The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Edgy wrote:
> Dringo is merely stating his own beliefs, not denying you of your
> own.
There is however a difference between opinions and facts, and to present your opinions as facts, and dismiss other peoples' opinions as wrong, goes beyond stating his own beliefs and does deny other people their own.
> Dringo is merely stating his own beliefs, not denying you of your
> own.
There is however a difference between opinions and facts, and to present your opinions as facts, and dismiss other peoples' opinions as wrong, goes beyond stating his own beliefs and does deny other people their own.
Note, I meant to say, "A small minority of Muslims"
He's hardly being offensive. I wouldn't be offended by that.
I would react if I was of a different viewpoint.
But it is hardly insulting or offensive.
He's saying it how he sees it, intentionally to get a response, but not intentionally to insult.
Or are we now saying that it is offensive to have a different opinion or belief?
Just like what I have read in local papers about Muslims saying the Britian should stop selling Hot Cross Buns and shouldn't send Christmas Cards or have Christmas Decorations.
That's insulting. Its telling us we shouldn't have our own beliefs.
Dringo is merely stating his own beliefs, not denying you of your own.
I would react if I was of a different viewpoint.
But it is hardly insulting or offensive.
He's saying it how he sees it, intentionally to get a response, but not intentionally to insult.
Or are we now saying that it is offensive to have a different opinion or belief?
Just like what I have read in local papers about Muslims saying the Britian should stop selling Hot Cross Buns and shouldn't send Christmas Cards or have Christmas Decorations.
That's insulting. Its telling us we shouldn't have our own beliefs.
Dringo is merely stating his own beliefs, not denying you of your own.
Edgy wrote:
> I would like to see some examples from those who are accusing Dringo
> as being insultive in stating his points.
Earlier in this thread:
Dr Duck wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> 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.
>
> Yes. Your opinion is right and everyone elses' opinions are wrong.
> Have a rosette.
>
>
> 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
>
> Yes. Your opinion is...
Maybe you're working with a different definition of 'insulting'. But the point is that he intentionally and excessively berrates and belittles peoples' opinions.
Even Dringo admits to doing it, I assume thats enough for you.
> I would like to see some examples from those who are accusing Dringo
> as being insultive in stating his points.
Earlier in this thread:
Dr Duck wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> 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.
>
> Yes. Your opinion is right and everyone elses' opinions are wrong.
> Have a rosette.
>
>
> 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
>
> Yes. Your opinion is...
Maybe you're working with a different definition of 'insulting'. But the point is that he intentionally and excessively berrates and belittles peoples' opinions.
Even Dringo admits to doing it, I assume thats enough for you.
I would like to see some examples from those who are accusing Dringo as being insultive in stating his points.
The reason being, I have just re-read the majority of this topic and haven't found a single offensive post.
The reason being, I have just re-read the majority of this topic and haven't found a single offensive post.
Heh.
Dr.Duck: ``Psychologist and People-Person´´
Sorry! ;D
Dr.Duck: ``Psychologist and People-Person´´
Sorry! ;D
Dringo wrote:
> Ah no you are mis-reading it. .... you aren't supposed to be
> 'offended' by my opinion but motivated to react to it. I didn't
> offend to get a response, I offended because I am honest.
So what is it? Do you do it so people are 'motivated to react to it' or not?
I don't think there's much mis-reading going on here. To me it sounds like you do offend to get a response, at least partly, but don't like to admit it.
Sure, you've won 25 games, and it does work, offending people does get your response (hell, even I'm still here :^D ). But your unwillingness to accept it suggests to me that you're not really happy about doing it.
> Ah no you are mis-reading it. .... you aren't supposed to be
> 'offended' by my opinion but motivated to react to it. I didn't
> offend to get a response, I offended because I am honest.
So what is it? Do you do it so people are 'motivated to react to it' or not?
I don't think there's much mis-reading going on here. To me it sounds like you do offend to get a response, at least partly, but don't like to admit it.
Sure, you've won 25 games, and it does work, offending people does get your response (hell, even I'm still here :^D ). But your unwillingness to accept it suggests to me that you're not really happy about doing it.
Dr Duck wrote:
> (Going back about 3 pages, as I’ve not been able to get to a
> computer)
>
> 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.”
>
> Then a couple of days later Dringo wrote:
> >“I did not say I offended to get attention…”
Ah no you are mis-reading it. I wrote my opinion, the job is thusly to agree, alter of reject it in your own debate continuing the thread. Offended was a harsh word, you aren't supposed to be 'offended' by my opinion but motivated to react to it. I didn't offend to get a response, I offended because I am honest. I am not going to put points of view forwards I do not agree with, I am not going to be objective when I am not, I am not going to say this is my opinion when you, Edgy, Rickoss and even Dr. Who can see quite obviously it is no matter how factual I make it seem.
> Fine, you’re welcome to your opinion. But insulting people to get
> attention (as you sometimes admit to) and writing up your opinion as
> solid irrefutable fact (which is very different to simply not
> brown-nosing the other side of the argument) just seems like
> incredibly poor form from someone who has so much potential to do
> better.
I've won 25 games for my emotive and agressive posts.
> (Going back about 3 pages, as I’ve not been able to get to a
> computer)
>
> 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.”
>
> Then a couple of days later Dringo wrote:
> >“I did not say I offended to get attention…”
Ah no you are mis-reading it. I wrote my opinion, the job is thusly to agree, alter of reject it in your own debate continuing the thread. Offended was a harsh word, you aren't supposed to be 'offended' by my opinion but motivated to react to it. I didn't offend to get a response, I offended because I am honest. I am not going to put points of view forwards I do not agree with, I am not going to be objective when I am not, I am not going to say this is my opinion when you, Edgy, Rickoss and even Dr. Who can see quite obviously it is no matter how factual I make it seem.
> Fine, you’re welcome to your opinion. But insulting people to get
> attention (as you sometimes admit to) and writing up your opinion as
> solid irrefutable fact (which is very different to simply not
> brown-nosing the other side of the argument) just seems like
> incredibly poor form from someone who has so much potential to do
> better.
I've won 25 games for my emotive and agressive posts.
I wouldn't go as far to say Metroid Prime is like KOTOR, but I don't enjoy it as much as other games.
'That Man' wrote:
> Well there you go.
> Now don't let me see personal insults again just because I have a
> different opinion than someone else (I'm looking at you Cyclone).
> And don't you accuse me of being crap either, Rickoss.
It wasn't a personal insult, I was just generalising on people who need some kind of hideously obvious gratification which has no subtlety to it.
I like that, but also this.
> Well there you go.
> Now don't let me see personal insults again just because I have a
> different opinion than someone else (I'm looking at you Cyclone).
> And don't you accuse me of being crap either, Rickoss.
It wasn't a personal insult, I was just generalising on people who need some kind of hideously obvious gratification which has no subtlety to it.
I like that, but also this.
Page: