With the Switch 2 on the horizon, I find myself curious about why Nintendo never produced a direct sequel console for the Nintendo 64 or the GameCube. Was it due to disappointing sales, or perhaps a decision to innovate rather than iterate? I’d love to hear any insights or thoughts on this!
4 Answers
Some folks think the GameCube and Wii were successors to the N64. But really, they’d classify as a different kind of evolution rather than a direct sequel. Basically, N64 switched from cartridges to CDs with the GameCube, changing the game significantly. So while these consoles followed each other, the leaps were huge, making them feel like new generations instead of true sequels.
True that! Nintendo definitely pulls the plug on making sequels for consoles that don’t blow up in sales right away. They seemed to think that the N64 and GameCube didn’t quite hit that mark. The Switch was a big hit, so we might be looking at some killer sequels in the future!
Yeah, I get that. It’s more about how Nintendo doesn’t always go for clear sequels. They seem to prefer creating unique concepts every generation. Like, the NES to SNES was a smooth transition, but with the N64 to GameCube, it was like a huge change in tech. They even took big swings with the Wii’s motion controls!
Definitely! The GameCube was built on 3D graphics, while the Wii took a step into motion gaming. It’s really about Nintendo’s strategy of innovation over sticking with a formula. Not every model needs to be a direct upgrade, right? Also, the design of the GameCube is seen as a bit outdated now—like, could you even make another cube-shaped console today?
