The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
It's a little much to expect a 'best game ever' every time a mario is released.
They told us this wasn't going to be one, and they released an excellent game - just not a perfect one.
It was worth £40 new and it's worth £20 now. They tried something new and still produced a great game, all they aimed to achieve and all anyone could expect. Isn't that enough?
They told us this wasn't going to be one, and they released an excellent game - just not a perfect one.
It was worth £40 new and it's worth £20 now. They tried something new and still produced a great game, all they aimed to achieve and all anyone could expect. Isn't that enough?
leflus wrote:
> But this was not the real sequel to Mario 64 but merely a game to
> keep us going to the next real Mario game.
So? Why does having an excuse make it any better? If the game had have been released to widespread acclaim as a Mario 64 beater, the little get out clause would have been quickly forgotten.
> But this was not the real sequel to Mario 64 but merely a game to
> keep us going to the next real Mario game.
So? Why does having an excuse make it any better? If the game had have been released to widespread acclaim as a Mario 64 beater, the little get out clause would have been quickly forgotten.
I have to admit I still consider Mario 64 a much better game than Mario Sunshine - I would have been happy with a similar game with the classic "Bowser has captured Peach and has hidden her in his castle" kinda thing.
Sunshine was still good though, and in many respects an improvement on Mario 64 - but I still know which I prefer.
Sunshine was still good though, and in many respects an improvement on Mario 64 - but I still know which I prefer.
leflus wrote:
> I agree with your points.
> Mario 64 gave me much much more than I had expected from a game.
> Super Mario sunshine did not give me the same feeling as M64 gave
> me.
> But this was not the real sequel to Mario 64 but merely a game to
> keep us going to the next real Mario game.
True, but Nintendo are taking their time with it!
A bit toooo long I'd say. Mario was one of their hottest properties, but he is starting to let ppl down. Not having a proper sequel, and only a 'par' game to keep us going, isn't doing Nintendo any favours.
Even the GBA isn't helping matters really. Re-releasing old games, most people have already got!?! Where's the new Mario games???
I admit it must be nice for the people new to the world of Nintendo to sample these delights. But what about the rest of the gaming public!?!
Like Nintendo's carry on with this Zelda disk:-
"Buy a GameCube now and get the FREE disk!"
or
"Spend over £700 on Nintendo games and you can also get this FREE disk if you were a loyal customer and bought your GameCube yrs ago!"
Nintendo seem more interested in enticing new customers to their products rather than keeping the people who own them happy!
I admit in a business sence it's good to get people on board to your console, but you've also got to keep the people who have one happy!
:)
> I agree with your points.
> Mario 64 gave me much much more than I had expected from a game.
> Super Mario sunshine did not give me the same feeling as M64 gave
> me.
> But this was not the real sequel to Mario 64 but merely a game to
> keep us going to the next real Mario game.
True, but Nintendo are taking their time with it!
A bit toooo long I'd say. Mario was one of their hottest properties, but he is starting to let ppl down. Not having a proper sequel, and only a 'par' game to keep us going, isn't doing Nintendo any favours.
Even the GBA isn't helping matters really. Re-releasing old games, most people have already got!?! Where's the new Mario games???
I admit it must be nice for the people new to the world of Nintendo to sample these delights. But what about the rest of the gaming public!?!
Like Nintendo's carry on with this Zelda disk:-
"Buy a GameCube now and get the FREE disk!"
or
"Spend over £700 on Nintendo games and you can also get this FREE disk if you were a loyal customer and bought your GameCube yrs ago!"
Nintendo seem more interested in enticing new customers to their products rather than keeping the people who own them happy!
I admit in a business sence it's good to get people on board to your console, but you've also got to keep the people who have one happy!
:)
Cooky wrote:
> I'd have to disagree with the Mario 64, Mario Sunshine statement!
>
> Mario 64 is still far superior in many respects.
>
> Exploring the castle to find the levels. Far more 'Mario' and
> interesting than searching some annoying Caribean island!
>
> Music! Mario 64's was SUPERB! Sunshines was iffy!
>
> Camera! Mario 64's was top-notch! Sunshines was a fiddly pain in the
> b@ckside!
>
> Levels! Mario 64's were varied, interesting, *enticing*! Sunshines
> were samey, some boring, NOT enticing!
>
> Graphics! Mario 64's were great for the time, but I admit Sunshine
> does to rather tasty. But what do you expect? It's on a console
> helluva lot more powerful!
>
> As for the fludd! BAA! Stupid thing. As an off-shot it was a novel
> idea! But that's what it should have been. It should have been a
> bonus, used for certain levels. Wasn't the good ol' traditional
> Mario game everyone was wanting because of it. Granded, 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!
>
I agree with your points.
Mario 64 gave me much much more than I had expected from a game.
Super Mario sunshine did not give me the same feeling as M64 gave me.
But this was not the real sequel to Mario 64 but merely a game to keep us going to the next real Mario game.
> I'd have to disagree with the Mario 64, Mario Sunshine statement!
>
> Mario 64 is still far superior in many respects.
>
> Exploring the castle to find the levels. Far more 'Mario' and
> interesting than searching some annoying Caribean island!
>
> Music! Mario 64's was SUPERB! Sunshines was iffy!
>
> Camera! Mario 64's was top-notch! Sunshines was a fiddly pain in the
> b@ckside!
>
> Levels! Mario 64's were varied, interesting, *enticing*! Sunshines
> were samey, some boring, NOT enticing!
>
> Graphics! Mario 64's were great for the time, but I admit Sunshine
> does to rather tasty. But what do you expect? It's on a console
> helluva lot more powerful!
>
> As for the fludd! BAA! Stupid thing. As an off-shot it was a novel
> idea! But that's what it should have been. It should have been a
> bonus, used for certain levels. Wasn't the good ol' traditional
> Mario game everyone was wanting because of it. Granded, 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!
>
I agree with your points.
Mario 64 gave me much much more than I had expected from a game.
Super Mario sunshine did not give me the same feeling as M64 gave me.
But this was not the real sequel to Mario 64 but merely a game to keep us going to the next real Mario game.
I'd have to disagree with the Mario 64, Mario Sunshine statement!
Mario 64 is still far superior in many respects.
Exploring the castle to find the levels. Far more 'Mario' and interesting than searching some annoying Caribean island!
Music! Mario 64's was SUPERB! Sunshines was iffy!
Camera! Mario 64's was top-notch! Sunshines was a fiddly pain in the b@ckside!
Levels! Mario 64's were varied, interesting, *enticing*! Sunshines were samey, some boring, NOT enticing!
Graphics! Mario 64's were great for the time, but I admit Sunshine does to rather tasty. But what do you expect? It's on a console helluva lot more powerful!
As for the fludd! BAA! Stupid thing. As an off-shot it was a novel idea! But that's what it should have been. It should have been a bonus, used for certain levels. Wasn't the good ol' traditional Mario game everyone was wanting because of it. Granded, 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!
:D
Mario 64 is still far superior in many respects.
Exploring the castle to find the levels. Far more 'Mario' and interesting than searching some annoying Caribean island!
Music! Mario 64's was SUPERB! Sunshines was iffy!
Camera! Mario 64's was top-notch! Sunshines was a fiddly pain in the b@ckside!
Levels! Mario 64's were varied, interesting, *enticing*! Sunshines were samey, some boring, NOT enticing!
Graphics! Mario 64's were great for the time, but I admit Sunshine does to rather tasty. But what do you expect? It's on a console helluva lot more powerful!
As for the fludd! BAA! Stupid thing. As an off-shot it was a novel idea! But that's what it should have been. It should have been a bonus, used for certain levels. Wasn't the good ol' traditional Mario game everyone was wanting because of it. Granded, 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!
:D
The time limits shortened Pikmin, but did make it quite funny when you frantically ran about yelling and looking for the litle blighters.
*sniff*
Poor little beggarsm, especially when they get munched. Hehe
*sniff*
Poor little beggarsm, especially when they get munched. Hehe
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.
Maverick42 wrote:
> AliBoy wrote:
> For me Nintendo havn't lost it. **Notice the me = my personal view**
>
> Note this Dringo.
>
> You were writing your opinions as if they were fact, which is a poor
> way to structure such an article. I disagreed with many of your
> proclaimed facts and blunt statements.
Same goes to you.
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.
You see for me Nintendo's lead franchises' still have that essence of fun that exists in all Nintendo games. Zelda still drew me into an amazing addictive adventure. Sunshine still had a fantastically addictive platforming control system and was a perfect example of it's genre. MArio Kart was still fast, frantic and highly good fun. And they all included new features, some may see them as gimicks, that made them even better.
Pikmin is the prime example of a new franchise from Nintendo that reeked new, fresh and fun but we were so busy moaning about the time limit we've seemingly forgot how amazing that game was. It is the only game I still sometimes go back to play. Pikmin 2 will give us something to talk about.
Indeed.
> AliBoy wrote:
> For me Nintendo havn't lost it. **Notice the me = my personal view**
>
> Note this Dringo.
>
> You were writing your opinions as if they were fact, which is a poor
> way to structure such an article. I disagreed with many of your
> proclaimed facts and blunt statements.
Same goes to you.
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.
You see for me Nintendo's lead franchises' still have that essence of fun that exists in all Nintendo games. Zelda still drew me into an amazing addictive adventure. Sunshine still had a fantastically addictive platforming control system and was a perfect example of it's genre. MArio Kart was still fast, frantic and highly good fun. And they all included new features, some may see them as gimicks, that made them even better.
Pikmin is the prime example of a new franchise from Nintendo that reeked new, fresh and fun but we were so busy moaning about the time limit we've seemingly forgot how amazing that game was. It is the only game I still sometimes go back to play. Pikmin 2 will give us something to talk about.
Indeed.
Dr Duck wrote:
>
> Otherwise, a very good post. But despite trying to present personal
> opinion as fact, however much you explain your opinion, it's still
> just an opinion.
It is called a debate my friend, I was giving an objective view point. If I thought it was fact and not up to discussion I wouldn't of posted it on a forum.
>
> Otherwise, a very good post. But despite trying to present personal
> opinion as fact, however much you explain your opinion, it's still
> just an opinion.
It is called a debate my friend, I was giving an objective view point. If I thought it was fact and not up to discussion I wouldn't of posted it on a forum.
Page: