The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Reading the recent retro freaks magazine Games TM the fear that Nintendo have lost it dawned on me. Here was a magazine that criticised everything the Gamecube had to offer, showing SNES games claiming “This is what Nintendo used to be about”. They weren’t anti-Nintendo although definitely pro-X-box they were disappointed as yet another Mario Kart game fails to beat it’s predecessors.
There appears to be two schools of criticisms, one that Nintendo have changed their lead franchises too much (mainly the die-hard fan base) and two that Nintendo are no longer fresh and new (mainly the opposition fans). Both totally contradictory in terms and so one is wrong, well no actually they are both wrong.
In a society obsessed with comparison it is no surprise Nintendo may appear to falter in its new generation. How can you say Super Mario Sunshine doesn’t surpass Super Mario 64? “Easy” I’m told “the game does nothing new, it is shorter and lacks variation”. Eh? Are you trying to tell me that Mario Sunshine does nothing over Mario 64???? Mario 64 was a revolution, a stunning title that started this interactive 3D world and no one can begin to describe the effect this game had on the industry. BUT it wasn’t nearly as good as you remember it, you always look back through rose tinted glasses, games get better as time goes on. Sunshine was easily as fun as Mario 64 was, it may have had no ice level but we had an underwater section, a ghost house section. A lava segment and even a roller coaster level! Despite it being set on an island, which is another sign of Mario progressing from his traditional worlds, the game did consist of far more variety than first discussed. Then there is FLUDD, who is fantastic SIMPLY because of the depth it added to Mario’s own genre. Mario in platforming had a set height and length he could jump, the main challenge was defeating enemies. In Sunshine, Miyamoto invented a device that incorporated a host of new platforming moves and Mario’s weapon as well. It was a VERY good idea; set up with a perfect control system and once again he set up millions of puzzles to work with these new moves. It really was a revolution and a superior title to Mario 64!
But enough about how sunshine surpasses Mario 64 as a stand-alone game. I want to move onto my prime example of The Legend of Zelda. Zelda suffers from something I call give and take syndrome. In order to take the game needs to give. Lets take Ocarina of Time, a game everyone claims to be the best 3D Zelda game. Rubbish the best 3D Zelda game is Wind Waker and that is a fact. Ocarina of Time has the same magic as Wind Waker did, trust me IT DID it felt just as wonderful to play and I know it looks more magical now but compare playing the Wind Waker to playing Ocarina of time and you’ll remember they felt both just as good. But Wind Waker had problems, this is unusual, the sea journeys at times got tiresome, the interaction was very poor and the storyline wasn’t held together too well. But doesn’t a combat system to die for (so beautiful and amazing to control), the worlds best use of cel-shading graphics ever (so amazing) and a level of absolute hilarity make up for it? Doesn’t the ability to fly, the various use of the wind, the new cel-shaded look and the new idea of the sea make this a great example of how sequels should be done? Lets look at Majora’s Mask, doesn’t come close to Ocarina of time they said, and why? Well because of the smaller and less epic filled landscape, the easier dungeons, the crappy saving system and reduced length. But doesn’t the BEST EVER INTERACTION IN A ZELDA GAME make up for that (the 3 day loop is the most ingenious idea to date), doesn’t the gameplay improving and effective mask collecting out match Gold Skultula’s completely? Isn’t the atmosphere the darkest and most daunting in any Zelda game ever? Yes that is right, doing something-new, innovative and amazing means that something has to give in the game. A level of interaction like none other meant the developer was working solidly on that and so the story was reduced. So the interaction could work so well (character doing something different all the time) meant a set number of days were needed and to stop the game becoming too easy the “save anywhere” approach had to be removed…
So lets look at Ocarina of Time, yes it may have be the longest game, the most amazing storyline BUT the enemies were actually rather poor, Hyrule field is big barren and dull, we had to sit through that storyline regarding the 3 Gods TWICE and it was dull the first time and the game at times really felt like a dodgy puzzle game (the water temple)…
Nintendo have not lost it at all. Mario Kart: Double Dash!! is FAR better than Mario Kart 64 and Super Mario Kart. Nintendo have yet to create a masterpiece like they did on the N64 (and oh boy did they create some masterpieces) but they have managed to improve their old masterpieces with new and fresh ideas and take their series’ in other directions. Other than perhaps Metroid Prime Nintendo haven’t created a new game defining moment. This is true, despite their best attempts with Pikmin (give it time). But play the games… and stick with them and the magic is still there… in full force. Just remember the movement from 2D into 3D was always going to be more revolutionary than 3D into 3D… and after all for such a small jump Nintendo have managed to alter their best franchises in the most ingenious of ways.
Dringo.
There appears to be two schools of criticisms, one that Nintendo have changed their lead franchises too much (mainly the die-hard fan base) and two that Nintendo are no longer fresh and new (mainly the opposition fans). Both totally contradictory in terms and so one is wrong, well no actually they are both wrong.
In a society obsessed with comparison it is no surprise Nintendo may appear to falter in its new generation. How can you say Super Mario Sunshine doesn’t surpass Super Mario 64? “Easy” I’m told “the game does nothing new, it is shorter and lacks variation”. Eh? Are you trying to tell me that Mario Sunshine does nothing over Mario 64???? Mario 64 was a revolution, a stunning title that started this interactive 3D world and no one can begin to describe the effect this game had on the industry. BUT it wasn’t nearly as good as you remember it, you always look back through rose tinted glasses, games get better as time goes on. Sunshine was easily as fun as Mario 64 was, it may have had no ice level but we had an underwater section, a ghost house section. A lava segment and even a roller coaster level! Despite it being set on an island, which is another sign of Mario progressing from his traditional worlds, the game did consist of far more variety than first discussed. Then there is FLUDD, who is fantastic SIMPLY because of the depth it added to Mario’s own genre. Mario in platforming had a set height and length he could jump, the main challenge was defeating enemies. In Sunshine, Miyamoto invented a device that incorporated a host of new platforming moves and Mario’s weapon as well. It was a VERY good idea; set up with a perfect control system and once again he set up millions of puzzles to work with these new moves. It really was a revolution and a superior title to Mario 64!
But enough about how sunshine surpasses Mario 64 as a stand-alone game. I want to move onto my prime example of The Legend of Zelda. Zelda suffers from something I call give and take syndrome. In order to take the game needs to give. Lets take Ocarina of Time, a game everyone claims to be the best 3D Zelda game. Rubbish the best 3D Zelda game is Wind Waker and that is a fact. Ocarina of Time has the same magic as Wind Waker did, trust me IT DID it felt just as wonderful to play and I know it looks more magical now but compare playing the Wind Waker to playing Ocarina of time and you’ll remember they felt both just as good. But Wind Waker had problems, this is unusual, the sea journeys at times got tiresome, the interaction was very poor and the storyline wasn’t held together too well. But doesn’t a combat system to die for (so beautiful and amazing to control), the worlds best use of cel-shading graphics ever (so amazing) and a level of absolute hilarity make up for it? Doesn’t the ability to fly, the various use of the wind, the new cel-shaded look and the new idea of the sea make this a great example of how sequels should be done? Lets look at Majora’s Mask, doesn’t come close to Ocarina of time they said, and why? Well because of the smaller and less epic filled landscape, the easier dungeons, the crappy saving system and reduced length. But doesn’t the BEST EVER INTERACTION IN A ZELDA GAME make up for that (the 3 day loop is the most ingenious idea to date), doesn’t the gameplay improving and effective mask collecting out match Gold Skultula’s completely? Isn’t the atmosphere the darkest and most daunting in any Zelda game ever? Yes that is right, doing something-new, innovative and amazing means that something has to give in the game. A level of interaction like none other meant the developer was working solidly on that and so the story was reduced. So the interaction could work so well (character doing something different all the time) meant a set number of days were needed and to stop the game becoming too easy the “save anywhere” approach had to be removed…
So lets look at Ocarina of Time, yes it may have be the longest game, the most amazing storyline BUT the enemies were actually rather poor, Hyrule field is big barren and dull, we had to sit through that storyline regarding the 3 Gods TWICE and it was dull the first time and the game at times really felt like a dodgy puzzle game (the water temple)…
Nintendo have not lost it at all. Mario Kart: Double Dash!! is FAR better than Mario Kart 64 and Super Mario Kart. Nintendo have yet to create a masterpiece like they did on the N64 (and oh boy did they create some masterpieces) but they have managed to improve their old masterpieces with new and fresh ideas and take their series’ in other directions. Other than perhaps Metroid Prime Nintendo haven’t created a new game defining moment. This is true, despite their best attempts with Pikmin (give it time). But play the games… and stick with them and the magic is still there… in full force. Just remember the movement from 2D into 3D was always going to be more revolutionary than 3D into 3D… and after all for such a small jump Nintendo have managed to alter their best franchises in the most ingenious of ways.
Dringo.
Page:
Heh. If this looks to have wound to an end I guess I won't go back into it :^)
Nintendo has probabaly lost its grip over thge vg console market.
But there are many things the gamecube has to offer that xbox and PS2 dont.
Ps2 has more games than gamecube and XBOX is the most powerful of all the three consoles, but gamecube allows you to play all your favourite nintendo franchises and at the same time, you can play other multi-format games too. Its my personal opinion, I own all the three Gamecube, PS2, XBOX.
I use xbox to play the multi-format games.
The PS2 for Cricket games (I did not buy a ps2, i won it in a contest.)
The Gamecube I use for all the franchises.
Let the magazine guys say what they think, its ultimately we who decide how a game is to be faired. Sunshine and Mario 64 are equivalent if you consider the time when they were released, but if you consider them independently, you find that sunshine is certainly better.
But there are many things the gamecube has to offer that xbox and PS2 dont.
Ps2 has more games than gamecube and XBOX is the most powerful of all the three consoles, but gamecube allows you to play all your favourite nintendo franchises and at the same time, you can play other multi-format games too. Its my personal opinion, I own all the three Gamecube, PS2, XBOX.
I use xbox to play the multi-format games.
The PS2 for Cricket games (I did not buy a ps2, i won it in a contest.)
The Gamecube I use for all the franchises.
Let the magazine guys say what they think, its ultimately we who decide how a game is to be faired. Sunshine and Mario 64 are equivalent if you consider the time when they were released, but if you consider them independently, you find that sunshine is certainly better.
That is true...
But this is pretty medicore compared to my more outlandish efforts.
But this is pretty medicore compared to my more outlandish efforts.
Dringo wrote:
> Stop moaning. Get a life. I am not changing after 3 years because a
> couple of posters are having a paddy over a few uses of words to add
> motivation and belief behind my points of view. and you are just
> wasting time.
I really don't care as much as you must think I do. I think both you AND Dr Duck have good points. I'm just adding to the discussion here and there.
The doc came to a pretty good conclusion when he more or less said that there's nothing wrong with presenting opinion as fact, but you can push the line too far - and your doing so in the original post meant you got some just replies. At least you got your wish, eh? Discussion.
> Stop moaning. Get a life. I am not changing after 3 years because a
> couple of posters are having a paddy over a few uses of words to add
> motivation and belief behind my points of view. and you are just
> wasting time.
I really don't care as much as you must think I do. I think both you AND Dr Duck have good points. I'm just adding to the discussion here and there.
The doc came to a pretty good conclusion when he more or less said that there's nothing wrong with presenting opinion as fact, but you can push the line too far - and your doing so in the original post meant you got some just replies. At least you got your wish, eh? Discussion.
Strafio wrote:
> In reply to Dr Duck, Dringo wrote:
>
> No in your opinion you're missing the point.
>
> Hehe! Now Dringo's telling Dr Duck what Dr Duck's opinion is! ;-D
Do you not think that was deliberate irony....
> In reply to Dr Duck, Dringo wrote:
>
> No in your opinion you're missing the point.
>
> Hehe! Now Dringo's telling Dr Duck what Dr Duck's opinion is! ;-D
Do you not think that was deliberate irony....
Well someone needed to - as it seems we must now tell people that are opinions are opinions so that people don't think of them as facts...in my opinion.
In reply to Dr Duck, Dringo wrote:
> No in your opinion you're missing the point.
Hehe! Now Dringo's telling Dr Duck what Dr Duck's opinion is! ;-D
> No in your opinion you're missing the point.
Hehe! Now Dringo's telling Dr Duck what Dr Duck's opinion is! ;-D
Maverick42 wrote:
> Dr Duck's right. There's a big difference.
>
> There's no need to add "in my opinion", "I
> think", "Personally, I find" etc into every aspect of
> your opinionated writing, but your original post was bordering on
> ridiculous in places;
>
> "In order to take the game needs to give. Lets take Ocarina of
> Time, a game everyone claims to be the best 3D Zelda game. Rubbish
> the best 3D Zelda game is Wind Waker and that is a fact."
>
> ^^ for example
Okay how about
"In order to take the game needs to give. Lets take Ocarina of
> Time, a game everyone claims to be the best 3D Zelda game. Rubbish
> the best 3D Zelda game is Wind Waker and that is an opinion"
It is obvious a statement that is supposed to make people go "hang on this seems a little bit controversal" and then I go on and explain my claim that Wind Waker is without question the best 3D Zelda game.
If i wrote that and then didn't explain why then perhaps my point of view, my claim of a fact, can be criticised. But I do, and your job as readers to the post is to dispute or agree with my reasoning.
If you don't agree then come along and go:
"It is not a fact because Wind Waker didn't have that FEEL" or whatever argument you choose to use.
Stop moaning. Get a life. I am not changing after 3 years because a couple of posters are having a paddy over a few uses of words to add motivation and belief behind my points of view. and you are just wasting time.
> Dr Duck's right. There's a big difference.
>
> There's no need to add "in my opinion", "I
> think", "Personally, I find" etc into every aspect of
> your opinionated writing, but your original post was bordering on
> ridiculous in places;
>
> "In order to take the game needs to give. Lets take Ocarina of
> Time, a game everyone claims to be the best 3D Zelda game. Rubbish
> the best 3D Zelda game is Wind Waker and that is a fact."
>
> ^^ for example
Okay how about
"In order to take the game needs to give. Lets take Ocarina of
> Time, a game everyone claims to be the best 3D Zelda game. Rubbish
> the best 3D Zelda game is Wind Waker and that is an opinion"
It is obvious a statement that is supposed to make people go "hang on this seems a little bit controversal" and then I go on and explain my claim that Wind Waker is without question the best 3D Zelda game.
If i wrote that and then didn't explain why then perhaps my point of view, my claim of a fact, can be criticised. But I do, and your job as readers to the post is to dispute or agree with my reasoning.
If you don't agree then come along and go:
"It is not a fact because Wind Waker didn't have that FEEL" or whatever argument you choose to use.
Stop moaning. Get a life. I am not changing after 3 years because a couple of posters are having a paddy over a few uses of words to add motivation and belief behind my points of view. and you are just wasting time.
Dr Duck wrote:
> Why? There's a difference between passing off opinion as fact and
> being an@l about wording.
>
> It seems you're still missing the point. Oh well.
No in your opinion you're missing the point.
> Why? There's a difference between passing off opinion as fact and
> being an@l about wording.
>
> It seems you're still missing the point. Oh well.
No in your opinion you're missing the point.
Dr Duck's right. There's a big difference.
There's no need to add "in my opinion", "I think", "Personally, I find" etc into every aspect of your opinionated writing, but your original post was bordering on ridiculous in places;
"In order to take the game needs to give. Lets take Ocarina of Time, a game everyone claims to be the best 3D Zelda game. Rubbish the best 3D Zelda game is Wind Waker and that is a fact."
^^ for example
There's no need to add "in my opinion", "I think", "Personally, I find" etc into every aspect of your opinionated writing, but your original post was bordering on ridiculous in places;
"In order to take the game needs to give. Lets take Ocarina of Time, a game everyone claims to be the best 3D Zelda game. Rubbish the best 3D Zelda game is Wind Waker and that is a fact."
^^ for example
Page: