The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I was personally blown away by both Metroid Prime and Eternal Darkness. Sunshien and Zelda didn't really do anything for me, but were still great even if they were lacking that Nintendo 'punch-in-the-neck' feeling, when a superb, fresh and 'Nintendo' title comes along.
But look at it like this; what do other consoles have? Nintendo have easily got the strongest line-up of games when compared to both XBox and PlayStation 2, evenif the other consoles outdo Nintendo in terms of numbers. Zelda, Prime, Eternal Darkness, Mario Kart; they're all better than any XBox or PS2 title.
But look at it like this; what do other consoles have? Nintendo have easily got the strongest line-up of games when compared to both XBox and PlayStation 2, evenif the other consoles outdo Nintendo in terms of numbers. Zelda, Prime, Eternal Darkness, Mario Kart; they're all better than any XBox or PS2 title.
The thing is - Nintendo HAVE learnt from their mistakes and have released these excellent titles.
HOWEVER...
They're now making games that look and feel how the other popular games on other systems do. The GameCube is the most Playstation-like console in comparison, the majority of the games either out on, or are fairly similar to PS1/2 games.
Nintendo have innovated us with new genres, new ideas, and made their games stand above competitors, however, the only console to make me feel like I'm playing 'classics' at the moment is the Xbox. And even then, the majority of good games are third party.
Tis the ways games are going.
HOWEVER...
They're now making games that look and feel how the other popular games on other systems do. The GameCube is the most Playstation-like console in comparison, the majority of the games either out on, or are fairly similar to PS1/2 games.
Nintendo have innovated us with new genres, new ideas, and made their games stand above competitors, however, the only console to make me feel like I'm playing 'classics' at the moment is the Xbox. And even then, the majority of good games are third party.
Tis the ways games are going.
Please note people, although my opinion HUGELY differs from Dringo's (it always does! :-D), I also respect his!
Even if his Nintendo fanaticism does sometimes make me wonder how brown his nose must be! ;-)
Even if his Nintendo fanaticism does sometimes make me wonder how brown his nose must be! ;-)
Dringo wrote:
> Nintendo have never been able to blow us away everytime...
Yes, I know.
But Nintendo haven't blown me away ONCE on the Gamecube.
Pikmin came close but was finished before I'd thought I'd scratched the surface.
> I mean lets face it Mario Kart 64 wasn't as good as Super Mario Kart,
> Paper Mario wasn't as good as Mario RPG and Pokemon stadium was
> awful.
Maybe this is down to personal opinion. I thought that putting Mario Kart in proper 3D was a small step forward, but it was the 4 player multiplayer that really did it for me.
I'd have never have enjoyed the Snes one nearly as much.
Pokémon Stadium was rubbish and I wouldn't know about Paper Mario but these were just spin-off titles anyway.
Windwaker and Sunshine, on the other hand, were meant to be major heavyweight blockbusters.
> But of course we ignore that and look at the likes of Mario 64 and
> Zelda... games that did blow us away.
Ok, I see your point.
But the Gamecube doesn't have a Mario 64 or a Zelda 64 or a Goldeneye to catch our attention. It's been out 1 and a half years, which gave the N64 enough time to bring out all 3 of these games, and that was when 3D was new and still difficult to do and the N64 was a lot harder to work with.
Maybe Nintendo DO have some heavyweights in the pipeline, but even if they do they've left it a bit late.
It's ironic really.
Nintendo really pleased us when they told us they'd learnt from their N64 mistakes. They promised affordable games, user friendly hardware, and everything else we'd want from our hardware.
And then they go and ruin it all by forgetting what made the N64 a triumph... epic games...
Not only do they stop making them themselves, they also sell off Rare who were still making them (Although Dinosaur Planet was poor, I think that's because it was rushed to be done in time for the merger, if proper care had been taken over the mechanics of the fighting system among other things, it could have been a classic).
I guess you just can't have your cake and eat it...
> Nintendo have never been able to blow us away everytime...
Yes, I know.
But Nintendo haven't blown me away ONCE on the Gamecube.
Pikmin came close but was finished before I'd thought I'd scratched the surface.
> I mean lets face it Mario Kart 64 wasn't as good as Super Mario Kart,
> Paper Mario wasn't as good as Mario RPG and Pokemon stadium was
> awful.
Maybe this is down to personal opinion. I thought that putting Mario Kart in proper 3D was a small step forward, but it was the 4 player multiplayer that really did it for me.
I'd have never have enjoyed the Snes one nearly as much.
Pokémon Stadium was rubbish and I wouldn't know about Paper Mario but these were just spin-off titles anyway.
Windwaker and Sunshine, on the other hand, were meant to be major heavyweight blockbusters.
> But of course we ignore that and look at the likes of Mario 64 and
> Zelda... games that did blow us away.
Ok, I see your point.
But the Gamecube doesn't have a Mario 64 or a Zelda 64 or a Goldeneye to catch our attention. It's been out 1 and a half years, which gave the N64 enough time to bring out all 3 of these games, and that was when 3D was new and still difficult to do and the N64 was a lot harder to work with.
Maybe Nintendo DO have some heavyweights in the pipeline, but even if they do they've left it a bit late.
It's ironic really.
Nintendo really pleased us when they told us they'd learnt from their N64 mistakes. They promised affordable games, user friendly hardware, and everything else we'd want from our hardware.
And then they go and ruin it all by forgetting what made the N64 a triumph... epic games...
Not only do they stop making them themselves, they also sell off Rare who were still making them (Although Dinosaur Planet was poor, I think that's because it was rushed to be done in time for the merger, if proper care had been taken over the mechanics of the fighting system among other things, it could have been a classic).
I guess you just can't have your cake and eat it...
I've developed an unhealthy passion for strawberry fromage-frais.
There you go.
There you go.
Dringo has a very good point here, and if you disagree, well I'm afraid you're wrong.
The forums were a lot more interesting when people had opinions. Now people don't have an opinion, they have a set of pros and cons.
The whole point in a discussion/chat forum is for people to express their opinions. Now just because history classes teach you to look at good and bad points of 'facts' based upon sources, and the reliability of sources, and the validity of such facts, etc, it doesn't mean you have to talk like a historian in every message you post, and it doesn't make your opinion any more right just because you weighed up various points.
For example: Knights of the Old Republic on the Xbox is crap. That is my opinion. I have not made it out to be a fact in that everyone shall agree or be wrong. No. I have made it out to be my factual opinion. It doesn't make me wrong, it doesn't make you wrong if you disagree.
What would make it wrong would be if I were to say this:
Knights of the Old Republic has its downsides, but the fact that it can last you ages, and has good graphics makes it a top game.
That is wrong. Because it is not what I truly believe.
The forums are here for us to argue our points. Wouldn't it be totally boring if we were all single minded?
The forums were a lot more interesting when people had opinions. Now people don't have an opinion, they have a set of pros and cons.
The whole point in a discussion/chat forum is for people to express their opinions. Now just because history classes teach you to look at good and bad points of 'facts' based upon sources, and the reliability of sources, and the validity of such facts, etc, it doesn't mean you have to talk like a historian in every message you post, and it doesn't make your opinion any more right just because you weighed up various points.
For example: Knights of the Old Republic on the Xbox is crap. That is my opinion. I have not made it out to be a fact in that everyone shall agree or be wrong. No. I have made it out to be my factual opinion. It doesn't make me wrong, it doesn't make you wrong if you disagree.
What would make it wrong would be if I were to say this:
Knights of the Old Republic has its downsides, but the fact that it can last you ages, and has good graphics makes it a top game.
That is wrong. Because it is not what I truly believe.
The forums are here for us to argue our points. Wouldn't it be totally boring if we were all single minded?
>
> Is that really what you want though? Offend people to get attention?
> I'm sure you could spark a debate with a good quality post, instead
> you act like some primary school kid, pulling the hair of some girl
> he likes, because it's the only way she'll notice him.
> Maybe.
>
> :^)
How is my points not valied because I did not but an objective opinion up? The thing is I am like Tribute in that I am not a "I see the good points of the Gamecube but..." I am one sided and biased and there is NO WAY I AM GOING TO CHANGE THAT! The difference between me and tribute is that my points are well made even if they are wrong.
The thing is it is blatently my point of view as it says Dringo in nice purple lettering by the side. This is Dringo's post, Dringo's point of view.
Dringo says: It really was a revolution and a superior title to Mario 64!
Person x says: No it wasn't it lacked the depth and freshness of Mario 64.
Dringo: It was bound to lack freshness now matter how hard Nintendo tried but the feeling of vacation, the new mario feel was a fantastic new element that DID add depth.
AND SO ON...
It is very simple and the fact is most people I knew wrote like this, when the forums were interesting and not filled with political correctness.
How can you get off insulting my bloody work when I am studying the concept of objectivity at uni for the last year in English literature. Why should I bother represting other points of view if I know that those that have said point of view will make it in the post?
I did not say I offended to get attention, what I MEAN is that it would be a totally pointless posts if I was being objective. I felt after hearing Games TM and other publications, readers letters, posts, websites etc... insult Nintendo's recent track record that it was about time I put my 2 pence worth in and see if I can make an affect.
If you want I'll send you my English Essay where I wrote "in my opinion" in and the teacher crossed it out with the footnote "I know it is your opinion as you wrote the essay".
> Is that really what you want though? Offend people to get attention?
> I'm sure you could spark a debate with a good quality post, instead
> you act like some primary school kid, pulling the hair of some girl
> he likes, because it's the only way she'll notice him.
> Maybe.
>
> :^)
How is my points not valied because I did not but an objective opinion up? The thing is I am like Tribute in that I am not a "I see the good points of the Gamecube but..." I am one sided and biased and there is NO WAY I AM GOING TO CHANGE THAT! The difference between me and tribute is that my points are well made even if they are wrong.
The thing is it is blatently my point of view as it says Dringo in nice purple lettering by the side. This is Dringo's post, Dringo's point of view.
Dringo says: It really was a revolution and a superior title to Mario 64!
Person x says: No it wasn't it lacked the depth and freshness of Mario 64.
Dringo: It was bound to lack freshness now matter how hard Nintendo tried but the feeling of vacation, the new mario feel was a fantastic new element that DID add depth.
AND SO ON...
It is very simple and the fact is most people I knew wrote like this, when the forums were interesting and not filled with political correctness.
How can you get off insulting my bloody work when I am studying the concept of objectivity at uni for the last year in English literature. Why should I bother represting other points of view if I know that those that have said point of view will make it in the post?
I did not say I offended to get attention, what I MEAN is that it would be a totally pointless posts if I was being objective. I felt after hearing Games TM and other publications, readers letters, posts, websites etc... insult Nintendo's recent track record that it was about time I put my 2 pence worth in and see if I can make an affect.
If you want I'll send you my English Essay where I wrote "in my opinion" in and the teacher crossed it out with the footnote "I know it is your opinion as you wrote the essay".
Dr Duck wrote:
> I'm sure you could spark a debate with a good quality post
Indeed.
> I'm sure you could spark a debate with a good quality post
Indeed.
Dringo wrote:
> Grrrr I've been doing this for year and everyone used to accept it, I
> write a one-sided report and people, offended by my point of view,
> argue it.
Is that really what you want though? Offend people to get attention?
I'm sure you could spark a debate with a good quality post, instead you act like some primary school kid, pulling the hair of some girl he likes, because it's the only way she'll notice him.
Maybe.
:^)
> Grrrr I've been doing this for year and everyone used to accept it, I
> write a one-sided report and people, offended by my point of view,
> argue it.
Is that really what you want though? Offend people to get attention?
I'm sure you could spark a debate with a good quality post, instead you act like some primary school kid, pulling the hair of some girl he likes, because it's the only way she'll notice him.
Maybe.
:^)
Strafex wrote:
> Back then they had "it".
> And they don't have that "it" now.
> So yes, they have "lost it".
Nintendo have never been able to blow us away everytime...
I mean lets face it Mario Kart 64 wasn't as good as Super Mario Kart, Paper Mario wasn't as good as Mario RPG and Pokemon stadium was awful.
But of course we ignore that and look at the likes of Mario 64 and Zelda... games that did blow us away.
> Back then they had "it".
> And they don't have that "it" now.
> So yes, they have "lost it".
Nintendo have never been able to blow us away everytime...
I mean lets face it Mario Kart 64 wasn't as good as Super Mario Kart, Paper Mario wasn't as good as Mario RPG and Pokemon stadium was awful.
But of course we ignore that and look at the likes of Mario 64 and Zelda... games that did blow us away.
Page: