I could say 'Dinosaur Planet' here too... Rare would have released the game with or without Star Fox.

Hal Made SSB with the sole purpose to sell off of Nintendo franchises. If the game didn't have Mario and friends, we wouldn't be talking about this game right now would we?

If Star Fox adventures didn't have Star Fox, we would still be talking about it.

Luigi's Mansion was a real blockbuster wasn't it? Miyamoto at work.

Also, I doubt he had anything to do with Conker, Goldeneye, or Perfect Dark... Rare's 3 highest Rated games. The reason I doubt this is because generally Myamoto focuses on gameplay and not the "coolness" of weapons and disgusting story-lines.

Stop right there. I'm not saying Rare is better than Nintendo. Nintendo has seniority over Rare in the buisness. Plus Nintendo still does hold the 2/3 of the top games on the list.

But what I was saying is that Rare was competitive with Nintendo in terms of game content on N64. Nintendo fans had no problems with the scores until now. Now that Rare is gone, everybody's opinion about them changed, and it got a lot easier to say they are crap.

I'm giving them equal opprotunity. Both of them supported N64 just as good. As far as Gameboy, Nintendo supports it well with re-hash after re-hash. GCN, well, GCN got one Rare game... if it gets a 9.7 r better it's going to out rate all the GCN games to date :unsure:

well for one: HAL did do some production with Pokemon games...on the opening screen it says : Game Freak, HAL Labrotories, Nintendo.

I said it was my opinion, I did like SSBM better than any Rare game, and thats me. And also, lets not forget Earthbound...they were also in full production of the N64 Earthbound...

Also dont forget Silicon Knights, Eternal Darkness is awesome, and they're prolly working on Too Human now...which was first announced for the PSX in 1998, and also sounds very cool, from what info was revealed anyway. Plus theres also NST...well...meh.

ANd dont say that Rare is better than Sega, Capcom or Namco. the RE series alone is better than any Rare game I've played IMO. Soul Calibur was WAY better than whats it called....Killer Instinct? I believe that was made by Rare...I could be wrong.



Also I dont see why you are using IGN's opinions, there a tons of other sites that you could use, IGN's opinions never affect my decision to buy a game, if they dont like a game that I like then too bad for them....why dont you try combining scores from several sites, that will give a much better perspective...


EDIT: and one more thing...

Some other people were talking about Rare being a big part of Nintendo's sales in like...2000. Well guess what? Back in the day of N64 Nintendo had little to no third party support. Capcom only released like... 3 N64 games, by the end of this year, there will already be 3 Capcom games on GCN...and Sega has almost (or maybe more than) 10 games that will be out by this fall...

That is why Rare seemed to have a huge role in N64 game sales, but with other MUCH bigger developers stepping in, those sales wouldnt have been as good as before I dont think.

Nintendo said Rare did not account enough for their profit or whatever. HAL has made around 5 games. Give me a break... Rare was the best second party of Nintendo, they had the most production and the best overall games. Period.

It's also not fair to compare HAL with Rare considering HAL has made only a few games, and has used basically all Nintendo ideas, whereas Rare has not. I'm not the biggest fan of Rare, but they are by far much better than HAL.

wut? look at SFA, that game is so much like Zelda is unbelievable (not that its a bad thing). HAL may not have made too many games but they sure as hell sold better than most of Rare's crap (ie Conker's Bad Fur Day).

yeah...okay you're right, I wasn't being fair....

but on to a new subject: like you said, Rare did not account for enough profit, on N64 they made some good profits, but on SNES...they were really only known for DKC games...which even then werent THAT great...say that now, Nintendo has bigger 3rd party support, and if they were still 2nd party to Nintendo, would their sales have been as much as big factor for the GCN like they were on N64? No, Nintendo relied on Rare in teh N64 days, they would not need to rely on them in the GCN days, so they are kinda useless...well not useless, thats a bit harsh, but....they wouldnt have mattered much, not to me, and not to many others I dont think.

My opinion of Rare has not changed, I still think they make great games, and hope that even without the help that Nintendo offers Rare, they can maintain these high standards. It will be tough though, not just because Nintendo won't be backing them (hey can make great games without them), but because many key members have left, and are leaving. Reports suggest that some members now work at Retro (1st party of Nintendo), while others are gaining jobs at places like Capcom, which probably isn't a surprise seeing that Capcom are developing a ton of exclusive software for the GC...

Rare can always hire new and talented workers, and maybe Microsoft can switch a few key members from other development house to Rare.

Either way, both companis have gained alot. Microsoft, while having to pay 3 times the stock worth of Rare to Nintendo, gain not only a big name in the gaming world which could attract some gamers, but also some talelnted people. Nintendo on the othe hand, have gained a **** load of cash, with can not only be used in the fund Q project, but also be useful in securing more exclusive content from companies like Square, Enix, Sega, Rockstar/Remedy and maybe Konami.
Furhtermore, Nintendo have managed to nab a few Rare employees (such as the Retro example) for use in their internal development houses.

And alot of 'current' Rare employees have expressed anger at the fact that they have spent atleast 2 years on learning the ins and puts of the GC hardware, and that having to go to waste. These are the ones which are leaving to form separate development teams.

But who developed the game?

It doesn't matter if they helped, whoever gets the main credit as the developer is the developer.

Yeah, what makes your opinion any better than mine?

Silicon Knights made one game for GCN that didn't even get as high of marks as The top 3 games Rare made for N64.

:lol:

First you say it's your opinion, then you tell me not to state mine? I could care less about comparing Rare to Sega, Capcom, or Nacmo. Although I think Rare is better than Nacmo and Capcom I see no point in comparing them. You guys are just turning on Nintendo's best 2nd party because they joined Microsoft.

Read what I posted right after I gave the scores.

And? Little to none of the games Nintendo is getting from Sega, Nacmo, or Capcom is exclusive. They are either ports from older systems, or ports from other systems. Rare would have been exclusive, no ports, all for Nintendo, just like in the N64 days. Rare is probably the biggest reason N64 didn't flop.

What FPS would out-sell Perfect Dark or Goldeneye??? Timesplitters? :lol:

Agent under fire? :lol:

Give me a break, Rare's game sales wouldn't have done any worse than they did on N64.

Because Rare's "crap" required an expansion pack... if "Rare's crap" didn't use an expansion pack I'm positive it would have sold better. SSB didn't out-sell Goldeneye... so now what?

Not to mention it came out when N64 was like... dead...

And yeah it sold like crap, but it got really good reviews, and I heard many people who liked it...

I bet Crono and his lil' friend DarkMaster don't like Conker just cuz it sold bad... *realizes they hate GTA3 too, which sold good*... Ok nevermind, but you're both idiots....

J/K :D

This is fanboy talk.

I'm sorry to say it so clear, but it is. Rare would have matterd.

I'm just thinking about all the Square vs Rare topics, and how Nintendo fans would defend rare to the death. Also I'm thinking about all the perfect dark cubed button layout threads. Not to mention, all the Star Fox Adventure threads.

They were sooooo hyped to see Rare on GCN, now it's hard to even find a positive comment towards Rare.

I dont HATE GTA...I did buy the game afterall, its just that there was no motive to play the game anymore...
and I dont say "hey look at that game it sold bad so I'll hate it" ...or some crap.

I admit sometimes in these debates I might spit out something stupid, but usually I'm just typing and thinking really fast and dont care what I put. :p

lol.. I forgot about all of that stuff... :D

I think a lot of people here are a bit more Nintendo fanboyish than they think...

:sneaky:

fanboy talk huh...

for one: If I'm biased in any way, it would be towards Sony, more than double the games I own are on PSX/PS2 than N64/GCN, and I happen to enjoy PS2 more than GCN at most times.

also, I dont see how anything I said has to do with biased towards Nintendo? If I was a Nintendo fanboy wouldnt I be going around saying "OMFG NINTENDO IS SO STUPID THEY SOLD RARE!!!" or like "NINTENDO IS STUPID THIS WILL HURT THEM BADLY."

Rare's top developers left a long time ago to form a group called NRD (New Radical Design)... Funny, because Perfect Dark and Conker, Rare's two top rated games, came after they left. Developers can always be replaced. For one guy on a team of 50, there is 10 guys who know the ropes just as good.

I'm not going to say Rare is going to be the greatist thing ever on Xbox, I'm just saying most people are disrespecting the best 2nd party Nintendo had.

lmfao

Are you serious? A fanboy wouldn't give the opposition that much respect. I would expect the opposite responce... like "they are crap anyway" or "it doesn't even matter"

Like when Sony boys heard that Square is making games for GCN... they made ever excuse to make it sound like it isn't that great.