Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not neccessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. My god posed on the cover of a magazine. Don't say we didn't warn you.

In closing yesterday, I urged readers to send me their thoughts regarding the importance of first and second-party development, particularly where it applies to the upcoming console race. Apparently to a good many people, this meant that I obviously wanted to be sent one-sided arguments in favor of one console or the other, being backed by sweeping generalizations and specious logic where no sweeping gneralization was immediately apparent.

And, for whatever reason, most people who chose to write such were writing in support of the PS2. What this means is that I get to sit and point out fallacies in logic for an entire column, making me look all the more a Nintendo whore. So let me just say this in advance: I don't know how the coming console war is going to play out. Every system has potential strengths and weaknesses, and how these will ultimately dictate success remains to be seen. Just because you happen to be partial to one system doesn't mean you need to pass off every other console on the block. But there will be enough time for such assertions as the column rolls on, so let's get this show on the road.

No. Well, that was easy. Next.

Actually, not every game is tapping the power of the next-generation consoles for photo-realism. Witness Jet Grind Radio or Wacky Races for the Dreamcast, both of which use a technique called cell-shading. This essentially means that the characters are 3D, but the rendering technique applied makes them look like cartoon characters; it's a pretty neat trick. In fact, when showing off his Mario demo at the GameCube unveiling, Miyamoto displayed how cell-shading could be applied as a simple option. Obviously it's considered an important technique for consoles like the GameCube to support it with such ease.

So there you go. You get your wish after all.

I have to object to your assumption that Nintendo's useage of existing franchises signals an eventual descent into mediocrity. For one thing, I've seen this argument before. When Mario 64 was first shown, naysayers immediately pointed out Nintendo's continued reliance on existing franchises, and said we as gamers would certainly get nothing but rehashed garbage out of the company. Then Mario 64 eventually came out, and was by far the most innovative, ingenious title of its time.

Just because a company uses beloved and, yes, old characters doesn't mean they need to go the Tomb Raider route: same characters, same gameplay mechanicss, same basic level design, etc, etc. Nintendo has a knack for taking everything that made their classic titles so charming and transplanting it into a fully modern game with all of the latest trimmings. Taking proven 2D franchises like Mario or Zelda and pulling them into the third dimension required a complete reinvention, and Nintendo pulled it off masterfully. If you're inclined to disagree with my assertion, try popping in Bubsy 3D sometime and see how that one turned out.

Secondly, in the past ten years, Yoshi's Story is the only mediocre (not horrible) title I can think of every produced by Nintendo in-house. That's a hell of a track record. Say what you will about Nintendo's often self-destructive third-party policies, but the company does have amazing talent working for it. To think that this talent would suddenly dissipate like so much steam is ludicrous.

The bottom line is that while Nintendo may continue to use older franchises, it will make unique, next-generation titles with them. And all of that doesn't even take into consideration the new franchises that will undoubtedly pop up. Remember, things like F-Zero and POkemon have only been around a few years, so the Big N is coming up with new ideas.

Now I'll address your comments regarding Sony. Outside of 989 studios, the company has next to no first or second-party development at all. Sony has relied upon and will continue to rely upon third parties, and therein lies the crux of yesterday's topic. Namely, third-parties are more willing then ever to publish across every available system. And when you can get all of the same third-party titles on the X Box, PS2, and GameCube, it comes down to whichever machine has the exclusives. In other words, whichever console has strong first and second-party support. And from where I'm looking, that pretty much leaves us with Nintendo.

Of course, now I must explain something: I don't know if multi-platform publishing will really prove to be that prevalent. It does seem to be the way the wind is blowing, but it's really too early to say for sure. I just wanted to know what readers felt would happen should that become the case. And now you've gone and made me defend Nintendo for paragraph after paragraph. Thanks, Radical Dreamer. Thanks a lot. I won't even get into the fact that for most gamers Nintendo is the name they've known for years.

Veering off in an entirely different direction for a moment, several people wrote in to say this. I just don't see it, personally; it looks to me like both eyes are blue but one has fallen into the shadow a bit more than the other. But hey, that's just me. Thus ends our short interlude.

This is a different way of looking at Microsoft's actions that I admit I haven't given much attention to. Good job. I'll just move along to your other comments.

As I've said before, I think Sega really has done everything right. They have excellent titles, a competent console, and a non-restrictive third-party policy. Games like Shen Mue and Jet Grind Radio are entirely unique, a blast to play, and simply aren't getting the attention or respect they deserve. I could go on for paragraphs as to just why I feel the Dreamcast is going downhill, but suffice to say I find it a total shame.

As for Sony, I will say this: while niche titles are important to we hardcore gamers, they just don't matter all that much to the average consumer. Never forget that buyers like ourselves are in the minority. The average consumer wants their Gran Turismo, Madden, and Mario. The average consumer buys maybe 5 games in a year. And unfortunately, this isn't leading anywhere. Next letter.

I swear I didn't write this. It does bring up a point I'd like to address, however. Namely, Nintendo and third-party support. We already know that Nintendo can at least carve out a strong enough following for its systems entirely on the shoulders of its first and second-party teams. But to truly attain mass popularity, third party support is a must. It's also the big question right now.

The GameCube fixes many of the problems the third-parties had with the N64. The biggest offenders were restrictive storage format (read: cartridges) and it was apparently a big pain in the ass to program for. Each of these is a major no-no. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's truly a testament to Nintendo's exclusive development houses that the N64 didn't bomb so badly everyone on the planet died from radiation.

As long as Nintendo can entice third-parties to develop for the GameCube, I don't see how it could be anything but a success. And to entice third-parties, Nintendo needs two things: a large enough installed base to attract developers, and a commercially viable policy. The first part shouldn't be a problem; with EAD and all of Nintendo's second-parties having been hammering out titles for well over a year now (hence the complete lack of N64 games of late), there will be excellent titles to usher in the GameCube and entice buyers. It's that second part that's the big question. Hopefully Nintendo's come to realize that third-parties don't take too kindly to being bent over financially just to get ahold of your proprietary storage format. We'll just have to wait and find out.

And now we stray from the topic once more. I've heard that Skies does, in fact, combine an excellent storyline with some amazing environments. Unfortunately, it also has random encounters. And the idea of having my exploration of said amazing environments interrupted every five seconds for a random battle makes me want to tear my hair out already. So there goes that.

Up until now the norm has been for dungeons to serve as nothing but impediments to progress with uninspired puzzles thrown in to draw the process out even more. (The usual find the switch to make a bridge magically appear stuff.) I'd really like to see an RPG where the emphasis is placed on exploration. A Zelda-style RPG, if you will. Where the dungeons are cleverly laid out with ingenious, even devious puzzles, and battles are either real time, or saved strictly for key moments. That would just be cool.

Yeah, I've noticed that certain people have no sense of direction when it comes to 3D videogames. I have a friend who's been my gaming buddy for years, and he simply cannot get the hang of games like Banjo Kazooie. Titles like Banjo Kazooie have intentionally large, open-ended environments, and that simply doesn't appeal to everyone. However, the friend I mentioned earlier also cites Zelda: OoT as his favorite game of all time, so as long as the environments are properly laid out, 3D shouldn't be a problem.

Yeah, interesting point you raise. As fellow agent Ed has mentioned to me before, it's doubtful that Square will publish across multiple platforms unless they feel financially backed into a corner. This could be because it's easier to squeeze the most out of a single console you've learned well, or whatever, but that certainly seems to have been Square's attitude up until this point. But who knows, maybe should FFXI be a hit on the X Box and PS2, Square will develop a taste for cross-platform publishing. You never know.

Closing comments:

And thus ends today's column. I really wish I had something more creative for you, but I don't. That's it. Go home. And mail Chris while you're at it.

-Drew Cosner, the harmless looking enemy with the instant-death attack