to expand...

I don't think developers and publishers realize how much of an affect, word of mouth has on the sales of titles. If they release a title thats plays and looks like shit, eventually word will spread and the numbers will drop. Most GC third party titles that aren't exclusive are visually shit. People always bring up the exclusive excuse, but in reality what sales the titles are the visuals and the gameplay. There has to be that balance, to be honest I think that most hardcore GC owners are graphics nuts.
 
I'm beginning to wonder why Ubi releases a GC version, and it has nothing to do with lack of LAN/online multiplayer. It's not like the GC is shitty hardware, so why release games that look sub-standard? They could at least polish the single player aspect.
 
Whether or not there's a large enough userbase to be profitable isn't really the issue here. The GC has plenty of owners. There's what, 17-18 million GC owners now?

The problem here is Ubisoft's management deciding to not adequately fund the GC port, thusly dooming it to dismal sales before it even gets out the gate.
 
I could be wrong but I remember distinctly hearing both Burnout 1 and 2 sold more on the GC than any other system. Can someone psot the sales figures?
 
akascream said:
Meh, in for a penny, in for a pound I say. Why do it at all then?
Click to expand...
Because Splinter Cell has generally sold decent on GC but with support dwindling and hardware sales slowing to a crawl, it's logical to think that the port efforts might be better served elsewhere. GC only people are the only ones that suffer and let's be honest, they don't really account for much.
 
Mr_Furious said:
Because Splinter Cell has generally sold decent on GC but with support dwindling and hardware sales slowing to a crawl, it's logical to think that the port efforts might be better served elsewhere. GC only people are the only ones that suffer and let's be honest, they don't really account for much.
Click to expand...

I dunno, it probably diminishes the brand name in the process. Not to mention you could put all those resources into the other versions and maybe put out a better game that could sell more copies and strengthen the franchise.
 
Hollywood said:
I could be wrong but I remember distinctly hearing both Burnout 1 and 2 sold more on the GC than any other system. Can someone psot the sales figures?
Click to expand...
There is no way in hell the GC versions outsold the PS2 ones. Maybe the Xbox but not PS2. Not in a million years.
 
OG_Original Gamer said:
I don't think developers and publishers realize how much of an affect, word of mouth has on the sales of titles. If they release a title thats plays and looks like shit, eventually word will spread and the numbers will drop. Most GC third party titles that aren't exclusive are visually shit. People always bring up the exclusive excuse, but in reality what sales the titles are the visuals and the gameplay. There has to be that balance, to be honest I think that most hardcore GC owners are graphics nuts.
Click to expand...

...How do you explain Resident Evil 4?
 
Deepthroat said:
There is no way in hell the GC versions outsold the PS2 ones. Maybe the Xbox but not PS2. Not in a million years.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the GC version of Burnout outsold the XB one, but not Burnout 2. Though the GC and Xbox versions of that were close, as I recall.
 
I really hope Nintendo make it nearly impossible for these bastards to prot their games to the REV while Nintendo and a few selected 3rd parties rake in all the though
 
norinrad21 said:
I really hope Nintendo make it nearly impossible for these bastards to prot their games to the REV while Nintendo and a few selected 3rd parties rake in all the though
Click to expand...

This would lead to a similar situation the N64 had - not enough third party support. And it would be bad for the Rev. If Nintendo start being picky again, devellopers will start to laugh and say "fine. more money for me to make a Xbox2 and PS3 version that will prolly sell more".
With the state of the Gamecube right now in the market, you should be surprised that there isn't more games that are cancelled or shitty. And you should take big third party titles as courtesy.
 
akascream said:
I dunno, it probably diminishes the brand name in the process
Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm pretty sure Ubi won't be putting up banners all over the web and touting in a press release about how the cube version scored a 6.7. Anybody who does happen to get this version may think twice before ever getting another Splinter Cell game (and with Ubi pumping them out 1 or 2 a year now, that's not what they want).
 
Nintendo seem all too comfortable with using formula of locking their userbase into a constant buying of 1st party software,making serious bank off it while they have no real competition on their system. I doubt theyre worried over the quality of 3rd party software releases like their userbase is. Its the reason why one needs either an Xbox or PS2(or both if you have the means) nowdays,Nintendo seem to not care about the lousy 3rd party situation.
 
honestly, this is what the score should be on the xbox version... this game is trash.... and the scores it get's on xbox, it doesn't earn..
 
After seeing a game like RE4 run on the GC, there's really no excuse for such a poor effort technologically. Marketing-wise, there probably is.
 
I think it's bullshit that devs give cubers half-assed efforts and then blame the fanbase for the sales, and pull support.

Multiplatform games that WEREN'T butchered on the cube that actually sold well:
Burnout
Burnout 2
Prince of Persia: TSoT
Metal Arms: Glitch in the System
Alien Hominid (sold better than the Ps2 version about 2:1)
GOD: DAMM (sold 500k+, but only ~50k on Xbox. Granted, it was a timed exclusive. And then Atari says GOD DAMM 2 is Xbox exclusive. Why? I don't know.)
I do believe Beyond Good & Evil performed fine on the Cube compared to the other consoles
The Harry Potter Games (ok that's because GC is teh kiddie)
MMAC (and despite what people say, I still think there's nothing wrong with the controls)
Sonic Heroes
Phantasy Star Online (all of them)
Timesplitters 2
Viewtiful Joe 2 (yeah, it bombed, but it sold better than the Ps2 version)
Hell, I even think the original Splinter Cell did moderately well on the Cube.

Now this isn't to say that Cube games were a gold mine for multiplatform releases, because, for the most part, cube sales were not the highest. Ps2 sales were, and then the Xbox and Cube fought it out for 2nd place on many games (except for the sports games)

It's when developers started choosing to put online in the Xbox and Ps2 versions of games while giving the cube version some stupid play chooser via GBA connectivity *coughmaddencough*, when they started releasing the cube versions of games 3-6 months after the Xbox and Ps2 versions, and when they started giving cubers glitchy, unpolished versions of their games which had entire gameplay modes removed (*looks at Splinter Cell 2 and 3*) when the third party sales REALLY went into the shitter.

For the most part, until about mid-late 2003, multiplatform games sold about equal on the cube and Xbox. That's when developers started giving the Cube the shaft, and also around the time Cube 3rd party sales slumped.
 
This would lead to a similar situation the N64 had - not enough third party support. And it would be bad for the Rev. If Nintendo start being picky again, devellopers will start to laugh and say "fine. more money for me to make a Xbox2 and PS3 version that will prolly sell more". With the state of the Gamecube right now in the market, you should be surprised that there isn't more games that are cancelled or shitty. And you should take big third party titles as courtesy.
Click to expand...

Good points wyzdom. Nintendo cannot be selective on barring poor software, or shovelware developers because in the end Nintendo is the one being hurt. Sure there may be one less inferior game on the system, but there's a vast amount of casuals that cannot differentiate a "AAA" title from studio excrement. Their library would begin to look less enticing due to volume differences, (whether this is true or not) & Nintendo misses out on the potential royalty payments as well.
 
GaimeGuy said:
I think it's bullshit that devs give cubers half-assed efforts and then blame the fanbase for the sales, and pull support.
Click to expand...
I think it's bullshit that devs are to blame for how Nintendo chooses to market their hardware and how Nintendo continually disregards the market and what it wants.
 
Li Mu Bai said:
Good points wyzdom. Nintendo cannot be selective on barring poor software, or shovelware developers because in the end Nintendo is the one being hurt. Sure there may be one less inferior game on the system, but there's a vast amount of casuals that cannot differentiate a "AAA" title from studio excrement. Their library would begin to look less enticing due to volume differences, (whether this is true or not) & Nintendo misses out on the potential royalty payments as well.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a good number of shovelware titles on the Cube, but because their not major releases they don't get any space on store shelves. Its always mentioned that the Cube doesn't have any racing titles, but if you look at the list at EB and GS, there's titles that have been released, but didn't get any marketing.

None of the major gaming sites reports on these titles, today I can go into any EB or GS and find titles for the Xbox and the PS2 that I have never heard of on store shelves, but GC no.
 
Deepthroat said:
There is no way in hell the GC versions outsold the PS2 ones. Maybe the Xbox but not PS2. Not in a million years.
Click to expand...
actually, i would say there was also no way in hell it outsold Xbox either. remember, xbox got the last one first, and at the holidays, all to itself before the ports came out spring of the next year.

i would guess xbox was 1st in sales, with ps2 right behind it and GCN way the fuck back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Splinter Cell: Deathwatch Trailer
2
59
1K
EverydayBeast replied
Question about splinter cell
49
3K
Hudo replied
Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow Gets A Surprise Steam Release And Is Just Playable On The Steam Deck
News Platform 
31
805
Gonzito replied
Jason Schreier: Ubisoft SF was working on Splinter Cell; it got derailed by GaaS ambitions and became xDefiant
Opinion Rumor Game Dev 
34
368
EDMIX replied
Insider-Gaming: Ubisoft's Roadmap for 2026-2027 (Rayman Remake, Splinter Cell Remake, New Ghost Recon etc)
2
56
2K
Men_in_Boxes replied
Top Bottom