The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
> 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.
You make an interesting point, but many of your arguments are shallow. You start of talking about gamesTM - saying that they criticised everything the GameCube had to offer, were pro-Xbox and went on about what Nintendo "used to be about". You couldn't be more wrong. Evidently, you've just picked up the latest copy and were upset at the 8/10 Double Dash score.
I'm someone who's been buying the magazine since issue one, and they certainly do not criticise the GameCube. When the GameCube was doing poorly sales wise, they pointed it out, adding that it was an upsetting trend for such a worthy console. Metroid Prime is the only game to score a perfect ten in the magazine and they even devoted Issue 05 to Nintendo's greatness within the industry.
Honestly, it's as if you just made those comments up out of nowhere - there's no evidence to back them up. But I digress, it's just that I find gamesTM an excellent magazine and unfounded criticisms are unacceptable.
Anyway.. where was I? Ah yes. It's a good article, but you let your opinion sway it too much. You must remember that there are people out there who find certain sequels to be bettered by their predecessors - me included. I genuinely belive Super Mario Kart is better than Double Dash!!, Super Mario World/Super Mario Bros. 3/Super Mario 64 are better than Mario Sunshine and Grand Theft Auto 3 is better than Vice City.
I don't think Nintendo have lost it either - but the ratio of original games to sequels has fallen since the glory days of the SNES. And that's statistically a fact. But is originality and innovation so important? It is, but as long as I enjoy a game, I'm fine. Room for completely new stand-alone titles is still there, but there's even more oppurtunity for innovation in sequels to ageing franchises (e.g. two people per kart in Double Dash) and that's usually good enough for me.
I'm someone who's been buying the magazine since issue one, and they certainly do not criticise the GameCube. When the GameCube was doing poorly sales wise, they pointed it out, adding that it was an upsetting trend for such a worthy console. Metroid Prime is the only game to score a perfect ten in the magazine and they even devoted Issue 05 to Nintendo's greatness within the industry.
Honestly, it's as if you just made those comments up out of nowhere - there's no evidence to back them up. But I digress, it's just that I find gamesTM an excellent magazine and unfounded criticisms are unacceptable.
Anyway.. where was I? Ah yes. It's a good article, but you let your opinion sway it too much. You must remember that there are people out there who find certain sequels to be bettered by their predecessors - me included. I genuinely belive Super Mario Kart is better than Double Dash!!, Super Mario World/Super Mario Bros. 3/Super Mario 64 are better than Mario Sunshine and Grand Theft Auto 3 is better than Vice City.
I don't think Nintendo have lost it either - but the ratio of original games to sequels has fallen since the glory days of the SNES. And that's statistically a fact. But is originality and innovation so important? It is, but as long as I enjoy a game, I'm fine. Room for completely new stand-alone titles is still there, but there's even more oppurtunity for innovation in sequels to ageing franchises (e.g. two people per kart in Double Dash) and that's usually good enough for me.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> Totoro wrote:
> Although I still play plenty of games, I think part of this issue is
> a bit broader (on a personal level for me anyway); are games losing
> it?
>
> I'd say no. Reciently we've been graced with PGR2, Call of Duty,
> Prince of Persa, Homeworld 2 and Top Spin Tennis - to name but five
> that spring to mind. All are great games, all have demanded plenty
> of playing time, none have been made by Nintendo.
Great games have always been made - my PC has had some very un-Nintendo games that are better than a lot that company has published. Except for OOT and MP of course :)
> 1080 is making it's way here from an American retailer and I have
> everything crossed. The original was one of my favourite N64 games
> and I'd love this to be even half as good. Then we get Harvest Moon
> in January. These two games have a lot to make up for in my mind.
1080 is apparently very good albeit short. Harvest Moon is nothing to do with Nintendo except it's exclusive on GC. And it shalt be the bestest game ever...for that month anyway. It'll be great fun.
> Totoro wrote:
> Although I still play plenty of games, I think part of this issue is
> a bit broader (on a personal level for me anyway); are games losing
> it?
>
> I'd say no. Reciently we've been graced with PGR2, Call of Duty,
> Prince of Persa, Homeworld 2 and Top Spin Tennis - to name but five
> that spring to mind. All are great games, all have demanded plenty
> of playing time, none have been made by Nintendo.
Great games have always been made - my PC has had some very un-Nintendo games that are better than a lot that company has published. Except for OOT and MP of course :)
> 1080 is making it's way here from an American retailer and I have
> everything crossed. The original was one of my favourite N64 games
> and I'd love this to be even half as good. Then we get Harvest Moon
> in January. These two games have a lot to make up for in my mind.
1080 is apparently very good albeit short. Harvest Moon is nothing to do with Nintendo except it's exclusive on GC. And it shalt be the bestest game ever...for that month anyway. It'll be great fun.
Does that mean that one day we will all have seen everything that video games have to offer and we'll just lose interest in them?
Hrmm...Seems kinda likely to me
I think this is one things Nintendo tries to overcome, and does so very well, but maybe the demand for sequels maybe stops them in their tracks. Once something revolutionary is done (Mario 64 being a great example), it's very hard to better it. Something new can be added to the genre (FLUDD for example), and at first, maybe it does seem great and adds a lot, but it quickly loses the novelty, and then people start to reminisce about the old Mario, no FLUDD, 'it was so much better' etc... 2D to 3D was such a big leap for every genre, which meant back then (Playstation, N64 days) it maybe seemed that there were many more classics.
I remember how exciting is was to play something like Goldeneye for the first time, which was, back in it's time, original. But then techonology evolved, and everything could be bettered. But better technology doesn't mean a better game. The core is still the same, it's just flashier and easier on the eyes.
Perhaps games are just passed their heydey. Almost everything had been tried, tested and bettered. The old rinse and repeat formula seems to apply to most games now. Unless games start to do something more revolutionary, maybe the quality of games or perhaps the popularity of games will dwindle.
Anyway, for the time being, as long as old classics such as Mario Kart and Zelda continue to take a new direction (Cel Shaded graphics helped to bring something original to a series that was potentially going to lose it's greatness) then I'm sure I'll love playing them for a long time to come. But maybe, they'll never be as great as they used to be.
Hrmm...Seems kinda likely to me
I think this is one things Nintendo tries to overcome, and does so very well, but maybe the demand for sequels maybe stops them in their tracks. Once something revolutionary is done (Mario 64 being a great example), it's very hard to better it. Something new can be added to the genre (FLUDD for example), and at first, maybe it does seem great and adds a lot, but it quickly loses the novelty, and then people start to reminisce about the old Mario, no FLUDD, 'it was so much better' etc... 2D to 3D was such a big leap for every genre, which meant back then (Playstation, N64 days) it maybe seemed that there were many more classics.
I remember how exciting is was to play something like Goldeneye for the first time, which was, back in it's time, original. But then techonology evolved, and everything could be bettered. But better technology doesn't mean a better game. The core is still the same, it's just flashier and easier on the eyes.
Perhaps games are just passed their heydey. Almost everything had been tried, tested and bettered. The old rinse and repeat formula seems to apply to most games now. Unless games start to do something more revolutionary, maybe the quality of games or perhaps the popularity of games will dwindle.
Anyway, for the time being, as long as old classics such as Mario Kart and Zelda continue to take a new direction (Cel Shaded graphics helped to bring something original to a series that was potentially going to lose it's greatness) then I'm sure I'll love playing them for a long time to come. But maybe, they'll never be as great as they used to be.
Gonzo, you mentioned the Neo Geo Pocket, do you have one? I'm wanting to buy one and wondered what games to look out for.
Sorry dringo for going off topic.
Sorry dringo for going off topic.
Totoro wrote:
> Although I still play plenty of games, I think part of this issue is
> a bit broader (on a personal level for me anyway); are games losing
> it?
I'd say no. Reciently we've been graced with PGR2, Call of Duty, Prince of Persa, Homeworld 2 and Top Spin Tennis - to name but five that spring to mind. All are great games, all have demanded plenty of playing time, none have been made by Nintendo.
1080 is making it's way here from an American retailer and I have everything crossed. The original was one of my favourite N64 games and I'd love this to be even half as good. Then we get Harvest Moon in January. These two games have a lot to make up for in my mind.
> Although I still play plenty of games, I think part of this issue is
> a bit broader (on a personal level for me anyway); are games losing
> it?
I'd say no. Reciently we've been graced with PGR2, Call of Duty, Prince of Persa, Homeworld 2 and Top Spin Tennis - to name but five that spring to mind. All are great games, all have demanded plenty of playing time, none have been made by Nintendo.
1080 is making it's way here from an American retailer and I have everything crossed. The original was one of my favourite N64 games and I'd love this to be even half as good. Then we get Harvest Moon in January. These two games have a lot to make up for in my mind.
Well if Nintendo have lost it, then the other games companies are worse than I thought to be honest.
True, Nintendo haven't made a true classic like they have done for years yet on Cube, but the games they do have out are brilliant. They are better *games* (not revolutions/innovations) than their predecessors - Nintendo seem to be sticking to safer ground, which perhaps is the change - they never have done it before - normally the just innovate rather than emulate their previous successes.
Tis a shame, but the games are better than practicly all other games out about now. I think anyway.
True, Nintendo haven't made a true classic like they have done for years yet on Cube, but the games they do have out are brilliant. They are better *games* (not revolutions/innovations) than their predecessors - Nintendo seem to be sticking to safer ground, which perhaps is the change - they never have done it before - normally the just innovate rather than emulate their previous successes.
Tis a shame, but the games are better than practicly all other games out about now. I think anyway.
I spent at least a week of my life on both Gran Turismo 2 and Killer Instinct. Good times.
Totoro said it best. Video games in my opinion peaked in brilliance the month that MSR and JSR were released. At that point in time we had on the N64 the greatest FPS ever, Goldeneye; adventure game, Zelda OOT; Dreamcast had the best racer, MSR; the best not in a category game, JSR; PS had the best RPG (well not in my opinion but many loved them) Final Fantasy.
There were also so many other brilliant games, Mario Kart, Super Mario 64, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Sega Rally... So many legendary games.
Now, several years on, most games released are technically better. Better graphics, better sound etc. But because we have seen it all before, it isn't legendary. It's too dificult to better all these legends convincingly. That is why people think Nintendo or whoever else are losing it. There is little left to do now.
There were also so many other brilliant games, Mario Kart, Super Mario 64, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Sega Rally... So many legendary games.
Now, several years on, most games released are technically better. Better graphics, better sound etc. But because we have seen it all before, it isn't legendary. It's too dificult to better all these legends convincingly. That is why people think Nintendo or whoever else are losing it. There is little left to do now.
Nintendo haven't 'Lost it', so to speak, but it's lost something. Playing through those FLUDD-excluded levels on Sunshine proved what a brilliant game Mario Sunshine could have been, instead it was just great. FLUDD may have added depth, but the cons outwiegh the pros easily; trying to navigate tricky platforms was made pointless, instead of having to use all of Mario's abilities to progress, you could just use that stupid water-pack to float over everything that was tricky or challenging. An evolution, yes, but not for the best.
As for Zelda, it is great, but Majora's Mask and Ocarina of Time are easily better. It just didn't feel like Zelda. The introduction of a boat, new weapons and cel-shaded graphics was a great idea, but playing either of the N64 smashes, you realise how inferior it is, even though it is one of the best GameCube titles to date.
As for Mario Kart, well it's quite simply sublime. People moaning about graphics, sound and battle don't know what they're on about; sure, each of these aspects are lacking, but that's not what Mario Kart is about. Plug in four controllers, get on Luigi Circuit and have a good time. Nothing can compare. No, not Mario 64 and no, not Super Mario Kart. I love these titles just as much as the next man, but that doesn't hide the fact that Double Dash is better, no matter how disappoining it may seem at first.
People are looking into this too much; a few titles may not live up to the originals, but who cares when some, like Double Dash, do? Nintendo can't constantly better themselves, but when they do it really is something special. Mario Kart: DD and Metroid Prime both prove that; a change in direction for both series' (more so for Metroi), but a step in the right direction. A few steps, in fact.
As for Zelda, it is great, but Majora's Mask and Ocarina of Time are easily better. It just didn't feel like Zelda. The introduction of a boat, new weapons and cel-shaded graphics was a great idea, but playing either of the N64 smashes, you realise how inferior it is, even though it is one of the best GameCube titles to date.
As for Mario Kart, well it's quite simply sublime. People moaning about graphics, sound and battle don't know what they're on about; sure, each of these aspects are lacking, but that's not what Mario Kart is about. Plug in four controllers, get on Luigi Circuit and have a good time. Nothing can compare. No, not Mario 64 and no, not Super Mario Kart. I love these titles just as much as the next man, but that doesn't hide the fact that Double Dash is better, no matter how disappoining it may seem at first.
People are looking into this too much; a few titles may not live up to the originals, but who cares when some, like Double Dash, do? Nintendo can't constantly better themselves, but when they do it really is something special. Mario Kart: DD and Metroid Prime both prove that; a change in direction for both series' (more so for Metroi), but a step in the right direction. A few steps, in fact.
Page: