The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Ií, getting a bit ticked off with all the ìGameCube funî thatís being splashed around, especially by Dringo.
All the quotes taken below are from various topic by various people.
ìOh and the PS2 still improving graphics why can't they do a Nintendo and say thats it no need to improve graphics any further time to sit back and make fun games??????î
Er, what? Youíre saying Sony donít make fun games and only care about graphics? I donít know where you got that idea from, especially seeing as the first comment made about Resident Evil is ìOooh, look at the graphicsî. Nobody seems to care that itís exactly the same game, STILL with static backgrounds.
You are also implying that PS2 games arenít fun. Have you even played GTA3? Have you even played TimeSplitters, SSX or Starfighter, for that matter? These games have some of the best graphics on the PS2. Starfighter in particular has amazing graphics, especially on land missions. Itís also extremely good FUN; just play the Nymís base mission. TimeSplitters is also a realistic yet fun game. It features real weapon, real levels and real deaths. ìOh, but it looks real, it canít be any funî. Bollards. GoldenEye? Same argument.
ìI tell you Sony's Playstation is on a mission to mimick real life as realistically as possible whilst Nintendo are doing what the gaming industry was made to do what it started off being, Fun the idea of a toy rather than a entertainment system i want to play games for fun!î
So do I! So do all of us! GTA3, incredible fun (mm, sniper rifleÖ). An common target is also GT3, saying itís too ìrealisticî to be fun. Erm, excuse me? Yes, maybe some of the endurance but none of the others. It depends how you play it. If youíre a sissy and leave the ASM and TCS on, then yes it can be a bit boring at times in some cars. However, turn them off and drive like a real man (also with maximum realism) itís extremely fun, especially on rallies. Will you spin out, wonít you spin out? Can you hold this drift? Brilliant stuff. I think a lot of Nintys are just jealous that we have it and you donít, and thatís understandable. One last example is Burnout, again one of the most realistic games on the PS2. I dare any of you to say it doesnít sound fun.
ìWhen he said Younger audience, he meant gamers who wanted fun exciting games rather than the old farts who prefer their racers with all the dull parts or realism but all danger and excitement removed.î
Thereís that word again. What is this, the eternal excuse? ìWe donít want GT3 because we want fun gamesî, ìWe donít like realism because itís not funî, ìNintendo is concentrating more on fun than graphicsî. WHAT THE HELL? Er, Excitebike? Am I the only one thatís noticed how much you lot having been raving about this game? Am I mistaken in thinking it features real bikes? Jeez, I went on for weeks thinking this was a kind of Extreme-G style game until I was told, the amount you go on about hating realism. The fact is, the N6 canít handle realistic games because of texture problems. Have you ever noticed that an awful lot of N64 games have very little textures? Thatís why, and sadly life features an awful lot of textures. Iíd also like to pick up on the word ìexcitingî in that paragraph. What Iíve noticed a LOT is that loads of Nintendo games are devoid of excitement. Zelda, Mario, Pikmin, Luigiís Mansion, Banjo, etcÖ are all quite ambling games in general with the odd spot of fighting every now and again, but nothing really to get your heart racing. Sure there are always exceptions (GoldenEye, Perfect Dark) as there are exceptions on the PS (Spyro, Croc) but Iíll think everyone will agree that PlayStation, and more so PlayStation 2 games are in general more exciting than Nintendoís. Do you want to disagree? Well someone will but I doubt youíll have much luck in persuading me otherwise, particularly seeing as Iíve said this countless times before (it was even my tagline once) and no one disagreed.
There, Iíve said my bit now. To sum up: A lot of Nintys are using the ìfunî excuse an awful lot these days and itís utter bollards. All games are fun, otherwise we wouldnít buy them. Theyíre also saying that the PS2 is aiming for realism whereas the GameCube is aiming for fun. Er, itís the same thing isnít it? Realism is still as fun (possibly more) as the Nintendo cartoony-style but most people donít want to admit it. Even the ultra, ultra realistic Resident Evil, Silent Hill 2 and Metal Gear Solid 2 games are immense fun as well as being very scary/intense. If you think that Nintendo games are better then thatís your opinion, but please, think up a more original (and relevant) reason for once.
All the quotes taken below are from various topic by various people.
ìOh and the PS2 still improving graphics why can't they do a Nintendo and say thats it no need to improve graphics any further time to sit back and make fun games??????î
Er, what? Youíre saying Sony donít make fun games and only care about graphics? I donít know where you got that idea from, especially seeing as the first comment made about Resident Evil is ìOooh, look at the graphicsî. Nobody seems to care that itís exactly the same game, STILL with static backgrounds.
You are also implying that PS2 games arenít fun. Have you even played GTA3? Have you even played TimeSplitters, SSX or Starfighter, for that matter? These games have some of the best graphics on the PS2. Starfighter in particular has amazing graphics, especially on land missions. Itís also extremely good FUN; just play the Nymís base mission. TimeSplitters is also a realistic yet fun game. It features real weapon, real levels and real deaths. ìOh, but it looks real, it canít be any funî. Bollards. GoldenEye? Same argument.
ìI tell you Sony's Playstation is on a mission to mimick real life as realistically as possible whilst Nintendo are doing what the gaming industry was made to do what it started off being, Fun the idea of a toy rather than a entertainment system i want to play games for fun!î
So do I! So do all of us! GTA3, incredible fun (mm, sniper rifleÖ). An common target is also GT3, saying itís too ìrealisticî to be fun. Erm, excuse me? Yes, maybe some of the endurance but none of the others. It depends how you play it. If youíre a sissy and leave the ASM and TCS on, then yes it can be a bit boring at times in some cars. However, turn them off and drive like a real man (also with maximum realism) itís extremely fun, especially on rallies. Will you spin out, wonít you spin out? Can you hold this drift? Brilliant stuff. I think a lot of Nintys are just jealous that we have it and you donít, and thatís understandable. One last example is Burnout, again one of the most realistic games on the PS2. I dare any of you to say it doesnít sound fun.
ìWhen he said Younger audience, he meant gamers who wanted fun exciting games rather than the old farts who prefer their racers with all the dull parts or realism but all danger and excitement removed.î
Thereís that word again. What is this, the eternal excuse? ìWe donít want GT3 because we want fun gamesî, ìWe donít like realism because itís not funî, ìNintendo is concentrating more on fun than graphicsî. WHAT THE HELL? Er, Excitebike? Am I the only one thatís noticed how much you lot having been raving about this game? Am I mistaken in thinking it features real bikes? Jeez, I went on for weeks thinking this was a kind of Extreme-G style game until I was told, the amount you go on about hating realism. The fact is, the N6 canít handle realistic games because of texture problems. Have you ever noticed that an awful lot of N64 games have very little textures? Thatís why, and sadly life features an awful lot of textures. Iíd also like to pick up on the word ìexcitingî in that paragraph. What Iíve noticed a LOT is that loads of Nintendo games are devoid of excitement. Zelda, Mario, Pikmin, Luigiís Mansion, Banjo, etcÖ are all quite ambling games in general with the odd spot of fighting every now and again, but nothing really to get your heart racing. Sure there are always exceptions (GoldenEye, Perfect Dark) as there are exceptions on the PS (Spyro, Croc) but Iíll think everyone will agree that PlayStation, and more so PlayStation 2 games are in general more exciting than Nintendoís. Do you want to disagree? Well someone will but I doubt youíll have much luck in persuading me otherwise, particularly seeing as Iíve said this countless times before (it was even my tagline once) and no one disagreed.
There, Iíve said my bit now. To sum up: A lot of Nintys are using the ìfunî excuse an awful lot these days and itís utter bollards. All games are fun, otherwise we wouldnít buy them. Theyíre also saying that the PS2 is aiming for realism whereas the GameCube is aiming for fun. Er, itís the same thing isnít it? Realism is still as fun (possibly more) as the Nintendo cartoony-style but most people donít want to admit it. Even the ultra, ultra realistic Resident Evil, Silent Hill 2 and Metal Gear Solid 2 games are immense fun as well as being very scary/intense. If you think that Nintendo games are better then thatís your opinion, but please, think up a more original (and relevant) reason for once.
Page:
Ant wrote:
"Can I ask you a question, would you find a game like...Deus Ex, fun?"
I see GT3 like Deus Ex when you can't die. What's the point?
You'll get through the game, but it'll just get repetitive after a while.
"Can I ask you a question, would you find a game like...Deus Ex, fun?"
I see GT3 like Deus Ex when you can't die. What's the point?
You'll get through the game, but it'll just get repetitive after a while.
I've not missed the point.
Games like Deus Ex, Perfect Dark, GTA3 are all fun, but because they take themselves so seriously they'll never be as fun as the likes of Monkey Ball.
I like both the serious games listed above (which are fun in their own way) as well as the fun based games but I still find GT3 incredibly boring and dull.
There's a time and place for fun games and there's a time and a place for more serious ones.
I think that the Gamecube has a good balance of both.
Games like Deus Ex, Perfect Dark, GTA3 are all fun, but because they take themselves so seriously they'll never be as fun as the likes of Monkey Ball.
I like both the serious games listed above (which are fun in their own way) as well as the fun based games but I still find GT3 incredibly boring and dull.
There's a time and place for fun games and there's a time and a place for more serious ones.
I think that the Gamecube has a good balance of both.
But you're missing the point. Sure, they may be dark, dingy and moody, but they're still a hell of a lot of fun.
Strafex wrote:
> They CAN be fun but they do tend to put realism first.
To some games such as
> GT3, it is a downfall.
Others like GTA3 (that A makes all the difference!)
> seem to find a nice balance.
PS2 games rarely base themselves around fun the
> same way Nintendo games tend to though.
But perhaps that's an opinion based view.
Can I ask you a question, would you find a game like...Deus Ex, fun?
> They CAN be fun but they do tend to put realism first.
To some games such as
> GT3, it is a downfall.
Others like GTA3 (that A makes all the difference!)
> seem to find a nice balance.
PS2 games rarely base themselves around fun the
> same way Nintendo games tend to though.
But perhaps that's an opinion based view.
Can I ask you a question, would you find a game like...Deus Ex, fun?
They CAN be fun but they do tend to put realism first.
To some games such as GT3, it is a downfall.
Others like GTA3 (that A makes all the difference!) seem to find a nice balance.
PS2 games rarely base themselves around fun the same way Nintendo games tend to though.
To some games such as GT3, it is a downfall.
Others like GTA3 (that A makes all the difference!) seem to find a nice balance.
PS2 games rarely base themselves around fun the same way Nintendo games tend to though.
But GT3 is boring, it's like Microsoft Train Simulator for car anoraks.
Excitebike yes it's got realistic handling, yes it's got realistic motorbikes, but it's fun. It doesn't take itself too seriously. Have you seen some of the height you can get on your jumps?
The problem with GT3 is it really does take itself too seriously, if you really enjoy that sort of game then i'm sure it is FUN. I wouldn't have minded the game if they had put a few fun elements into it, like realistic damage to the cars . But noooooo Sony just stick with pixel perfect racing, which too me is about as exciting as re runs of Blue Peter.
As for GTA3, well goddamn it I want that game, that does look like a lot of FUN, it may even persuade me too get a PS2.
Excitebike yes it's got realistic handling, yes it's got realistic motorbikes, but it's fun. It doesn't take itself too seriously. Have you seen some of the height you can get on your jumps?
The problem with GT3 is it really does take itself too seriously, if you really enjoy that sort of game then i'm sure it is FUN. I wouldn't have minded the game if they had put a few fun elements into it, like realistic damage to the cars . But noooooo Sony just stick with pixel perfect racing, which too me is about as exciting as re runs of Blue Peter.
As for GTA3, well goddamn it I want that game, that does look like a lot of FUN, it may even persuade me too get a PS2.
*Ant laughs wildly as he shoots a policeman with a shotgun, kills an old lady with a baseball bat and runs over 20 people on a rampahe through the streets in an ambulance*
PS2 can be fun as well. {:)
PS2 can be fun as well. {:)
And I've double posted too...
Sorry :-)
Sorry :-)
Turbonutter wrote:
> er-no wrote:
> GT3... an upgrade, with less cars and nicer visuals. Its not
> too realistic
> to be fun, nobody said that.
>Strafex, countless times.
And I still say it.
Your mistake was to merge all the Nintys into one.
Some of us like Wave Race and Excitebike.
Others, like myself think that GT3 is boring.
And about games like Zelda and Mario rarely being intense, they're not meant to be all the way through. They can be in odd sections when you're up against a particularly hard boss but for the main part they're about general skill, exploration and puzzle solving.
F-Zero X was seriously intense, and that was it's best feature. Compare it's intensity to that of GT3 and "Mr realism" comes out like a wet blanket (anyone who's read my topic about "tension" - see GAD winners list - will understand me).
And seeing as the whole appeal of the Racing sport is based on fear, tension, speed, and macho danger, it does make me feel that GT3 has entirely missed the entire point.
All those ways you described GT3 as "fun", sure it was skillful but sounded incredibly "anorakish" - not what you should be describing as fun.
The only really impressive feature about GT3 is the graphics and the realism in the handling.
The graphics are almost as good on any generic realistic driving sim and the tweaked handling and physics?
If you're seriously into little details like that then you might find it fascinating but other than that, who cares?
It hardly affects the quality of game play.
I understand that people do over exadurate about how realistically boring the PS2 (and I do it all the time), but then again, you Sony fans always over exadurate about Nintendo being cartoony! (It does go both ways)
I also realise that games like GTA3 and Starfighter can be fun in their own ways if you decide to play the in that way but you'll find games like that on any system that's not quite what the game is based around.
