The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Strafex wrote:
>>
> I can't argue against Metroid (not having played it yet
>
> Metroid Prime I've not played,
>
>
*ignores comment about half-price games*
And you HAVE an opinion?
*loads gun*
:D
>>
> I can't argue against Metroid (not having played it yet
>
> Metroid Prime I've not played,
>
>
*ignores comment about half-price games*
And you HAVE an opinion?
*loads gun*
:D
Dringo wrote:
> BUT saying Nintendo have removed the epic games from their catalogue
> is just false. I mean granted to start with Nintendo were on troubled
> grounds with games that were short of multiplayer titles. But that is
> not the case now, Metroid Prime was an epic, Mario Sunshine WAS an
> epic and so was Wind Waker. Wind Waker in particular has the right to
> be there next to the other Zelda titles, sure it had its faults but
> it still had its epics.
I can't argue against Metroid (not having played it yet), but Nintendo merely lent a helping hand there, polishing it up and smoothing things out. Out of all the ways they would've improved, making it an epic would not be one of them.
As to Windwaker and Mario Sunshine, I wouldn't class them as epic at all.
I loved Mario Sunshine until I realised that there was nothing more too it.
Epics are the sort of games that make you wonder if you'll ever finish it.
Mario zipped by.
I liked the holiday Island setting, I liked the playground nature of most of the levels (even if they weren't quite as full of things to do as the hype had led me to believe), I spent ages having fun playing footie with the coconuts.
But the levels were so easy that I zipped through them and so short that they were finished quickly, and so few of them (about half the number of Mario 64) that the game passed by right before my eyes (and those magazines were whining about it being the hardest Mario yet...).
Although Mario 64 had only about a tenth of the levels of Super Mario World, making that step into 3D meant about 100 times more work needed to be put into each level.
Mario Sunshine had no such excuse for being cut short, only that Nintendo don't go all out like they used to.
Zelda, again had the beautiful graphics and control on the character.
Only Sega and Rare games come close to that standard of slick playability that Nintendo games have.
The thing is, they toned down the adventure.
Most of the game involved too much sailing, but even without that getting in the way there wasn't even as much content as Majora's Mask, let alone the bigger Zelda titles.
That was jsut the pure game.
In terms of story and characters, that was severely lacking.
The only characters you'd see in more than one place, doing more than one thing were the two that helped you in the last temples (which was a nice touch) and Tetra and her Pirate crew and their mis-adventures (which were great but not enough).
So it was a nice little blast, but it lacked EVERYTHING that makes and epic, but Nintendo don't go for epic anymore.
They've had enough of pouring their entire soul into one £40 game.
They just bashing out relatively cheap mini-adventures, such as Pikmin, Wario World etc...
Atleast the "mini spin-off games" on the N64 were multiplayer based to give replayability.
> I hope when you get to play the promotional Zelda disc you'll realise
> how far Nintendo have progressed in terms of the Zelda titles.
I played on Master Quest and OOT and they were a lot less playable in the pure mechanics, but the game was there, and the story, and the world, and maybe I was just being nostalgic but it was gripping.
> But on
> a different note I guess you are referring to never played before
> genius from Nintendo. In that case Metroid Prime is certainly one,
> Eternal Darkness is, without a shadow of a doubt, one and regarding
> future titles look out for Pikmin. Trust me in this department.
Metroid Prime I've not played, but Nintendo merely applied spit and polish.
Eternal Darkness likewise, besides while it was great fun, it wasn't QUITE up to Nintendo standard either, but it was an all round good rather than flashes of genius glued together with spaces of mediocre.
Pikmin, the first was great until you realised that there was nothing more to it. Perhaps they'll go into a little bit more depth this time, but I can;t see them going too far.
But maybe, just maybe, they'll surprise me.
Not that it matters. I'm never buying a full price game again.
Especially as I can get most classics half price after just 6 months.
> BUT saying Nintendo have removed the epic games from their catalogue
> is just false. I mean granted to start with Nintendo were on troubled
> grounds with games that were short of multiplayer titles. But that is
> not the case now, Metroid Prime was an epic, Mario Sunshine WAS an
> epic and so was Wind Waker. Wind Waker in particular has the right to
> be there next to the other Zelda titles, sure it had its faults but
> it still had its epics.
I can't argue against Metroid (not having played it yet), but Nintendo merely lent a helping hand there, polishing it up and smoothing things out. Out of all the ways they would've improved, making it an epic would not be one of them.
As to Windwaker and Mario Sunshine, I wouldn't class them as epic at all.
I loved Mario Sunshine until I realised that there was nothing more too it.
Epics are the sort of games that make you wonder if you'll ever finish it.
Mario zipped by.
I liked the holiday Island setting, I liked the playground nature of most of the levels (even if they weren't quite as full of things to do as the hype had led me to believe), I spent ages having fun playing footie with the coconuts.
But the levels were so easy that I zipped through them and so short that they were finished quickly, and so few of them (about half the number of Mario 64) that the game passed by right before my eyes (and those magazines were whining about it being the hardest Mario yet...).
Although Mario 64 had only about a tenth of the levels of Super Mario World, making that step into 3D meant about 100 times more work needed to be put into each level.
Mario Sunshine had no such excuse for being cut short, only that Nintendo don't go all out like they used to.
Zelda, again had the beautiful graphics and control on the character.
Only Sega and Rare games come close to that standard of slick playability that Nintendo games have.
The thing is, they toned down the adventure.
Most of the game involved too much sailing, but even without that getting in the way there wasn't even as much content as Majora's Mask, let alone the bigger Zelda titles.
That was jsut the pure game.
In terms of story and characters, that was severely lacking.
The only characters you'd see in more than one place, doing more than one thing were the two that helped you in the last temples (which was a nice touch) and Tetra and her Pirate crew and their mis-adventures (which were great but not enough).
So it was a nice little blast, but it lacked EVERYTHING that makes and epic, but Nintendo don't go for epic anymore.
They've had enough of pouring their entire soul into one £40 game.
They just bashing out relatively cheap mini-adventures, such as Pikmin, Wario World etc...
Atleast the "mini spin-off games" on the N64 were multiplayer based to give replayability.
> I hope when you get to play the promotional Zelda disc you'll realise
> how far Nintendo have progressed in terms of the Zelda titles.
I played on Master Quest and OOT and they were a lot less playable in the pure mechanics, but the game was there, and the story, and the world, and maybe I was just being nostalgic but it was gripping.
> But on
> a different note I guess you are referring to never played before
> genius from Nintendo. In that case Metroid Prime is certainly one,
> Eternal Darkness is, without a shadow of a doubt, one and regarding
> future titles look out for Pikmin. Trust me in this department.
Metroid Prime I've not played, but Nintendo merely applied spit and polish.
Eternal Darkness likewise, besides while it was great fun, it wasn't QUITE up to Nintendo standard either, but it was an all round good rather than flashes of genius glued together with spaces of mediocre.
Pikmin, the first was great until you realised that there was nothing more to it. Perhaps they'll go into a little bit more depth this time, but I can;t see them going too far.
But maybe, just maybe, they'll surprise me.
Not that it matters. I'm never buying a full price game again.
Especially as I can get most classics half price after just 6 months.
Why do people say Nintendo is losing it, when they clearly aren't. Wind Waker is better than any other Zelda game, in my opinion, and Mario Sunshine is just as good as its predecessors. I think we now have the best Mario Kart ever, and for new gaming ideas, just look at Pikmin. You'll all be kissing Nintendo's backsides again when Mario 128 comes out.
...
Cyclone wrote:
> leflus wrote:
> TGMbloke wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> 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 just games. Get over it.
>
> You have right.
> They are only games.
>
> LOOK AT MEEEEEE!
ok???
> leflus wrote:
> TGMbloke wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> 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 just games. Get over it.
>
> You have right.
> They are only games.
>
> LOOK AT MEEEEEE!
ok???
leflus wrote:
> TGMbloke wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> 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 just games. Get over it.
>
> You have right.
> They are only games.
LOOK AT MEEEEEE!
> TGMbloke wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> 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 just games. Get over it.
>
> You have right.
> They are only games.
LOOK AT MEEEEEE!
TGMbloke wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> 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 just games. Get over it.
You have right.
They are only games.
> Dringo wrote:
> 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 just games. Get over it.
You have right.
They are only games.
Urrr...this game requires effort on my part....duuurrrr...no pwetty explosions to treat myself too...scanning?
The most stupid bit of review on SR ever;
'This game sucks because on Halo scanning is done automatically, but on this you have to do it urself'
The most stupid bit of review on SR ever;
'This game sucks because on Halo scanning is done automatically, but on this you have to do it urself'
The scanning is also a work of genius. I can see why people may dislike it it... but fail not to love every aspect of it.
Rickoss wrote:
> Metroid Prime a snore fest? Hmmm, sure you were playing the same game?
> You'd have to be pretty crap at it to call it a snore fest.
Everything that is wrong with gamin today
*goes righteous*
No, it doens't have chainguns, typical controls, masses of enemies, vehicles and huge battles full off people running aimlessly around.
It doens't need them, because it's Metroid Prime, and it's brilliant.
> Metroid Prime a snore fest? Hmmm, sure you were playing the same game?
> You'd have to be pretty crap at it to call it a snore fest.
Everything that is wrong with gamin today
*goes righteous*
No, it doens't have chainguns, typical controls, masses of enemies, vehicles and huge battles full off people running aimlessly around.
It doens't need them, because it's Metroid Prime, and it's brilliant.
Page: