The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Why? There's a difference between passing off opinion as fact and being an@l about wording.
It seems you're still missing the point. Oh well.
It seems you're still missing the point. Oh well.
Dringo wrote:
> Strafio wrote:
> Nintendo, Dr Duck, Dringo...
>
>
> You've ALL lost it! :-P
>
> No I haven't.
>
> Sorry sorry.
>
> In my opinion I haven't.
As Edgy would say (in his own opinion) Dr. Duck has just been Boosh Checkmated!
> Strafio wrote:
> Nintendo, Dr Duck, Dringo...
>
>
> You've ALL lost it! :-P
>
> No I haven't.
>
> Sorry sorry.
>
> In my opinion I haven't.
As Edgy would say (in his own opinion) Dr. Duck has just been Boosh Checkmated!
Strafio wrote:
> Nintendo, Dr Duck, Dringo...
>
>
> You've ALL lost it! :-P
No I haven't.
Sorry sorry.
In my opinion I haven't.
> Nintendo, Dr Duck, Dringo...
>
>
> You've ALL lost it! :-P
No I haven't.
Sorry sorry.
In my opinion I haven't.
Lol
Nintendo, Dr Duck, Dringo...
You've ALL lost it! :-P
You've ALL lost it! :-P
Dringo wrote:
> Now go over to Cube-Europe and read their articles.
>
> Now Nintendojo.
>
> Now read an article in a gaming magazine.
No, I can't be ashed. From my experience of cube europe and games mags (I've not read much on nintendojo), I have to disagree - I don't think they write in anything like your style.
However you now seem to understand what I was saying, and if you're really happy to continue like that then fair enough.
> But of course we get these odd schools of people who pick up
> on style, who pick up on pointless content, grammatical errors. And
> they have totally ruined what the post was all about.
Lol :^D
Though while it may be off-topic, this discussion didn't seem to stop people posting about the original issue, and while nitpicking over gramma may be pointless and pedantic, I don't think this was. Or at least no more so than anything else in the forums...
> Now go over to Cube-Europe and read their articles.
>
> Now Nintendojo.
>
> Now read an article in a gaming magazine.
No, I can't be ashed. From my experience of cube europe and games mags (I've not read much on nintendojo), I have to disagree - I don't think they write in anything like your style.
However you now seem to understand what I was saying, and if you're really happy to continue like that then fair enough.
> But of course we get these odd schools of people who pick up
> on style, who pick up on pointless content, grammatical errors. And
> they have totally ruined what the post was all about.
Lol :^D
Though while it may be off-topic, this discussion didn't seem to stop people posting about the original issue, and while nitpicking over gramma may be pointless and pedantic, I don't think this was. Or at least no more so than anything else in the forums...
Read the post again Dr. Duck.
Now go over to Cube-Europe and read their articles.
Now Nintendojo.
Now read an article in a gaming magazine.
I think you'll agree they are very similar in style, they all sound like their opinion is the opinion and it does seem like the only answer.
I don't write to lure people, that just happens. I can't lure people into reading my posts, I can encourage a response but I can't via some clever title or interesting intoduction encourage people to read.
It isn't that easy.
The fact is I have been here 3 years now. Too long undoubtably. But it means that my name alone is a reason why some people read my posts, er-no, Rickoss, Strafex (or whatever he is called now), Tiltawhirl. They see my posts and read it based on the name. If they didn't like my posts then the name would have the opposite effect. Edgy states these posts bring life the forums, Turbonutter used to read my posts all the time based on the fact they were "fun".
To say the post is arrogant I was surprised. Read it again and I found that there was no reason to be surprised, it sounds like I really believe what I am writting.
There are also other things to look out for. For starters I clearly state at the start a magazine that doesn't share my view. So already I've pointed out that there isn't just one point of view. I then go and point out the other schools of criticism. I then say they are wrong and begin to write my own P.O.V.
Either people read it and go "actually that's a good point" which is actually my real goal. Or they read it and (Tilt in particular) will go "What's Dringo on about" and argue the point. But of course we get these odd schools of people who pick up on style, who pick up on pointless content, grammatical errors. And they have totally ruined what the post was all about.
Now go over to Cube-Europe and read their articles.
Now Nintendojo.
Now read an article in a gaming magazine.
I think you'll agree they are very similar in style, they all sound like their opinion is the opinion and it does seem like the only answer.
I don't write to lure people, that just happens. I can't lure people into reading my posts, I can encourage a response but I can't via some clever title or interesting intoduction encourage people to read.
It isn't that easy.
The fact is I have been here 3 years now. Too long undoubtably. But it means that my name alone is a reason why some people read my posts, er-no, Rickoss, Strafex (or whatever he is called now), Tiltawhirl. They see my posts and read it based on the name. If they didn't like my posts then the name would have the opposite effect. Edgy states these posts bring life the forums, Turbonutter used to read my posts all the time based on the fact they were "fun".
To say the post is arrogant I was surprised. Read it again and I found that there was no reason to be surprised, it sounds like I really believe what I am writting.
There are also other things to look out for. For starters I clearly state at the start a magazine that doesn't share my view. So already I've pointed out that there isn't just one point of view. I then go and point out the other schools of criticism. I then say they are wrong and begin to write my own P.O.V.
Either people read it and go "actually that's a good point" which is actually my real goal. Or they read it and (Tilt in particular) will go "What's Dringo on about" and argue the point. But of course we get these odd schools of people who pick up on style, who pick up on pointless content, grammatical errors. And they have totally ruined what the post was all about.
Dringo wrote:
> But the fact that it is one-sided is not a fault. The fact that i've
> said it with conviction is not a fault.
Nobody said it was.
And I know you know the difference between fact and opinion - most people don't get out of primary school without knowing that, let alone a 'mensa candidate' like youself.
But despite this, you still present opinion as fact and treat other peoples' opinions as 'wrong'. (Despite knowing better yourself).
Which makes your posts come off as arrogant and insulting, and is done to lure responses.
You can make one sided posts with conviction and not lower youself to this. As the original point stated (if memory serves), you're capable of better.
Whether you want to aim higher or not is, of course, up to you.
Hopefully that's now clear, about what I was saying.
Whether you care or not is your choice. Just don't get too uptight. A bit of criticism of your writing style isn't a personal attack.
> But the fact that it is one-sided is not a fault. The fact that i've
> said it with conviction is not a fault.
Nobody said it was.
And I know you know the difference between fact and opinion - most people don't get out of primary school without knowing that, let alone a 'mensa candidate' like youself.
But despite this, you still present opinion as fact and treat other peoples' opinions as 'wrong'. (Despite knowing better yourself).
Which makes your posts come off as arrogant and insulting, and is done to lure responses.
You can make one sided posts with conviction and not lower youself to this. As the original point stated (if memory serves), you're capable of better.
Whether you want to aim higher or not is, of course, up to you.
Hopefully that's now clear, about what I was saying.
Whether you care or not is your choice. Just don't get too uptight. A bit of criticism of your writing style isn't a personal attack.
I agree my posts often lose the plot. This one in particular was writen at 3 different times and changed direction 5 times so the meaning is almost lost.
But the fact that it is one-sided is not a fault. The fact that i've said it with conviction is not a fault.
But a style.
Live with it.
But the fact that it is one-sided is not a fault. The fact that i've said it with conviction is not a fault.
But a style.
Live with it.
Dringo wrote:
> It is a deliberate character. I know my posts aren't perfect I know
> they have some major problems.
Fffttt. If you agree about your problems why have we spend however many posts arguing about it ¦^D
> It is a deliberate character. I know my posts aren't perfect I know
> they have some major problems.
Fffttt. If you agree about your problems why have we spend however many posts arguing about it ¦^D
Page: