The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
Maverick42 wrote:
> Nintendo are very much a family company and what they need to focus
> on now is how to promote that image to the key demographic.
The key demographic is the late teen to mid twenties market. The one that loves GTA. THAT is the key demographic, they are the ones with the vast disposable income. And yet, other than people who have been Nintendo fans for years, I don't know anyone who went out and bought a GC. Most of my adult friends own Xboxes or PS2s. In fact I'm the only hard core gamer, I'm also the only one with a GC.
It is viewed as a childs toy by everyone except people who have a previous association with Nintendo.
> Nintendo are very much a family company and what they need to focus
> on now is how to promote that image to the key demographic.
The key demographic is the late teen to mid twenties market. The one that loves GTA. THAT is the key demographic, they are the ones with the vast disposable income. And yet, other than people who have been Nintendo fans for years, I don't know anyone who went out and bought a GC. Most of my adult friends own Xboxes or PS2s. In fact I'm the only hard core gamer, I'm also the only one with a GC.
It is viewed as a childs toy by everyone except people who have a previous association with Nintendo.
I was thinking of a 'Be Different' campaign because everyone is obsessed with being different these days... yet they all own PS2's... someone needs to point that out :D
Anyway the only reason us lot seem to think Nintendo are doing so badly is the simple reason that the UK refuses to take to Nintendo. I mean some of Europe like the big N, the price drop in America had a fantastic response and Nintendo have always done well in Japan. But erm... come to the Uk... and we just aren't having it. Even when they set up a UK specific base.
OH well.
And yes Nintendo need a mature looking system and judging by the effort on image regarding the sp I'm thinking they might just do that.
Anyway the only reason us lot seem to think Nintendo are doing so badly is the simple reason that the UK refuses to take to Nintendo. I mean some of Europe like the big N, the price drop in America had a fantastic response and Nintendo have always done well in Japan. But erm... come to the Uk... and we just aren't having it. Even when they set up a UK specific base.
OH well.
And yes Nintendo need a mature looking system and judging by the effort on image regarding the sp I'm thinking they might just do that.
TGMbloke wrote:
> All of the "Classic" Nintendo games go in a new collection
> called the "Nintendo Stars Range". They can have a special
> logo and perhaps a dfferant coloured box. Mario games, Zelda, Pikmin
> perhaps...these all go in there.
>
> Nintendo can then get some more *exclusive* deals (And they must be
> exclusive for this to work) with more Adult themed games like GTA,
> Halo, Spinter Cell, Metroid so on and put them in a box titled
> "Game Cube Only".
Why would Nintendo want to alienate their best and major franchises away from the mass market further?
Setting their first party games in different coloured boxes away from the others might be a nicely ordered way to do things, but would be disasterous business sense. It would almost be admitting they were a children's company, and would rely on huge support from third parties.
Nintendo are very much a family company and what they need to focus on now is how to promote that image to the key demographic.
> All of the "Classic" Nintendo games go in a new collection
> called the "Nintendo Stars Range". They can have a special
> logo and perhaps a dfferant coloured box. Mario games, Zelda, Pikmin
> perhaps...these all go in there.
>
> Nintendo can then get some more *exclusive* deals (And they must be
> exclusive for this to work) with more Adult themed games like GTA,
> Halo, Spinter Cell, Metroid so on and put them in a box titled
> "Game Cube Only".
Why would Nintendo want to alienate their best and major franchises away from the mass market further?
Setting their first party games in different coloured boxes away from the others might be a nicely ordered way to do things, but would be disasterous business sense. It would almost be admitting they were a children's company, and would rely on huge support from third parties.
Nintendo are very much a family company and what they need to focus on now is how to promote that image to the key demographic.
Mario was never a bad guy in Donkey Kong, he was a good guy in Donkey Kong. Which is a platformer. Hence him being in platformers.
But that is a very good idea. Maybe one day that will happen but I was only debating the fact Nintendo are A-grade still despite what people say.
But that is a very good idea. Maybe one day that will happen but I was only debating the fact Nintendo are A-grade still despite what people say.
'That Man' wrote:
> Cyclone wrote:
> There is no way one can even mention Halo in the same context as
> Goldeneye, Metroid Prime, Mario 64 etc.
>
> Indeed. Goldeneye and Mario 64 are better than Halo but the utter
> snorefest that is Metroid Prime doesn't deserve to be mentioned in
> the same context as the fantastic Halo.
Metroid Prime? Snore fest?
Hang on guv what you going on about?
> Cyclone wrote:
> There is no way one can even mention Halo in the same context as
> Goldeneye, Metroid Prime, Mario 64 etc.
>
> Indeed. Goldeneye and Mario 64 are better than Halo but the utter
> snorefest that is Metroid Prime doesn't deserve to be mentioned in
> the same context as the fantastic Halo.
Metroid Prime? Snore fest?
Hang on guv what you going on about?
'That Man' wrote:
> Cyclone wrote:
> There is no way one can even mention Halo in the same context as
> Goldeneye, Metroid Prime, Mario 64 etc.
>
> Indeed. Goldeneye and Mario 64 are better than Halo but the utter
> snorefest that is Metroid Prime doesn't deserve to be mentioned in
> the same context as the fantastic Halo.
Metroid Prime is an astounding epic of a game and a modern day classic.
> Cyclone wrote:
> There is no way one can even mention Halo in the same context as
> Goldeneye, Metroid Prime, Mario 64 etc.
>
> Indeed. Goldeneye and Mario 64 are better than Halo but the utter
> snorefest that is Metroid Prime doesn't deserve to be mentioned in
> the same context as the fantastic Halo.
Metroid Prime is an astounding epic of a game and a modern day classic.
Maverick42 wrote:
> Spare us the pointless comments, eh TGM Bloke?
>
> If we didn't have a passion for games, then we wouldn't be on this
> site.
Here here. Took the words right out of my mouth.
> Spare us the pointless comments, eh TGM Bloke?
>
> If we didn't have a passion for games, then we wouldn't be on this
> site.
Here here. Took the words right out of my mouth.
Spare us the pointless comments, eh TGM Bloke?
If we didn't have a passion for games, then we wouldn't be on this site.
If we didn't have a passion for games, then we wouldn't be on this site.
Yes... Zelda was without a doubt an epic title. How nostaligic was re-visiting the temple of time. My heart was in my mouth.
Page: