Probably karma, I hear fires upset Rare's zen.

:-)

BUTTT!!!! THE GRAFIXSSS!

They never said they were actually going to make any changes to the single player, other than graphics.

So STFU!!111111!!11

Tphi wrote:
> N64 Fan wrote:
> Me thinks Nintendo knew what they were doing.................
>
> And for once we agree.

You see! You can be nice (sometimes)! :-)

Yet the straight SNES and NES ports to GBA by Nintendo are truely astonishing...

rare died along time ago. bill gates killed them. nintendo's success was heavily influenced by the exclusive rights to rare, but then everybody has their price. shame isnt it? i don't like hearing anything about rare anymore, just prefer to remember the good times. played perfect dark not so long ago, its stood the test of time incredibly well. goldeneye, eventhough i have fonder memories of, hasnt stood the test of time quite so well.
r there any plans for banjo kazzoie DS? or did i make that up? i think its a good idea if it is. cause rare still published banjo pilot for GBA (oh dear) so i don't know if they can still develop for DS (all that legality rights confuses me)

TaMi-Jr wrote:

> r there any plans for banjo kazzoie DS? or did i make that up? i
> think its a good idea if it is. cause rare still published banjo
> pilot for GBA (oh dear) so i don't know if they can still develop for
> DS (all that legality rights confuses me)

No, THQ published the Rareware Game Boy Advance games. And if they were to create anything for the DS, then they would have to go for THQ or someone who is willing to do it.

Was this the whiney IGN review by any chance?

Try the teamxbox one, it explains things much better.

Oh and more because I'm in the mood:

It takes a good 3/4 years now to make some of the more amazing games. Rare moved consoles and had to start games pretty much again because of the hardware and the benefits of the new console.

Rare have basically skipped a console generation because they haven't had the time and have thrown out a few experiments instead (like on the early 64) - is every Nintendo game perfect? I think not.

Perfect Dark's going to kick ass and no Nintendo tears are going to change that.

Well tears ARE unlikely to change that, but I take your point. :)

Hedfix wrote:
> The single player is a bonus. Rare have given it a graphical overhaul
> but the main emphasis was on the multiplayer.

No excuse for cutting bits out though...

>> And apparently the multiplayer too is heavily lacking and that the
>> N64's multiplayer modes were superior.
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Play it and see. This kicks the **** out of
> the N64 multiplayer!

Not sure...
From the IGN review it sounded like it was a bit unbalanced and tried to be too clever for it's own good.
Like how the Sniper Rifle doesn't kill in one (even with a headshot) unless you hunted around for the upgrade first, while bazooka's just kill everything that comes into contact with them.

Sounds like it's got good depth for a complex game but completely sacrificed all pick-up and play elements for a more simple blast here and there. Having said that, Conker 64's multi wasn't really all that... you could tell that the maps had been designed for more than 4 players (although it was fine for The Beach game).

I'll probably read a few more reviews, like the one you recommended...
Edit:Teamxbox said the same thing in a more positive way.
AND all the classic 4 player splitscreen games have been removed. Criminal!
Not that it's not still great, I guess that people were expecting better.
Seems that this generation of consoles wasn't one for Rare's legacy.

I may have called Rare a little lazy, but that reply was EA standard!
Atleast tell me in what way it was balls! :-P

Fair do's if you've done your research, read more than one review and decided it's not your sort of thing. Personally as a game for quick-ish fights I'd have thought it'd be your sort of thing. It really is an extension of the better game modes found in RTCW, sure there isn't any new single player (aside from the offline multiplayer) but it's basically the better modes from Conker 64 redesigned with 16 player matches in mind.

Plus there's flamethrowers and incendary grenades which I thought would be right up your barn, er street...

I have such fond memories of refugees running across beaches..

Hedfix wrote:
> Fair do's if you've done your research, read more than one review and
> decided it's not your sort of thing. Personally as a game for
> quick-ish fights I'd have thought it'd be your sort of thing. It
> really is an extension of the better game modes found in RTCW, sure
> there isn't any new single player (aside from the offline
> multiplayer) but it's basically the better modes from Conker 64
> redesigned with 16 player matches in mind.

Well I'll grant you, IGN are far from the most reliable. But the single player is why I'd love the game. I'm not as multiplayer frenzy as you. I loved Conker's Bad Fur Day, it is my favourite game ever and I even made a popular website about it. I could get it and steal my brother's x-box. Especially if he gets a 360 at the end of the year.

> Plus there's flamethrowers and incendary grenades which I thought
> would be right up your barn, er street...

Oh Come On.

Banjo Threeie... Better not mess it up like Tooie.

Kazooie was a marvelous game.

Dringo wrote:
> Banjo Threeie... Better not mess it up like Tooie.
>
> Kazooie was a marvelous game.


EH!?
I always personally thought tooie was much more fun to play...

Yeh. Banjo Kazooie was a brilliant game. The worlds were so well designed and there was just enough in each.

Tooie I thought, as Dringo does, that there was just too much to remember. It was added extras for the sake of added extras! doh!

Just not interested in Rare anymore i'm afraid. I want to remember them for the great stuff they produced on the N64 - Banjo, Goldeneye, Joanna, Conker, Diddy etc etc!

^{We dont talk about Mickeys Speedway USA - utter pants}

Dringo wrote:
> Mickey Speedway US what???? Made by EA wasn't it. RARE would never
> make such crap and Nintendo would never dream of publishing it :).

It was made by Rare ^_^

Hedfix wrote:
> Fair do's if you've done your research, read more than one review and
> decided it's not your sort of thing.

Well, I reckon I'll enjoy it when I play it.
It's just that a multiplayer based game coming from Rare...
Well, I guess we were perhaps expecting a little too much. :-)

> Personally as a game for
> quick-ish fights I'd have thought it'd be your sort of thing.

Cutting out the four player was a bit naughty, and apparently it's not so good for quick-ish fights because you have to get into it and get some basic mastery of the game before you can get a good game going.
According to the reviews atleast. :-)

> It
> really is an extension of the better game modes found in RTCW, sure
> there isn't any new single player (aside from the offline
> multiplayer) but it's basically the better modes from Conker 64
> redesigned with 16 player matches in mind.

Yeah, although apparently you need atleast 8 for a half decent game.
It would've been nice if it had catered better for smaller games (for when you can't find the players or when you feel like a more "personal" game).

> Plus there's flamethrowers and incendary grenades which I thought
> would be right up your barn, er street...

All sounds good, only the reviews made it sound like most weapons were a bit useless as people running around with Bazooka's pwned everything too easily. Perhaps they'll release some patches to even things up.
Then again, maybe the reviews over exadurate a bit.
I won't have a proper opinion until I've played it. :-)