I think you'll find that Gamecube games are the only ones that base themselves around fun (and although not ALL of them do, you'll normally find the most fun games on a Nintendo system).
Do you think Sega's Monkey Ball will be appreciated on another system?
I think that devellopers agree. Capcom have said that they're planning to make the Resident Evil a bit more fun based for the GC re makes as it's been taking itself too seriously previously.
PS2 titles often tend to take themselves way too seriously with the arty dark intro's and the dark deep plot.
Compare that to the likes of Monkey Ball and Pikmin which forget plot altogether to simply make a game that is great fun and interesting for what it is.
And multiplayer goes hand in hand with fun, but we hardly need to start an argument over which console has the best multiplayer, as we ALL know who would win.
And we know that most PS2 owners don't care for multiplayer anyway.
I suppose in a way you COULD make GT3 sort of fun, but you could make washing up fun in the very same way (you only have to watch Mary Poppins to realise that!) :-D.
Ah! Now you've made me blabber on and on!
Gee, even a hour of GT3 will probably be more intersting than reading through all this! :-D
> er-no wrote:
> GT3... an upgrade, with less cars and nicer visuals. Its not
> too realistic
> to be fun, nobody said that.
>Strafex, countless times.
And I still say it.
Your mistake was to merge all the Nintys into one.
Some of us like Wave Race and Excitebike.
Others, like myself think that GT3 is boring.
And about games like Zelda and Mario rarely being intense, they're not meant to be all the way through. They can be in odd sections when you're up against a particularly hard boss but for the main part they're about general skill, exploration and puzzle solving.
F-Zero X was seriously intense, and that was it's best feature. Compare it's intensity to that of GT3 and "Mr realism" comes out like a wet blanket (anyone who's read my topic about "tension" - see GAD winners list - will understand me).
And seeing as the whole appeal of the Racing sport is based on fear, tension, speed, and macho danger, it does make me feel that GT3 has entirely missed the entire point.
All those ways you described GT3 as "fun", sure it was skillful but sounded incredibly "anorakish" - not what you should be describing as fun.
The only really impressive feature about GT3 is the graphics and the realism in the handling.
The graphics are almost as good on any generic realistic driving sim and the tweaked handling and physics?
If you're seriously into little details like that then you might find it fascinating but other than that, who cares?
It hardly affects the quality of game play.
I understand that people do over exadurate about how realistically boring the PS2 (and I do it all the time), but then again, you Sony fans always over exadurate about Nintendo being cartoony! (It does go both ways)
I also realise that games like GTA3 and Starfighter can be fun in their own ways if you decide to play the in that way but you'll find games like that on any system that's not quite what the game is based around.
I think you'll find that Gamecube games are the only ones that base themselves around fun (and although not ALL of them do, you'll normally find the most fun games on a Nintendo system).
Do you think Sega's Monkey Ball will be appreciated on another system?
I think that devellopers agree. Capcom have said that they're planning to make the Resident Evil a bit more fun based for the GC re makes as it's been taking itself too seriously previously.
PS2 titles often tend to take themselves way too seriously with the arty dark intro's and the dark deep plot.
Compare that to the likes of Monkey Ball and Pikmin which forget plot altogether to simply make a game that is great fun and interesting for what it is.
And multiplayer goes hand in hand with fun, but we hardly need to start an argument over which console has the best multiplayer, as we ALL know who would win.
And we know that most PS2 owners don't care for multiplayer anyway.
I suppose in a way you COULD make GT3 sort of fun, but you could make washing up fun in the very same way (you only have to watch Mary Poppins to realise that!) :-D.
Ah! Now you've made me blabber on and on!
Gee, even a hour of GT3 will probably be more intersting than reading through all this! :-D
Turbonutter wrote:
> er-no wrote:
> GT3... an upgrade, with less cars and nicer visuals. Its not
> too realistic
> to be fun, nobody said that.
>Strafex, countless times.
And I still say it.
Your mistake was to merge all the Nintys into one.
Some of us like Wave Race and Excitebike.
Others, like myself think that GT3 is boring.
And about games like Zelda and Mario rarely being intense, they're not meant to be all the way through. They can be in odd sections when you're up against a particularly hard boss but for the main part they're about general skill, exploration and puzzle solving.
F-Zero X was seriously intense, and that was it's best feature. Compare it's intensity to that of GT3 and "Mr realism" comes out like a wet blanket (anyone who's read my topic about "tension" - see GAD winners list - will understand me).
And seeing as the whole appeal of the Racing sport is based on fear, tension, speed, and macho danger, it does make me feel that GT3 has entirely missed the entire point.
All those ways you described GT3 as "fun", sure it was skillful but sounded incredibly "anorakish" - not what you should be describing as fun.
The only really impressive feature about GT3 is the graphics and the realism in the handling.
The graphics are almost as good on any generic realistic driving sim and the tweaked handling and physics?
If you're seriously into little details like that then you might find it fascinating but other than that, who cares?
It hardly affects the quality of game play.
I understand that people do over exadurate about how realistically boring the PS2 (and I do it all the time), but then again, you Sony fans always over exadurate about Nintendo being cartoony! (It does go both ways)
I also realise that games like GTA3 and Starfighter can be fun in their own ways if you decide to play the in that way but you'll find games like that on any system that's not quite what the game is based around.
I think you'll find that Gamecube games are the only ones that base themselves around fun (and although not ALL of them do, you'll normally find the most fun games on a Nintendo system).
Do you think Sega's Monkey Ball will be appreciated on another system?
I think that devellopers agree. Capcom have said that they're planning to make the Resident Evil a bit more fun based for the GC re makes as it's been taking itself too seriously previously.
PS2 titles often tend to take themselves way too seriously with the arty dark intro's and the dark deep plot.
Compare that to the likes of Monkey Ball and Pikmin which forget plot altogether to simply make a game that is great fun and interesting for what it is.
And multiplayer goes hand in hand with fun, but we hardly need to start an argument over which console has the best multiplayer, as we ALL know who would win.
And we know that most PS2 owners don't care for multiplayer anyway.
I suppose in a way you COULD make GT3 sort of fun, but you could make washing up fun in the very same way (you only have to watch Mary Poppins to realise that!) :-D.
Ah! Now you've made me blabber on and on!
Gee, even a nour of GT3 will probably be more intersting than reading through all this! :-D
> er-no wrote:
> GT3... an upgrade, with less cars and nicer visuals. Its not
> too realistic
> to be fun, nobody said that.
>Strafex, countless times.
And I still say it.
Your mistake was to merge all the Nintys into one.
Some of us like Wave Race and Excitebike.
Others, like myself think that GT3 is boring.
And about games like Zelda and Mario rarely being intense, they're not meant to be all the way through. They can be in odd sections when you're up against a particularly hard boss but for the main part they're about general skill, exploration and puzzle solving.
F-Zero X was seriously intense, and that was it's best feature. Compare it's intensity to that of GT3 and "Mr realism" comes out like a wet blanket (anyone who's read my topic about "tension" - see GAD winners list - will understand me).
And seeing as the whole appeal of the Racing sport is based on fear, tension, speed, and macho danger, it does make me feel that GT3 has entirely missed the entire point.
All those ways you described GT3 as "fun", sure it was skillful but sounded incredibly "anorakish" - not what you should be describing as fun.
The only really impressive feature about GT3 is the graphics and the realism in the handling.
The graphics are almost as good on any generic realistic driving sim and the tweaked handling and physics?
If you're seriously into little details like that then you might find it fascinating but other than that, who cares?
It hardly affects the quality of game play.
I understand that people do over exadurate about how realistically boring the PS2 (and I do it all the time), but then again, you Sony fans always over exadurate about Nintendo being cartoony! (It does go both ways)
I also realise that games like GTA3 and Starfighter can be fun in their own ways if you decide to play the in that way but you'll find games like that on any system that's not quite what the game is based around.
I think you'll find that Gamecube games are the only ones that base themselves around fun (and although not ALL of them do, you'll normally find the most fun games on a Nintendo system).
Do you think Sega's Monkey Ball will be appreciated on another system?
I think that devellopers agree. Capcom have said that they're planning to make the Resident Evil a bit more fun based for the GC re makes as it's been taking itself too seriously previously.
PS2 titles often tend to take themselves way too seriously with the arty dark intro's and the dark deep plot.
Compare that to the likes of Monkey Ball and Pikmin which forget plot altogether to simply make a game that is great fun and interesting for what it is.
And multiplayer goes hand in hand with fun, but we hardly need to start an argument over which console has the best multiplayer, as we ALL know who would win.
And we know that most PS2 owners don't care for multiplayer anyway.
I suppose in a way you COULD make GT3 sort of fun, but you could make washing up fun in the very same way (you only have to watch Mary Poppins to realise that!) :-D.
Ah! Now you've made me blabber on and on!
Gee, even a nour of GT3 will probably be more intersting than reading through all this! :-D
Page: