The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Many years ago now a stupid stuck up company messed around with a CD giant, a giant that wanted a piece of the gaming market. Because of this said CD giant murdered the market, SEGA fell and Nintendo were forced to retreat from their headlined position. Sony was here.
Nintendo's survival depended on three things, their unique, totally different style to Sony meant Nintendo offered something Sony didn't. Nintendo also have the hardest dying fan base you'll ever see, a fan base filled with us lot. These two factors help but it was the Gameboy, a franchise left untouched by Sony's rampage that meant Nintendo could re-group and re-build.
Nintendo hid in their niche market, their fan base and their Gameboy franchise allowed them to soldier on as Sony's user-base tripled, quadrupled and whatever came after that. Could anyone stop this jugganaught?
Enter Microsoft. The biggest, richest company in the entire world... and all of a sudden Sony didn't look that strong. Microsoft has slowly chipped away at Sony over the past 2 years, eating more and more into both their and Nintendo's user base. Microsoft are a company that, no matter how hard they try, Sony cannot defeat even in their elevated position.
There is no room for 3 consoles, it is time for Sony to finish off Nintendo once and for all.
And this was the perfect time to do it. Despite unbelievable sales of the Gameboy Advance the Gamecube was falling. Nintendo's die hard fan based were annoyed, the company they loved so much was fiddling with franchises and ultimately creating games that were not up to the usual standard. Wind Waker, Sunshine and Pikmin... the Gamecube's self-proclaimed lead titles were, to some Nintendo fans, disappointing. Only Mario Kart and Metroid Prime proved that Nintendo did indeed still have it. The sale of Rare to Microsoft was another massive blow to Nintendo's fan base, the constant loss of third party developers every week made Nintendo appear doomed to failure.
Enter the death nail, the killer blow.... The PSP.
If Sony want to fight Microsoft then a handheld is the key. A platform that is said to be the future of gaming, a handheld would not only extend the already strong Playstation userbase but also cripple Nintendo beyond repair. Getting a massive head start over Nintendo's next Gameboy, introducing MP3 playability and what looks set to be the sexiest piece of kit ever created.
E3 2004
How Sony didn't expect this. Suddenly everything changed. Nintendo's third parties may be leaving but what at first seemed like a weak first party line up became stronger than ever. The die-hard Nintendo fans were happy with a line up that featured a brand spanking new realistic Zelda game, a fantastic looking Metroid Prime and what is set to be the best Resident Evil title ever made. With Mario Tennis, Donkey Kong, Geist, Starfox, Pikmin 2 and Paper Mario 2 all on the release list it was safe to say Nintendo have protected their die-hard assets.
Nintendo will also launch the next Gameboy before the end of the year.... sorry I mean the 'DS' before the end of the year... undercutting Sony. The DS may not look as cool as the PSP but for pure functionality the system is cool. The games looked gorgeous, the new way of holding games is fantastic and backward compatible with the GBA. Brilliant.
The PSP is launching with GT, Tekken and Metal Gear Solid. Despite those 3 games being some of the biggest in the world their popularity (a bit like Mario's) have taken a knock after their dissapointing latest outings. The PSP also needs to implement a jog proof system for the CD based hardware, a laser as well as an inbuilt memory. Could battery life be a problem? Yes the Playstation name sells, but can Sony sell a handheld console to an adult market? I won't underestimate them, they can do it but there is no way they can have as many PSP gamers as they have PS2 gamers... handheld gaming just is not popular with the adult gamers. Just look at the N-Gage. The DS is launching with Mario’s, Metroid and even Sony’s own Final Fantasy. It is also launching with Nintendo’s first full online mode, boasting touch screen, Wireless connection, a protected clam shape and an in-built microphone. Not all of that may appeal to the casual gamer. But some of it will.
Confessingly the Playstation Pocket looks more dangerous than I originally thought. It looks utterly stunning, lacks clutter (something the DS suffers from) with a beautiful screen. This alone could sell the system... but with the GBA SP set for a large price cut before the end of the year can the PSP defeat Nintendo’s massive, 95%, handheld empire?
If Nintendo are going down they are not doing it without a fight. If Sony’s PSP is forced out by the Gameboy, a system that has forced out many of Nintendo's competitors before, what can Sony do to stop Microsoft?
Dringo.
Nintendo's survival depended on three things, their unique, totally different style to Sony meant Nintendo offered something Sony didn't. Nintendo also have the hardest dying fan base you'll ever see, a fan base filled with us lot. These two factors help but it was the Gameboy, a franchise left untouched by Sony's rampage that meant Nintendo could re-group and re-build.
Nintendo hid in their niche market, their fan base and their Gameboy franchise allowed them to soldier on as Sony's user-base tripled, quadrupled and whatever came after that. Could anyone stop this jugganaught?
Enter Microsoft. The biggest, richest company in the entire world... and all of a sudden Sony didn't look that strong. Microsoft has slowly chipped away at Sony over the past 2 years, eating more and more into both their and Nintendo's user base. Microsoft are a company that, no matter how hard they try, Sony cannot defeat even in their elevated position.
There is no room for 3 consoles, it is time for Sony to finish off Nintendo once and for all.
And this was the perfect time to do it. Despite unbelievable sales of the Gameboy Advance the Gamecube was falling. Nintendo's die hard fan based were annoyed, the company they loved so much was fiddling with franchises and ultimately creating games that were not up to the usual standard. Wind Waker, Sunshine and Pikmin... the Gamecube's self-proclaimed lead titles were, to some Nintendo fans, disappointing. Only Mario Kart and Metroid Prime proved that Nintendo did indeed still have it. The sale of Rare to Microsoft was another massive blow to Nintendo's fan base, the constant loss of third party developers every week made Nintendo appear doomed to failure.
Enter the death nail, the killer blow.... The PSP.
If Sony want to fight Microsoft then a handheld is the key. A platform that is said to be the future of gaming, a handheld would not only extend the already strong Playstation userbase but also cripple Nintendo beyond repair. Getting a massive head start over Nintendo's next Gameboy, introducing MP3 playability and what looks set to be the sexiest piece of kit ever created.
E3 2004
How Sony didn't expect this. Suddenly everything changed. Nintendo's third parties may be leaving but what at first seemed like a weak first party line up became stronger than ever. The die-hard Nintendo fans were happy with a line up that featured a brand spanking new realistic Zelda game, a fantastic looking Metroid Prime and what is set to be the best Resident Evil title ever made. With Mario Tennis, Donkey Kong, Geist, Starfox, Pikmin 2 and Paper Mario 2 all on the release list it was safe to say Nintendo have protected their die-hard assets.
Nintendo will also launch the next Gameboy before the end of the year.... sorry I mean the 'DS' before the end of the year... undercutting Sony. The DS may not look as cool as the PSP but for pure functionality the system is cool. The games looked gorgeous, the new way of holding games is fantastic and backward compatible with the GBA. Brilliant.
The PSP is launching with GT, Tekken and Metal Gear Solid. Despite those 3 games being some of the biggest in the world their popularity (a bit like Mario's) have taken a knock after their dissapointing latest outings. The PSP also needs to implement a jog proof system for the CD based hardware, a laser as well as an inbuilt memory. Could battery life be a problem? Yes the Playstation name sells, but can Sony sell a handheld console to an adult market? I won't underestimate them, they can do it but there is no way they can have as many PSP gamers as they have PS2 gamers... handheld gaming just is not popular with the adult gamers. Just look at the N-Gage. The DS is launching with Mario’s, Metroid and even Sony’s own Final Fantasy. It is also launching with Nintendo’s first full online mode, boasting touch screen, Wireless connection, a protected clam shape and an in-built microphone. Not all of that may appeal to the casual gamer. But some of it will.
Confessingly the Playstation Pocket looks more dangerous than I originally thought. It looks utterly stunning, lacks clutter (something the DS suffers from) with a beautiful screen. This alone could sell the system... but with the GBA SP set for a large price cut before the end of the year can the PSP defeat Nintendo’s massive, 95%, handheld empire?
If Nintendo are going down they are not doing it without a fight. If Sony’s PSP is forced out by the Gameboy, a system that has forced out many of Nintendo's competitors before, what can Sony do to stop Microsoft?
Dringo.
Page:
4 player split screen multiplayer was an innovation.
Objective based levels was an innovation.
Cheats as rewards was an innovation.
Selectable Levels was an innovation.
All things that Goldeneye brought to the table.
I'm not sure what exactly was innovative in Halo apart from the vehicles. But I feel like I'm having a mind blank though, so there are probably loads of other things as well.
Objective based levels was an innovation.
Cheats as rewards was an innovation.
Selectable Levels was an innovation.
All things that Goldeneye brought to the table.
I'm not sure what exactly was innovative in Halo apart from the vehicles. But I feel like I'm having a mind blank though, so there are probably loads of other things as well.
Bonus wrote:
> Goldeneye didn't even bring a unique story to the table, it was taken
> from a film :)
> sure there were some sections of the indoor areas which looked similar
> to others. Doesn't this seem realistic with the design of spaceships in
> Holywood where Halo clearly took it's design style from?
You 'slate' Goldeneye for it, then praise Halo for taking inspiration from Hollywood.
Double Standards, m'boy
> Goldeneye didn't even bring a unique story to the table, it was taken
> from a film :)
> sure there were some sections of the indoor areas which looked similar
> to others. Doesn't this seem realistic with the design of spaceships in
> Holywood where Halo clearly took it's design style from?
You 'slate' Goldeneye for it, then praise Halo for taking inspiration from Hollywood.
Double Standards, m'boy
Right, for a start Bonus doesn't think that bigger levels = better levels.
I have never knocked Goldeneye, it was THE game of that generation.
For people to claim that it was a turning point in the First Person Market is just absolutely ridiculous.
Goldeneye didn't bring anything new in terms of technology to the table. It took what Quake started and evolved it, so in terms of controls, graphics and even how the levels were represented in the system were all based on Quake. That's a fact, not open for discussion.
Goldeneye didn't even bring a unique story to the table, it was taken from a film :)
It was still an absolutely fantastic game for the fact that it was extremely playable.
That's where we come back to Halo :D
It's a very playable game :) I didn't find the levels to be as repetative as Mav seems to claim, and I'm not entirely sure why he finds them repetative, but sure there were some sections of the indoor areas which looked similar to others. Doesn't this seem realistic with the design of spaceships in Holywood where Halo clearly took it's design style from?
Futuristic vehicles are supposed to look metalic, mass produced and similar, that gives it a more realistic approach and gives the game some believability. If, in your opinion, that's a flaw and makes the game any worse, then that's a valid opinion that no one can argue with.
Looking at Edge's review scores again, I think I've been a bit unfair to the magazine. The openly state that review scores are only there for people to guage an individual's opinion of the game, and they woul dmuch rather you actually read the review. This is supported by the fact that last year the published an issue with no review scores, just question marks and ran an article to explain their contempt for the out of 10 rating system, it appears that is a publisher decision.
I have no arguement with Edge's reviews, I find them informative and actually representative of how the game plays. Mario Kart was only given 5 as a mark of how it has come along since the last game, and they not that there were no major differences other than in multiplayer where two people can control one kart, and being able to hold and switch between two weapons in the single player. That's why Mario Kart only got 5.
As for the graphics not being very good on Halo. You're having a laugh. For a three year old game released on the Xbox it is a brilliant looking game. The same way I would still say Goldeneye was a brilliant looking game on the N64. Not as good as some games today, but definately setting a standard. There are few games on the Gamecube which technically surpass the graphics of Halo. Before anyone argues with that statement, I'm talking about graphical technicalities, not how well the artists drew the textures. Features such as Bump Mapping and using vertex shaders to represent grass and pixel shaders to represent some of the over-draw effects, things which the Gamecube can't do on the Flipper chip.
I have never knocked Goldeneye, it was THE game of that generation.
For people to claim that it was a turning point in the First Person Market is just absolutely ridiculous.
Goldeneye didn't bring anything new in terms of technology to the table. It took what Quake started and evolved it, so in terms of controls, graphics and even how the levels were represented in the system were all based on Quake. That's a fact, not open for discussion.
Goldeneye didn't even bring a unique story to the table, it was taken from a film :)
It was still an absolutely fantastic game for the fact that it was extremely playable.
That's where we come back to Halo :D
It's a very playable game :) I didn't find the levels to be as repetative as Mav seems to claim, and I'm not entirely sure why he finds them repetative, but sure there were some sections of the indoor areas which looked similar to others. Doesn't this seem realistic with the design of spaceships in Holywood where Halo clearly took it's design style from?
Futuristic vehicles are supposed to look metalic, mass produced and similar, that gives it a more realistic approach and gives the game some believability. If, in your opinion, that's a flaw and makes the game any worse, then that's a valid opinion that no one can argue with.
Looking at Edge's review scores again, I think I've been a bit unfair to the magazine. The openly state that review scores are only there for people to guage an individual's opinion of the game, and they woul dmuch rather you actually read the review. This is supported by the fact that last year the published an issue with no review scores, just question marks and ran an article to explain their contempt for the out of 10 rating system, it appears that is a publisher decision.
I have no arguement with Edge's reviews, I find them informative and actually representative of how the game plays. Mario Kart was only given 5 as a mark of how it has come along since the last game, and they not that there were no major differences other than in multiplayer where two people can control one kart, and being able to hold and switch between two weapons in the single player. That's why Mario Kart only got 5.
As for the graphics not being very good on Halo. You're having a laugh. For a three year old game released on the Xbox it is a brilliant looking game. The same way I would still say Goldeneye was a brilliant looking game on the N64. Not as good as some games today, but definately setting a standard. There are few games on the Gamecube which technically surpass the graphics of Halo. Before anyone argues with that statement, I'm talking about graphical technicalities, not how well the artists drew the textures. Features such as Bump Mapping and using vertex shaders to represent grass and pixel shaders to represent some of the over-draw effects, things which the Gamecube can't do on the Flipper chip.
Dringo wrote:
> Look at those who swore blind Wind Waker was a dissapointment. And
> yet in a vote Ashman (I think) just did it came without a doubt at
> the top of the list for Gamecube's best title.
But it was a disappointment.
I've said that and I'll stick by it. Although an excellent game with some legendary moments you won't forget in a hurry, it's just not quite as good as we've come to expect from Zelda. Ridiculously easy, and stupidly boring in places - buying the triforce maps, and finding the triforce pieces, for example. The story was even a bit weak, too, and the side-quests were somewhat thin on the ground.
The fact that the majority seem to think it's the best game on the GameCube doesn't make it any better. And I should also point out that, even though I prefer Metroid Prime, The Wind Waker can, after all, be a disappointment and the best game on the 'Cube at the same time.
When we look back, we'll think of it fondly because we'll remember those classic moments. We won't bother talking about the criticisms, because what's the point in being critical about a game you haven't played in years? We'll remember the first time you take to sea and the adapted Hyrule Field tune from OOT kicks in, the graphics, the frozen underwater Hyrule coming to life, the end fight against Ganondorf (wielding his two swords)... etc.
But it won't take the faults away.
> Look at those who swore blind Wind Waker was a dissapointment. And
> yet in a vote Ashman (I think) just did it came without a doubt at
> the top of the list for Gamecube's best title.
But it was a disappointment.
I've said that and I'll stick by it. Although an excellent game with some legendary moments you won't forget in a hurry, it's just not quite as good as we've come to expect from Zelda. Ridiculously easy, and stupidly boring in places - buying the triforce maps, and finding the triforce pieces, for example. The story was even a bit weak, too, and the side-quests were somewhat thin on the ground.
The fact that the majority seem to think it's the best game on the GameCube doesn't make it any better. And I should also point out that, even though I prefer Metroid Prime, The Wind Waker can, after all, be a disappointment and the best game on the 'Cube at the same time.
When we look back, we'll think of it fondly because we'll remember those classic moments. We won't bother talking about the criticisms, because what's the point in being critical about a game you haven't played in years? We'll remember the first time you take to sea and the adapted Hyrule Field tune from OOT kicks in, the graphics, the frozen underwater Hyrule coming to life, the end fight against Ganondorf (wielding his two swords)... etc.
But it won't take the faults away.
Rose-Tinted Glasses, yes?
Majora's Mask is brilliant.
'Tis all.
'Tis all.
I think this is just a passive opinion meanwhile.
It's like Bonus criticising Mario Sunshine, the general concensus is that the game is the best platformer this generation has to offer. A collective of people disagree but then a collective of people disagree the greatness of Halo, Metroid, Wind Waker, Mario Kart etc... etc...
It's always been like that. It maybe hard to believe but people criticised Mario 64, Perfect Dark, Banjo Kazooie, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask and even Conker's Bad Fur Day.
Look at those who swore blind Wind Waker was a dissapointment. And yet in a vote Ashman (I think) just did it came without a doubt at the top of the list for Gamecube's best title.
In 3 years we will be looking back and saying, "Mario's FLUDD idea was just superb", "Isn't it a shame we won't be getting a sea based cel-shaded masterpiece like we got on the Gamecube" and "Didn't the 2 character system in Double Dash really make that Gamecube's very own multiplayer masterpiece".
It's like Bonus criticising Mario Sunshine, the general concensus is that the game is the best platformer this generation has to offer. A collective of people disagree but then a collective of people disagree the greatness of Halo, Metroid, Wind Waker, Mario Kart etc... etc...
It's always been like that. It maybe hard to believe but people criticised Mario 64, Perfect Dark, Banjo Kazooie, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask and even Conker's Bad Fur Day.
Look at those who swore blind Wind Waker was a dissapointment. And yet in a vote Ashman (I think) just did it came without a doubt at the top of the list for Gamecube's best title.
In 3 years we will be looking back and saying, "Mario's FLUDD idea was just superb", "Isn't it a shame we won't be getting a sea based cel-shaded masterpiece like we got on the Gamecube" and "Didn't the 2 character system in Double Dash really make that Gamecube's very own multiplayer masterpiece".
People have other views, but Halo co-op is an experience that I've yet to be bested on a console.
Single Player isn't an thrilling, however, but it's still way above standard.
Single Player isn't an thrilling, however, but it's still way above standard.
Halo really is laughable at times - if there weren't arrows on one level (can't remember which) I really wouldn't have a clue where to go. It's like the people in charge of level design just decided they couldn't be bothered and copied and pasted each section over and over.
many people seem to think that bigger levels = better levels, and that is wht Halo's design is better. Bonus certainly thinks so, but just look at Donkey Kong. What a montrosity of level design that was. That's what Halo reminds me of. Most of the levels are far too big and repetetive, and I think the design of the enemies is stupid. That's just because I hate aliens, and I especially hate aliens that are small and that scuttle around (those damn head things inside the ship on Halo. I hated those things with a passion). The only game where I like aliens in an FPS is Metroid Prime, and that's because their design is more varied and more artistic, and each one has a specific strategy aligned with it, whereas the Halo enemies were just human opponents in stupid costumes, weilding plasma weapons (I hate lasers as well). Maybe that's why I didn't enjoy Halo so much.
I do agree the the multiplayer was awesome though, but only with vehicles. Without it just reminded me of a second rate Unreal Tourney clone.
I do agree the the multiplayer was awesome though, but only with vehicles. Without it just reminded me of a second rate Unreal Tourney clone.
Page: