The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> If you trusted only them before then you were being foolish. I don't
> take the opinion of one person as gospel about a game. I thought it
> was spot on.
Of course not.
I had a certain amount of respect for their opinion, but never trusted them completely. Then they started giving games like Halo 10/10, and Double Dash 5/10... I just don't trust them any more.
> If you trusted only them before then you were being foolish. I don't
> take the opinion of one person as gospel about a game. I thought it
> was spot on.
Of course not.
I had a certain amount of respect for their opinion, but never trusted them completely. Then they started giving games like Halo 10/10, and Double Dash 5/10... I just don't trust them any more.
I was actually quite surprised by the PSP game line-up - 'tis much better than I expected, with lots of familiar games, and a whole host of brand new titles.
And it looks sweet - with a nice widescreen, video stuff etc.
But I'm still with the DS, I think. Even though it's a beast to look at (*swallows puke. mmmm ....*) the touch-screen / 2-screen could be much more interesting.
Although, for use in public, the PSP would win.
And it looks sweet - with a nice widescreen, video stuff etc.
But I'm still with the DS, I think. Even though it's a beast to look at (*swallows puke. mmmm ....*) the touch-screen / 2-screen could be much more interesting.
Although, for use in public, the PSP would win.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Goldeneye had repetition in it's levels. Hell of a lot of books in
> Archives. Zelda OOT, all those rooms in the dungeons look mighty
> similar. But you don't criticise them do you?
When was the last time you played OOT?
One of the brilliant things about Ocarina of Time was that every place had a new and different feel. Even in the dungeons, there were different attributes and visual flair to each room to make it feel different. The problem I found in Halo was that it felt as though I was going round in circles.
As for Goldeneye, if I'm being perfectly honest, I can't really remember the Archives level. Even though I completed it two or three times, most of my play time was clocked up in multiplayer. However, thinking back, I remember enjoying almost every single level immensely, so there can't have been much of a problem with Archives. The single level I didn't like so much was one of the "Surface" ones, which had an awful lot of snow and repetitive fogging, making it frustrating.
> Halo's levels were 10, 20, possibly more, times larger than anything
> in Goldeneye or PD or a whole bunch of other games. The only way to
> stop them being anywhere remotely near repetitive would have been to
> make them a whole lot shorter. Do you really expect any huge space
> ship to look entirely different on each deck? Of course not, they
> would be built to a rather sedate samey design, just like real ships,
> because it works.
I see your point, but it doesn't stop me finding it incredibly boring. Besides, many games have handled what would realistically be a repetitively designed environment with imagination and variety.
> You might like them more, you could even call them greater. But not
> better. Because they aren't. I recognise that and yet Goldeneye is
> still my favourite ever game. It is the greatest game of all time in
> my opinion. But it has been bettered.
Having played Ocarina of Time relatively recently (on the collector's disc), I still believe it to be the best game I've ever played. Better than Majora's Mask or The Wind Waker. As for the Goldeneye vs. Halo fiasco, Halo undoubtedly surpasses it in terms of FPS gameplay dynamics and AI. However, I found Goldeneye much more involving and better designed, with a superior multiplayer mode - so I think of it as the better game.
> Goldeneye had repetition in it's levels. Hell of a lot of books in
> Archives. Zelda OOT, all those rooms in the dungeons look mighty
> similar. But you don't criticise them do you?
When was the last time you played OOT?
One of the brilliant things about Ocarina of Time was that every place had a new and different feel. Even in the dungeons, there were different attributes and visual flair to each room to make it feel different. The problem I found in Halo was that it felt as though I was going round in circles.
As for Goldeneye, if I'm being perfectly honest, I can't really remember the Archives level. Even though I completed it two or three times, most of my play time was clocked up in multiplayer. However, thinking back, I remember enjoying almost every single level immensely, so there can't have been much of a problem with Archives. The single level I didn't like so much was one of the "Surface" ones, which had an awful lot of snow and repetitive fogging, making it frustrating.
> Halo's levels were 10, 20, possibly more, times larger than anything
> in Goldeneye or PD or a whole bunch of other games. The only way to
> stop them being anywhere remotely near repetitive would have been to
> make them a whole lot shorter. Do you really expect any huge space
> ship to look entirely different on each deck? Of course not, they
> would be built to a rather sedate samey design, just like real ships,
> because it works.
I see your point, but it doesn't stop me finding it incredibly boring. Besides, many games have handled what would realistically be a repetitively designed environment with imagination and variety.
> You might like them more, you could even call them greater. But not
> better. Because they aren't. I recognise that and yet Goldeneye is
> still my favourite ever game. It is the greatest game of all time in
> my opinion. But it has been bettered.
Having played Ocarina of Time relatively recently (on the collector's disc), I still believe it to be the best game I've ever played. Better than Majora's Mask or The Wind Waker. As for the Goldeneye vs. Halo fiasco, Halo undoubtedly surpasses it in terms of FPS gameplay dynamics and AI. However, I found Goldeneye much more involving and better designed, with a superior multiplayer mode - so I think of it as the better game.
To be honest, I don't think the PSP looks any better. Of course it's technically superior, but design-wise, the DS looks rather compact and comfortable.
Besides, the DS was never meant to directly challenge the PSP. People will buy it because it offers something other than the GBA 2 and PSP.
Besides, the DS was never meant to directly challenge the PSP. People will buy it because it offers something other than the GBA 2 and PSP.
Mav wrote:
> The day Edge gave Halo 10/10 was the day I disregarded their opinion
> completely.
If you trusted only them before then you were being foolish. I don't take the opinion of one person as gospel about a game. I thought it was spot on.
>
> It had some excellent features, but if you can't get the level design
> right, such qualities are overshadowed. A game can't just excel in
> certain areas and forget others, especially not one heralded as the
> greatest FPS ever.
Goldeneye had repetition in it's levels. Hell of a lot of books in Archives. Zelda OOT, all those rooms in the dungeons look mighty similar. But you don't criticise them do you?
>
> Dismissing it as a problem only on the Library level is ridiculous.
> The first level, on the ship, suffered significantly from repetitive
> design and while the second level was a marked improvement, it wasn't
> long after that until it went downhill again; the Covenant ship
> level.
Halo's levels were 10, 20, possibly more, times larger than anything in Goldeneye or PD or a whole bunch of other games. The only way to stop them being anywhere remotely near repetitive would have been to make them a whole lot shorter. Do you really expect any huge space ship to look entirely different on each deck? Of course not, they would be built to a rather sedate samey design, just like real ships, because it works.
>
> I enjoyed Halo very much in places, especially multiplayer with the
> vehicles turned on (though the noticeable lack of 'bots was
> unforgiveable), but at some points it was literally unplayable.
> Personally, I think it deserves no more than 8/10 - very good and
> certainly recommended, but undoubtedly flawed.
>
If you look hard enough you can find flaws in any game. I wouldn't have given Metroid Prime more than 8.5 or so, mainly because the scanning things really affected the pace of the game in my opinion. It just felt forced and less fun.
> Goldeneye 007 is the better game, as Ocarina of Time is to its
> successors. Even today.
You might like them more, you could even call them greater. But not better. Because they aren't. I recognise that and yet Goldeneye is still my favourite ever game. It is the greatest game of all time in my opinion. But it has been bettered.
> The day Edge gave Halo 10/10 was the day I disregarded their opinion
> completely.
If you trusted only them before then you were being foolish. I don't take the opinion of one person as gospel about a game. I thought it was spot on.
>
> It had some excellent features, but if you can't get the level design
> right, such qualities are overshadowed. A game can't just excel in
> certain areas and forget others, especially not one heralded as the
> greatest FPS ever.
Goldeneye had repetition in it's levels. Hell of a lot of books in Archives. Zelda OOT, all those rooms in the dungeons look mighty similar. But you don't criticise them do you?
>
> Dismissing it as a problem only on the Library level is ridiculous.
> The first level, on the ship, suffered significantly from repetitive
> design and while the second level was a marked improvement, it wasn't
> long after that until it went downhill again; the Covenant ship
> level.
Halo's levels were 10, 20, possibly more, times larger than anything in Goldeneye or PD or a whole bunch of other games. The only way to stop them being anywhere remotely near repetitive would have been to make them a whole lot shorter. Do you really expect any huge space ship to look entirely different on each deck? Of course not, they would be built to a rather sedate samey design, just like real ships, because it works.
>
> I enjoyed Halo very much in places, especially multiplayer with the
> vehicles turned on (though the noticeable lack of 'bots was
> unforgiveable), but at some points it was literally unplayable.
> Personally, I think it deserves no more than 8/10 - very good and
> certainly recommended, but undoubtedly flawed.
>
If you look hard enough you can find flaws in any game. I wouldn't have given Metroid Prime more than 8.5 or so, mainly because the scanning things really affected the pace of the game in my opinion. It just felt forced and less fun.
> Goldeneye 007 is the better game, as Ocarina of Time is to its
> successors. Even today.
You might like them more, you could even call them greater. But not better. Because they aren't. I recognise that and yet Goldeneye is still my favourite ever game. It is the greatest game of all time in my opinion. But it has been bettered.
No, they aren't, but have you watched the videos showcasing the DS's capabilities? Metroid Prime's visuals on a handheld show that the DS can compete with the PSP in this area anyway. Plus Super Mario 64 x4 making use of the 4-player link-up, Wario Ware DS showing off the touch screen features, and Balloon Trip actually showing off a way in which the dual screens could be put to good use.
And only £100???
DS design aside, this has an excellent prospect.
And only £100???
DS design aside, this has an excellent prospect.
To be honest, the concept images of the DS aren't exactly exciting are they.
It just looks like the old double screen Game and Watch things.
PSP will make an impact Dringo, and you know it, so you may aswell pull that limited edition Zelda cartridge out of your rectum and face facts.
It just looks like the old double screen Game and Watch things.
PSP will make an impact Dringo, and you know it, so you may aswell pull that limited edition Zelda cartridge out of your rectum and face facts.
Bonus wrote:
> Halo surpasses Goldeneye at the forefront of the FPS genre. It is a
> much better game.
>
> Timesplitters 2 is better than Goldeneye, it takes what Goldeneye
> was, and bettered it.
>
> I have my own issues with some really boring sections of OOT, but
> that's definately personal opinion. Can't argue with an Edge 10/10,
> the same score it gave Halo ;)
1996, Bonus.
If Rare had the design capabilities Free Radical Design and Bungie had with TimeSplitters 2 and Halo respectively, I think it would easily be classified as the best FPS ever.
These two titles might be superior to Goldeneye in terms of character and level visual design, but then technology has expanded since Goldeneye was released for the N64 all those years ago. The thing is, TimeSplitters 2 and Halo would not be the critically acclaimed titles they now are if it weren't for Goldeneye - in fact, there's a strong chance they wouldn't even exist at all.
Basically TimeSplitters 2 was Goldeneye with polished visuals, some new, comical characters, more flashy weapons and better frame-rate. So minus the technological advances in the game, TimeSplitters 2 IS Goldeneye in a new box. Oh, and the one-player is far inferior as well, which suggests Goldeneye is better overall.
And as for Halo. Yes, I think Halo is a great game, especially as it includes multiplayer modes that over-run Goldeneye in terms of quantity, and a co-op (which although Goldeneye didn't have... Perfect Dark did). But again Halo has just taken Goldeneye's original gameplay and freedom, and expanded on it a little to give an all-round better package. Goldeneye refined the FPS genre, and although Halo may be a more technically complete title, it's only there because of Rare's 1997 masterpiece.
> Halo surpasses Goldeneye at the forefront of the FPS genre. It is a
> much better game.
>
> Timesplitters 2 is better than Goldeneye, it takes what Goldeneye
> was, and bettered it.
>
> I have my own issues with some really boring sections of OOT, but
> that's definately personal opinion. Can't argue with an Edge 10/10,
> the same score it gave Halo ;)
1996, Bonus.
If Rare had the design capabilities Free Radical Design and Bungie had with TimeSplitters 2 and Halo respectively, I think it would easily be classified as the best FPS ever.
These two titles might be superior to Goldeneye in terms of character and level visual design, but then technology has expanded since Goldeneye was released for the N64 all those years ago. The thing is, TimeSplitters 2 and Halo would not be the critically acclaimed titles they now are if it weren't for Goldeneye - in fact, there's a strong chance they wouldn't even exist at all.
Basically TimeSplitters 2 was Goldeneye with polished visuals, some new, comical characters, more flashy weapons and better frame-rate. So minus the technological advances in the game, TimeSplitters 2 IS Goldeneye in a new box. Oh, and the one-player is far inferior as well, which suggests Goldeneye is better overall.
And as for Halo. Yes, I think Halo is a great game, especially as it includes multiplayer modes that over-run Goldeneye in terms of quantity, and a co-op (which although Goldeneye didn't have... Perfect Dark did). But again Halo has just taken Goldeneye's original gameplay and freedom, and expanded on it a little to give an all-round better package. Goldeneye refined the FPS genre, and although Halo may be a more technically complete title, it's only there because of Rare's 1997 masterpiece.
The day Edge gave Halo 10/10 was the day I disregarded their opinion completely.
It had some excellent features, but if you can't get the level design right, such qualities are overshadowed. A game can't just excel in certain areas and forget others, especially not one heralded as the greatest FPS ever.
Dismissing it as a problem only on the Library level is ridiculous. The first level, on the ship, suffered significantly from repetitive design and while the second level was a marked improvement, it wasn't long after that until it went downhill again; the Covenant ship level.
I enjoyed Halo very much in places, especially multiplayer with the vehicles turned on (though the noticeable lack of 'bots was unforgiveable), but at some points it was literally unplayable. Personally, I think it deserves no more than 8/10 - very good and certainly recommended, but undoubtedly flawed.
Goldeneye 007 is the better game, as Ocarina of Time is to its successors. Even today.
It had some excellent features, but if you can't get the level design right, such qualities are overshadowed. A game can't just excel in certain areas and forget others, especially not one heralded as the greatest FPS ever.
Dismissing it as a problem only on the Library level is ridiculous. The first level, on the ship, suffered significantly from repetitive design and while the second level was a marked improvement, it wasn't long after that until it went downhill again; the Covenant ship level.
I enjoyed Halo very much in places, especially multiplayer with the vehicles turned on (though the noticeable lack of 'bots was unforgiveable), but at some points it was literally unplayable. Personally, I think it deserves no more than 8/10 - very good and certainly recommended, but undoubtedly flawed.
Goldeneye 007 is the better game, as Ocarina of Time is to its successors. Even today.
Other than the Library level which was a bit naff, I though Halo had pretty decent level design. In multiplayer it is immense fun, especially if you ever get the chance to play 16 player system link.
Halo will remain at the forefront of FPSs for a long time. You know how Goldeneye is thought of as a classic? Well that was because it was. It was the definitive console FPS of the last generation.
Halo is the definitive FPS of this generation. Sure Halo 2 will be better than Halo, in the same way that Perfect Dark was better than Goldeneye. But Halo is a classic and will remain a classic. 4.5 million sales says it is.
"Oh but Metroid Prime is lyk so much beta because it has scanininining in it!".
No. Metroid Prime is an FPS with a few extra things tacked on. Like Rainbow Six has squads tacked on. But Halo is more famous and has sold considerably more for a reason. It is a bit unfair to compare them directly, because they do have differences. But if I had to pick between them, Halo wins.
I also can't call Metroid Prime the future either, because not everyone wants FPSs to change. That is why Doom 3, Unreal 2845763 etc are all blasters like their predecessors. Because not everyone wants to think that much as they blast stuff.
Halo will remain at the forefront of FPSs for a long time. You know how Goldeneye is thought of as a classic? Well that was because it was. It was the definitive console FPS of the last generation.
Halo is the definitive FPS of this generation. Sure Halo 2 will be better than Halo, in the same way that Perfect Dark was better than Goldeneye. But Halo is a classic and will remain a classic. 4.5 million sales says it is.
"Oh but Metroid Prime is lyk so much beta because it has scanininining in it!".
No. Metroid Prime is an FPS with a few extra things tacked on. Like Rainbow Six has squads tacked on. But Halo is more famous and has sold considerably more for a reason. It is a bit unfair to compare them directly, because they do have differences. But if I had to pick between them, Halo wins.
I also can't call Metroid Prime the future either, because not everyone wants FPSs to change. That is why Doom 3, Unreal 2845763 etc are all blasters like their predecessors. Because not everyone wants to think that much as they blast stuff.
Page: