The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I don't know if it's Nintendo or if it's just me!
Sure, I don't get excited and possessed by games quite the way I used to, but Nintendo don't make exciting games quite the way they used to either.
It started with Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion.
Great games, but very short and seemed pretty underdone.
"Fair enough," I thought "Nintendo got these out in time for the launch and are concentrating on their bigger titles."
Mario comes out.
Fantastic at first... but so shortlived and again it seemed underwhelming. Although it was a lot slicker and more playable than Mario 64, I actually found it shorter and less challenging.
Seeing as Mario 64 was Nintendo's first attempt at 3D platforming 6 years ago, you probably expect a HUGE amount of improvement in the new more powerful Gamecube.
It seemed a bit more like a spin-off.
Same with Zelda.
I wasn't put off at all by the Cel Shaded graphics.
I thought that it was a great idea.
Thing is, after develloping this super smooth, groundbreaking new game engine, Nintendo then filled it with sea, and filled the land with mostly watered down elements of previous Zelda games.
Again, the basic game engine (controls and basic gameplay and graphics) were fantastic, but when it came to designing the rest of the game, it seemed pretty much "make do".
Not such a bad thing, because they are still great games, but it's hard to believe that this is the same Nintendo that pushed to be at the very forefront of gaming, to always be a giant step ahead of anything the competition could offer.
Each of these games have shown the potential to be such a game, just not followed through.
Maybe it's our fault, like Dringo said. For years fans have been complaining about high prices and large gaps between releases, so Nintendo are now rushing, but I don't think it's JUST gamer requests...
Nintendo themselves admitted going for a more profitable marketing scheme.
Still, it's not just Nintendo's loss of enthusiesm for making great games that's causing this. I've started to go off games anyway.
I suppose after the delights of Goldeneye, nothing would ever impress in the same way, but Nintendo were still managing to impress me with Majora's Mask and Rare's Conker managed to surprise me in a way that I didn't think the N64 was still capable off.
Perhaps I overhyped to myself what the Gamecube's new power would mean for games...
And it's not just the Gamecube either.
Although I really like Halo on the Xbox, not THAT much considering the hype - not to a Goldeneye standard.
Anyways, too the point.
Whether Nintendo can't be arsed or whether I'm just growing out of games, one fact remains - new games aren't really impressing me anymore.
For some reason, I'm finding myself look to the mediocre but cheaper selection of older games.
Anyway, seeing as new games aren't really impressing me (although I expect I'll get a little fun out of the likes of Mario Kart and F-Zero), I'm looking forward to the systems death so I can pick up loads of games dirt cheap, cheaper than ever.
Quantity can make up for quality!
So erm...
what do you all think? :-S
Sure, I don't get excited and possessed by games quite the way I used to, but Nintendo don't make exciting games quite the way they used to either.
It started with Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion.
Great games, but very short and seemed pretty underdone.
"Fair enough," I thought "Nintendo got these out in time for the launch and are concentrating on their bigger titles."
Mario comes out.
Fantastic at first... but so shortlived and again it seemed underwhelming. Although it was a lot slicker and more playable than Mario 64, I actually found it shorter and less challenging.
Seeing as Mario 64 was Nintendo's first attempt at 3D platforming 6 years ago, you probably expect a HUGE amount of improvement in the new more powerful Gamecube.
It seemed a bit more like a spin-off.
Same with Zelda.
I wasn't put off at all by the Cel Shaded graphics.
I thought that it was a great idea.
Thing is, after develloping this super smooth, groundbreaking new game engine, Nintendo then filled it with sea, and filled the land with mostly watered down elements of previous Zelda games.
Again, the basic game engine (controls and basic gameplay and graphics) were fantastic, but when it came to designing the rest of the game, it seemed pretty much "make do".
Not such a bad thing, because they are still great games, but it's hard to believe that this is the same Nintendo that pushed to be at the very forefront of gaming, to always be a giant step ahead of anything the competition could offer.
Each of these games have shown the potential to be such a game, just not followed through.
Maybe it's our fault, like Dringo said. For years fans have been complaining about high prices and large gaps between releases, so Nintendo are now rushing, but I don't think it's JUST gamer requests...
Nintendo themselves admitted going for a more profitable marketing scheme.
Still, it's not just Nintendo's loss of enthusiesm for making great games that's causing this. I've started to go off games anyway.
I suppose after the delights of Goldeneye, nothing would ever impress in the same way, but Nintendo were still managing to impress me with Majora's Mask and Rare's Conker managed to surprise me in a way that I didn't think the N64 was still capable off.
Perhaps I overhyped to myself what the Gamecube's new power would mean for games...
And it's not just the Gamecube either.
Although I really like Halo on the Xbox, not THAT much considering the hype - not to a Goldeneye standard.
Anyways, too the point.
Whether Nintendo can't be arsed or whether I'm just growing out of games, one fact remains - new games aren't really impressing me anymore.
For some reason, I'm finding myself look to the mediocre but cheaper selection of older games.
Anyway, seeing as new games aren't really impressing me (although I expect I'll get a little fun out of the likes of Mario Kart and F-Zero), I'm looking forward to the systems death so I can pick up loads of games dirt cheap, cheaper than ever.
Quantity can make up for quality!
So erm...
what do you all think? :-S
Page:
I never said you did. It was the reply a couple after your post that I was getting at :)
Alistair, I didn't say that Halo was mediocre, just that it didn't excite me the way my N64 collection did (like Dr Duck said, lack of some sort of feeling).
I know it's the best FPS across the formats and I might still buy an Xbox for it (the multiplayer mainly), but the fact that it doesn't impress me THAT much just shows I'm growing out of gaming...
So it's not ALL Nintendo's fault.
By the by Dr Duck, although the basic elements of Zelda have always stayed the same, up until Wind Waker, the step up onto a new system always improved it and added so many new ideas that it would blow away a generation of gamers.
Wind Waker has a hard time competing with Orcarina, let along blowing it clean out of the water.
And lastly, I don't want to sell my Gamecube, just for the format to die so that all shops try to get rid of it by selling all the games for real cheap! :-)
Maybe let a few more classics come out first, but a consoles death is ALWAYS a good time to get cheap classics.
I remember when the Dreamcast died - Sonic Adventure and Powerstone for just £7 each!
I know it's the best FPS across the formats and I might still buy an Xbox for it (the multiplayer mainly), but the fact that it doesn't impress me THAT much just shows I'm growing out of gaming...
So it's not ALL Nintendo's fault.
By the by Dr Duck, although the basic elements of Zelda have always stayed the same, up until Wind Waker, the step up onto a new system always improved it and added so many new ideas that it would blow away a generation of gamers.
Wind Waker has a hard time competing with Orcarina, let along blowing it clean out of the water.
And lastly, I don't want to sell my Gamecube, just for the format to die so that all shops try to get rid of it by selling all the games for real cheap! :-)
Maybe let a few more classics come out first, but a consoles death is ALWAYS a good time to get cheap classics.
I remember when the Dreamcast died - Sonic Adventure and Powerstone for just £7 each!
> ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> The lock on system is vital
Thats kinda what I said :)
> The lock on system is vital
Thats kinda what I said :)
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
As for Metroid, if you treat it like a
> shoot em up you will be disappointed as the shooting sections are
> average at best. The lock on system is vital yet it makes dodging
> enemy fire all too easy.
Ah, but if you couldn't lock on. Then you'd be pretty buggered. You wouldn't get very far :o)
Still, its a great game and dont try to take things away from it :oP
As for Metroid, if you treat it like a
> shoot em up you will be disappointed as the shooting sections are
> average at best. The lock on system is vital yet it makes dodging
> enemy fire all too easy.
Ah, but if you couldn't lock on. Then you'd be pretty buggered. You wouldn't get very far :o)
Still, its a great game and dont try to take things away from it :oP
Thing is, if you sell your Cube, what console are you going to buy and what "great" games are you going to play ?
F Zero and Mario Kart and the only 2 I can't wait for.
F Zero and Mario Kart and the only 2 I can't wait for.
I totally agree. At first it was refreshing to play these 'new Nintendo' type games, but after them I find myself hungry for larger, more epic titles. In fact I find myself being drawn to the GBA, where the likes of Golden Sun and Advance Wars provide much more longetivity than anything on GameCube at the moment.
When I first played Halo multiplayer, the first thing I noticed is that its too slow and it still is. I want fast frantic action which the likes of PD, Goldeneye and TS2 deliver very well. The levels themselves aren't that well detailed either. One thing I give them credit for is the ability to drive vehicles in battle. That is just class and should be in every shooter.
Also, I had alot of Fun on 2 player co-operative. It gives you the proper feel of the battleground. I.E. "You take left and I'll take right". Something you can just not do on 1 player with the damn AI. That's the same reason Conflict Desert Storm rules mucho.
I really don't think theres anything on Halo though that delivers anothing more than a average game.
Also, I had alot of Fun on 2 player co-operative. It gives you the proper feel of the battleground. I.E. "You take left and I'll take right". Something you can just not do on 1 player with the damn AI. That's the same reason Conflict Desert Storm rules mucho.
I really don't think theres anything on Halo though that delivers anothing more than a average game.
Strafex wrote:
> Nintendo then filled it with sea, and filled the land
> with mostly watered down elements of previous Zelda games.
They've been doing that since time began.
There was a big bang, which spewed out a sword, shield, mirror shield, boomerang, bow and arrows, hook shot, upgraded sword, hidden switches, and a bunch of dungeons.
And that was that.
As for the main topic? I've been feeling the same way for a while.
I wasn't sure if it was just me growing out of gaming, or if the games genuinely are getting lamer.
I think maybe it's a combination of the two.
My PS2 doesn't get much use. GTA VC was a huge disappointment for me. The xbox.. I lost interest when I first played Halo. Very slick, but there was no real 'feeling'.
The cube's faired marginally better, but nothing next to the old 64 days.
There are still a few games based on great ideas, games with potential.
But they almost all seem to end up badly done, casualties of lazy games developers, going the same way as the generic bilge pumped out by all the main software houses.
Oh well.
> Nintendo then filled it with sea, and filled the land
> with mostly watered down elements of previous Zelda games.
They've been doing that since time began.
There was a big bang, which spewed out a sword, shield, mirror shield, boomerang, bow and arrows, hook shot, upgraded sword, hidden switches, and a bunch of dungeons.
And that was that.
As for the main topic? I've been feeling the same way for a while.
I wasn't sure if it was just me growing out of gaming, or if the games genuinely are getting lamer.
I think maybe it's a combination of the two.
My PS2 doesn't get much use. GTA VC was a huge disappointment for me. The xbox.. I lost interest when I first played Halo. Very slick, but there was no real 'feeling'.
The cube's faired marginally better, but nothing next to the old 64 days.
There are still a few games based on great ideas, games with potential.
But they almost all seem to end up badly done, casualties of lazy games developers, going the same way as the generic bilge pumped out by all the main software houses.
Oh well.
Halo is by far the best shoot em up on all 3 consoles. Whether you think its mediocre or not. As for Metroid, if you treat it like a shoot em up you will be disappointed as the shooting sections are average at best. The lock on system is vital yet it makes dodging enemy fire all too easy.
Your point is fair, but Nintendo are still miles ahead of competition.
My view is biased but valid nonetheless. Pro Evolution is the only game I like on PS2. As for the X-Box, the games I have played have been nothing special. Halo was good but not spectacular.
With Nintendo, I don't like Mario but I am a huge fan Of Resis and Eternal Darkness but honestly my heart lies in shoot em ups and metroid Prime isn't good enough in my opinion. I prefer games with modern day weaponry and realistic enemies and I am hoping Geist will perform.
My view is biased but valid nonetheless. Pro Evolution is the only game I like on PS2. As for the X-Box, the games I have played have been nothing special. Halo was good but not spectacular.
With Nintendo, I don't like Mario but I am a huge fan Of Resis and Eternal Darkness but honestly my heart lies in shoot em ups and metroid Prime isn't good enough in my opinion. I prefer games with modern day weaponry and realistic enemies and I am hoping Geist will perform.
Page: