The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 kept getting fed up when the levels got much bigger - not sure why as I absolutely loved the earlier stages.
But rushing around, collecting ship parts and rounding up Pikmin was what made the game so great. Who cares if you lose a few Pikmin, or don't get a ship part on time if you have as much time as you want to do it?
I also do not get the level design critic for Mario Sunshine. Granted this new idea of populating the area with residents is strange BUT there are loads of new platforming ideas such as scaling that cliff etc...
Rickoss wrote:
> Thanks to the lack of a time limit (which will most likely ruin the
> frantic gameplay which Pikmin had) and randomly generated levels, I'd
> put money on Pikmin 2 being a disappointment. I'll still get it, just
> to see how the new breeds play alone, but I hope I'm proved wrong
> because the first Pikmin was a classic.
No the Time limit is still there... just the daily one.
The frantic time limit of the day is still in place but the hurry is no longer there.
It is just an enjoyable free-roaming experience.
> Thanks to the lack of a time limit (which will most likely ruin the
> frantic gameplay which Pikmin had) and randomly generated levels, I'd
> put money on Pikmin 2 being a disappointment. I'll still get it, just
> to see how the new breeds play alone, but I hope I'm proved wrong
> because the first Pikmin was a classic.
No the Time limit is still there... just the daily one.
The frantic time limit of the day is still in place but the hurry is no longer there.
It is just an enjoyable free-roaming experience.
Ratchet & Clank attemted to merge other genres into platforming but didn't quite do it, and fell around the average mark - probably just above. Jak & Daxter had excellent level design, superb platforming elements, and the few new things it did bring (e.g. RPG sub-quests, hoverbike sections, etc) worked really well. The only problem with it was it's length and so it doesn't challenge Sunshine for the crown.
But it's the closest anything has come this generation.
But it's the closest anything has come this generation.
Jak & Daxter?!? Ratchet & Clank is great fun, and easily the best PS2 platformer, yet that doesn't live up to Mario Sunshine. Jak & Daxter is just crap.
Cooky wrote:
> Granted, Kudos to Nintendo for trying something new. But going that it
> wasn't a launch title, generally Mario Sunshine was a let down after
> Mario 64, which was pure gaming GOODNESS!
Yeah, I'll second that - while probably the pinnacle of next gen platforming (although if it was longer, Jak & Daxter would have given it a very serious run for it's money), the game is let down by a number of features including some surprisingly poor and uninspiring level design when you compare it to it's predecessors.
For me, the top three Mario games would be Super Mario World (SNES), Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES) and Super Mario 64 (NES). They're probably also the top three platformers of all time. I'm not sure how Mario Sunshine fits in, but you've still got to give it credit - it's a very good, if flawed, title.
> Granted, Kudos to Nintendo for trying something new. But going that it
> wasn't a launch title, generally Mario Sunshine was a let down after
> Mario 64, which was pure gaming GOODNESS!
Yeah, I'll second that - while probably the pinnacle of next gen platforming (although if it was longer, Jak & Daxter would have given it a very serious run for it's money), the game is let down by a number of features including some surprisingly poor and uninspiring level design when you compare it to it's predecessors.
For me, the top three Mario games would be Super Mario World (SNES), Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES) and Super Mario 64 (NES). They're probably also the top three platformers of all time. I'm not sure how Mario Sunshine fits in, but you've still got to give it credit - it's a very good, if flawed, title.
Dringo wrote:
> And I am a regular reader to Game TM as they are a great retro gaming
> mag. They just are pro-X-box and have a slight grudge against
> Nintendo as of late. Although not to start with.
They are a great retro mag. It could be argued that they have been critical of Nintendo recently (and rightly so in some points), although I'd disagree they have a grudge against them. But they are NOT pro-Xbox. You're alone on this one, and there's no evidence to suggest they are.
> And I am a regular reader to Game TM as they are a great retro gaming
> mag. They just are pro-X-box and have a slight grudge against
> Nintendo as of late. Although not to start with.
They are a great retro mag. It could be argued that they have been critical of Nintendo recently (and rightly so in some points), although I'd disagree they have a grudge against them. But they are NOT pro-Xbox. You're alone on this one, and there's no evidence to suggest they are.
40 hours at OOT on the main quest?
Riiight...
Riiight...
I still yearn for the epic, 40-hour quest that Shadowman or Ocarina of Time gave me. I'm not one to bother with crappy side-quests or bonus-modes. Nintendo, just give me a straight hardcore game for me to sink my teeth into!
Page: