The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I don’t like to admit it but lets face it, the Gamecube was one hell of a let down. Pikmin 2, Metroid Prime and Paper Mario 2 aside, I cannot think of anything remotely special to emerge from this era of Nintendo gaming.
Nintendo just got lazy. You could sense it in every game they made (aside from the aforementioned Pikmin). Take Mario Sunshine, instead of trying to surpass the legendary Mario 64 Nintendo merely upgraded it. It felt like a 64 spin off, it lacked the charm and effort of its predecessor and included a series of pointless and effortless missions, such as catching water Mario or collecting X amount of coins. Then there was the Wind Waker, an excellent addition to the Zelda series but (like Majora’s Mask) had no intention of upstaging Ocarina of Time. Nintendo didn’t even try.
It just felt that Nintendo had no intention of improving over their previous achievements. The Gameboy Advance’s entrance into the market got Nintendo fanboys like me extremely excited. It could be the SNES 2! We could get follow-ups to Mario World and A Link to the Past! We could see brand new 2D Nintendo franchises! And although the system picked up towards the end there was no sign of a new 2D Mario platformer or a Link to the Past beater. Nintendo didn’t even try.
Yet, into the second year of the Nintendo DS and with the launch of the Wii just around the corner, things are looking different. I am not discussing the new control methods and originality here, that has been done to death time and time again. This is about what, until recently, Nintendo have been all about, the games. New Super Mario Brothers is a key release. It is the first proper 2D Mario title since 1992’s Super Mario Land 2 on the Gameboy and is evidence of that effort that Nintendo had seemingly lacked over recent years. It is not only good fun, but it is a welcome addition to the Mario series, it is Nintendo telling us that they can still produce the classics that made them famous.
New Super Mario Brothers was a risk for Nintendo, if unsuccessful it could have tarnished the name of its infamous franchise. But Nintendo took that risk and has a mega smash hit on their hands because of it. In the next few months we are seeing further risks from Nintendo such as Yoshi’s Island 2, the follow up to what some perceive as Nintendo’s finest 2D outing. Once Nintendo may have doubted their ability to follow something as esteemed title, but now they are going for it and even if they fail to reach the dizzying heights of the original, I still respect the effort. Then there is Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass, the first 2D Zelda title developed by Nintendo since the deluxe version of Link’s Awakening. All of these are big franchises, with big budgets and big ideas. Nintendo are trying.
The Twilight Princess is said to be the true follow up to Ocarina of Time. What Nintendo mean is that it is the first time they’ve actually trying to surpass what they had called “The Greatest Game of All Time”. It is Nintendo trying to better what they had done in the past. Nintendo want to be the company of today, and not the company of yesterday. A sideways glance at the Wii line up and you can see that Nintendo have been pumping money into development. New Metroid, Zelda, Mario and Smash Brothers titles have already been confirmed for the next 12 months. Huge releases with huge budgets and huge expectations. Watching Mario Galaxy videos reassure me that, maybe, Nintendo are back in business. Maybe the glory days of the past are due a return.
Maybe these new control methods are not just rejuvenating a stale market, but rejuvenating a stale Nintendo as well.
Here’s to the future.
Dringo.
Nintendo just got lazy. You could sense it in every game they made (aside from the aforementioned Pikmin). Take Mario Sunshine, instead of trying to surpass the legendary Mario 64 Nintendo merely upgraded it. It felt like a 64 spin off, it lacked the charm and effort of its predecessor and included a series of pointless and effortless missions, such as catching water Mario or collecting X amount of coins. Then there was the Wind Waker, an excellent addition to the Zelda series but (like Majora’s Mask) had no intention of upstaging Ocarina of Time. Nintendo didn’t even try.
It just felt that Nintendo had no intention of improving over their previous achievements. The Gameboy Advance’s entrance into the market got Nintendo fanboys like me extremely excited. It could be the SNES 2! We could get follow-ups to Mario World and A Link to the Past! We could see brand new 2D Nintendo franchises! And although the system picked up towards the end there was no sign of a new 2D Mario platformer or a Link to the Past beater. Nintendo didn’t even try.
Yet, into the second year of the Nintendo DS and with the launch of the Wii just around the corner, things are looking different. I am not discussing the new control methods and originality here, that has been done to death time and time again. This is about what, until recently, Nintendo have been all about, the games. New Super Mario Brothers is a key release. It is the first proper 2D Mario title since 1992’s Super Mario Land 2 on the Gameboy and is evidence of that effort that Nintendo had seemingly lacked over recent years. It is not only good fun, but it is a welcome addition to the Mario series, it is Nintendo telling us that they can still produce the classics that made them famous.
New Super Mario Brothers was a risk for Nintendo, if unsuccessful it could have tarnished the name of its infamous franchise. But Nintendo took that risk and has a mega smash hit on their hands because of it. In the next few months we are seeing further risks from Nintendo such as Yoshi’s Island 2, the follow up to what some perceive as Nintendo’s finest 2D outing. Once Nintendo may have doubted their ability to follow something as esteemed title, but now they are going for it and even if they fail to reach the dizzying heights of the original, I still respect the effort. Then there is Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass, the first 2D Zelda title developed by Nintendo since the deluxe version of Link’s Awakening. All of these are big franchises, with big budgets and big ideas. Nintendo are trying.
The Twilight Princess is said to be the true follow up to Ocarina of Time. What Nintendo mean is that it is the first time they’ve actually trying to surpass what they had called “The Greatest Game of All Time”. It is Nintendo trying to better what they had done in the past. Nintendo want to be the company of today, and not the company of yesterday. A sideways glance at the Wii line up and you can see that Nintendo have been pumping money into development. New Metroid, Zelda, Mario and Smash Brothers titles have already been confirmed for the next 12 months. Huge releases with huge budgets and huge expectations. Watching Mario Galaxy videos reassure me that, maybe, Nintendo are back in business. Maybe the glory days of the past are due a return.
Maybe these new control methods are not just rejuvenating a stale market, but rejuvenating a stale Nintendo as well.
Here’s to the future.
Dringo.
Page:
As answered on that other chat site, The Gamecube wasn't a big letdown. It had some of my favourite games on it. I owned all four of the last generation consoles and the Gamecube could cut it against any one of them for games.
Yes, there was the lack of too many third party games, but there were still a fair few. Plus Nintendo games were fantastic.
Its like everyone moaning about how no-one will ever make another Goldeneye (I've been guilty of that too) but at the end of the day you don't just want clones. That's why Windwaker was so refreshing, it was a different approach to a Zelda game.
I'm glad the Wii can run Gamecube games and I'm glad it has the virtual console. We can play retro games really cheap instead of having to buy stupid compilations of 20 odd games. But going forward we need a mix of both original and old style games.
Gasp! Remakes? Well, no, but if something is successful then you can use it again and make it even better. That's what sequels aim (and often fail) to do.
Yes, there was the lack of too many third party games, but there were still a fair few. Plus Nintendo games were fantastic.
Its like everyone moaning about how no-one will ever make another Goldeneye (I've been guilty of that too) but at the end of the day you don't just want clones. That's why Windwaker was so refreshing, it was a different approach to a Zelda game.
I'm glad the Wii can run Gamecube games and I'm glad it has the virtual console. We can play retro games really cheap instead of having to buy stupid compilations of 20 odd games. But going forward we need a mix of both original and old style games.
Gasp! Remakes? Well, no, but if something is successful then you can use it again and make it even better. That's what sequels aim (and often fail) to do.
Dringo wrote:
> I don't criticise sequels to games.
>
> It isn't about Nintendo rejuvenating themselves, it is
> rejuvenating their ability to make great games.
>
> What's wrong with the same old games? If they are better,
> superior and progresses a franchise that is a good thing surely?
> Elebits, Project H.A.M.M.E.R, Excitetruck etc... look cracking
> but those aren't the titles that define Nintendo.
But who's to say that these new games, with the 'flashy' Wiimote will even take off? My opinion is that this new 'innovative' controller will flop. Leaving the Wii in the dusty corner with the Cube. Then, Sony and/or Microsoft will come over with their millions, rejuvenate it into something more refined and of 'higher quality'.
> As for people wanting a PS3 based on the old software, well that
> isn't how it'll work. People want the new games and now the
> Playstation has lost Pro Evo and GTA, I can't see their impact
> being as big as previously.
> Which is what Sony desperatly need.
Sony lost its contracts for these games ages ago, and yet the PS2 continues to out sell the 360. Sony don't need exclusive licences; they have a very strong link with the gaming customers, which keeps them consistantly ahead of the competition.
A wise man once said "What happens after Halo and GTA?"
> I don't criticise sequels to games.
>
> It isn't about Nintendo rejuvenating themselves, it is
> rejuvenating their ability to make great games.
>
> What's wrong with the same old games? If they are better,
> superior and progresses a franchise that is a good thing surely?
> Elebits, Project H.A.M.M.E.R, Excitetruck etc... look cracking
> but those aren't the titles that define Nintendo.
But who's to say that these new games, with the 'flashy' Wiimote will even take off? My opinion is that this new 'innovative' controller will flop. Leaving the Wii in the dusty corner with the Cube. Then, Sony and/or Microsoft will come over with their millions, rejuvenate it into something more refined and of 'higher quality'.
> As for people wanting a PS3 based on the old software, well that
> isn't how it'll work. People want the new games and now the
> Playstation has lost Pro Evo and GTA, I can't see their impact
> being as big as previously.
> Which is what Sony desperatly need.
Sony lost its contracts for these games ages ago, and yet the PS2 continues to out sell the 360. Sony don't need exclusive licences; they have a very strong link with the gaming customers, which keeps them consistantly ahead of the competition.
A wise man once said "What happens after Halo and GTA?"
I don't think wii can beat the ps3 even though there are roumers that it is slipping
I don't criticise sequels to games.
It isn't about Nintendo rejuvenating themselves, it is rejuvenating their ability to make great games.
What's wrong with the same old games? If they are better, superior and progresses a franchise that is a good thing surely? Elebits, Project H.A.M.M.E.R, Excitetruck etc... look cracking but those aren't the titles that define Nintendo.
As for people wanting a PS3 based on the old software, well that isn't how it'll work. People want the new games and now the Playstation has lost Pro Evo and GTA, I can't see their impact being as big as previously.
Which is what Sony desperatly need.
It isn't about Nintendo rejuvenating themselves, it is rejuvenating their ability to make great games.
What's wrong with the same old games? If they are better, superior and progresses a franchise that is a good thing surely? Elebits, Project H.A.M.M.E.R, Excitetruck etc... look cracking but those aren't the titles that define Nintendo.
As for people wanting a PS3 based on the old software, well that isn't how it'll work. People want the new games and now the Playstation has lost Pro Evo and GTA, I can't see their impact being as big as previously.
Which is what Sony desperatly need.
Sibs wrote:
> I realised it wasn't an entirely serious remark, neither was
> mine, I just know you have a rather unhealthy obsession with
> certain RPGs ;-)
I do love me some Vandal Hearts i must admit ..... oh that's not what you're on about :-D
> But OoT being the "Best Game Ever (TM)" is all a
> matter of personal preference. It was called as such because at
> the time of release, many critics and fans found it to be a
> truly stunning game that really did put most other games to
> shame.
Oh of course totally but then i always have a problem with claims like that because it's not really the Best Game Ever, it's just the Best Game to that reviewer. And considering there's usually at least 2 or 3 *Best Game Ever*'s every year or so i don't really put much stock into them. That's what i was mocking. :-)
> I realised it wasn't an entirely serious remark, neither was
> mine, I just know you have a rather unhealthy obsession with
> certain RPGs ;-)
I do love me some Vandal Hearts i must admit ..... oh that's not what you're on about :-D
> But OoT being the "Best Game Ever (TM)" is all a
> matter of personal preference. It was called as such because at
> the time of release, many critics and fans found it to be a
> truly stunning game that really did put most other games to
> shame.
Oh of course totally but then i always have a problem with claims like that because it's not really the Best Game Ever, it's just the Best Game to that reviewer. And considering there's usually at least 2 or 3 *Best Game Ever*'s every year or so i don't really put much stock into them. That's what i was mocking. :-)
But in all seriousness, I think Nintendo do evolve their franchises well. Mario 64 was really a brand new concept in a Mario game. The three dimensions weren't just there to make it look more flashy, they actually changed entirely how you go about playing a Mario game. It was no longer starting a level, running right and jumping and finishing a level ad infinitum. Not that there was anything wrong with that, it was great fun, but Mario 64 actually changed the formula entirely.
Similarly Metroid. Play the 2D games and then the 3D ones. While they stay true to the same spirit, it really is an entirely different experience.
I don't want to come across as some Ninty Fanboy defending them to the last, I mean there are still many old cliches still lingering about in Ninty Franchises, they're hardly inventive with regards to the plotlines of games, Mario and Zelda have had practically the same plot in every game since they started, but the way you play the games has definitely evolved over time, so the games aren't simple 're-hashes'. Of course they use many of the same ideas as predecessors, but that can be said of any game borrowing ideas from others in their genre.
Anyway, I'm rambling now...
Similarly Metroid. Play the 2D games and then the 3D ones. While they stay true to the same spirit, it really is an entirely different experience.
I don't want to come across as some Ninty Fanboy defending them to the last, I mean there are still many old cliches still lingering about in Ninty Franchises, they're hardly inventive with regards to the plotlines of games, Mario and Zelda have had practically the same plot in every game since they started, but the way you play the games has definitely evolved over time, so the games aren't simple 're-hashes'. Of course they use many of the same ideas as predecessors, but that can be said of any game borrowing ideas from others in their genre.
Anyway, I'm rambling now...
Kawada wrote:
> I wasn't slating Nintendo i was slating those Nintendo fans like
> Dringo who constantly moan about Sony and MS releasing sequels
> yet seem quite content to play Mario 92838201 - "Mario gets
> a new hat" without a peep while heralding them as the kings
> of originality. I actually don't mind sequels as i've said in
> the past, if it's a good game it's a good game, end of.
I realised it wasn't an entirely serious remark, neither was mine, I just know you have a rather unhealthy obsession with certain RPGs ;-)
> Plus i was making a flippant remark about the Nintendo claims of
> OoT being the best game ever and giving several games i found
> better off the top of my head. Again not to be taken as a very
> serious comment before the OoT fanboys bore me with their
> defence of it
But OoT being the "Best Game Ever (TM)" is all a matter of personal preference. It was called as such because at the time of release, many critics and fans found it to be a truly stunning game that really did put most other games to shame. Obviously hardcore RPG fans are going to prefer games like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest, just as hardcore racing fans may well prefer Wipeout or Burnout... Obviously everyone has completely different opinions on what the best game ever would be, because everyone has different criteria to meet. I think the point of the "Best Game Ever" thing was that it was so critcally acclaimed by just about everyone. But still, just because (nearly) everyone else loves something, doesn't mean you will, so meh. All down to personal preference really, and a rather useless label apart from to show popular opinion. But a good marketing tool all the same.
> I wasn't slating Nintendo i was slating those Nintendo fans like
> Dringo who constantly moan about Sony and MS releasing sequels
> yet seem quite content to play Mario 92838201 - "Mario gets
> a new hat" without a peep while heralding them as the kings
> of originality. I actually don't mind sequels as i've said in
> the past, if it's a good game it's a good game, end of.
I realised it wasn't an entirely serious remark, neither was mine, I just know you have a rather unhealthy obsession with certain RPGs ;-)
> Plus i was making a flippant remark about the Nintendo claims of
> OoT being the best game ever and giving several games i found
> better off the top of my head. Again not to be taken as a very
> serious comment before the OoT fanboys bore me with their
> defence of it
But OoT being the "Best Game Ever (TM)" is all a matter of personal preference. It was called as such because at the time of release, many critics and fans found it to be a truly stunning game that really did put most other games to shame. Obviously hardcore RPG fans are going to prefer games like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest, just as hardcore racing fans may well prefer Wipeout or Burnout... Obviously everyone has completely different opinions on what the best game ever would be, because everyone has different criteria to meet. I think the point of the "Best Game Ever" thing was that it was so critcally acclaimed by just about everyone. But still, just because (nearly) everyone else loves something, doesn't mean you will, so meh. All down to personal preference really, and a rather useless label apart from to show popular opinion. But a good marketing tool all the same.
Well done Chr1s, I'll be on 3,000 soon :)
Happy b-day you old fella you
Page: