The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Things sure are changing these days.
Mario makes way for luigi in the flagship launch title.
Zelda’s look is radically re-worked.
Perfect dark goes third person, if rumors are to be believed.
Fox leaves his arwing to stretch his legs with the dinosaurs.
Why?
The view on perfect dark seems to be that the only way to better it as a first person game would be graphically.
Since that doesn’t seem like much of a new game, things get changed.
Does the same thing apply to all the others? –It’s harder to compare the sequel if its different enough.
But how much do things change in the larger picture? It looks like dinosaur planet will be very similar to the n64 zeldas in some aspects. PD like operation winback, maybe mgs? It wouldn’t surprise me.
Meanwhile the new zelda will (hopefully) only change its format on the graphical front.
So are we out of fresh ideas? Is there anything new to do? Almost certainly, but we just haven’t thought of it yet. So in the meantime the question I’m asking is has nintendo run out of innovation? Are they producing graphical updates of the old games, and trying to throw us off the scent by switching around the characters and settings?
Maybe, but how much would we expect things to change? Have we ever seen anything really new arrive in big steps? I’d have to say that it seems to come a little at a time. Maybe nintendo’s reputation for innovation and the expectations of their followers has just gotten too great, we all expect miracles from them, because they’ve pulled it off in the past.
So they feel they don’t have enough that’s really ‘new’ for a new console release, and try to make things different in new tactics.
On the other hand, maybe pd, for example, was almost the ideal fps. Maybe the only way to improve on it now is minor polishing of things like graphics, options and controls. So the only way to successfully extend the franchise would be change. The same kind of thing could be true for zelda (though the changes still remain to be seen) – though personally more 64 clones with new puzzles, items and plots would keep me happy for a very long time!
Opinions?
Mario makes way for luigi in the flagship launch title.
Zelda’s look is radically re-worked.
Perfect dark goes third person, if rumors are to be believed.
Fox leaves his arwing to stretch his legs with the dinosaurs.
Why?
The view on perfect dark seems to be that the only way to better it as a first person game would be graphically.
Since that doesn’t seem like much of a new game, things get changed.
Does the same thing apply to all the others? –It’s harder to compare the sequel if its different enough.
But how much do things change in the larger picture? It looks like dinosaur planet will be very similar to the n64 zeldas in some aspects. PD like operation winback, maybe mgs? It wouldn’t surprise me.
Meanwhile the new zelda will (hopefully) only change its format on the graphical front.
So are we out of fresh ideas? Is there anything new to do? Almost certainly, but we just haven’t thought of it yet. So in the meantime the question I’m asking is has nintendo run out of innovation? Are they producing graphical updates of the old games, and trying to throw us off the scent by switching around the characters and settings?
Maybe, but how much would we expect things to change? Have we ever seen anything really new arrive in big steps? I’d have to say that it seems to come a little at a time. Maybe nintendo’s reputation for innovation and the expectations of their followers has just gotten too great, we all expect miracles from them, because they’ve pulled it off in the past.
So they feel they don’t have enough that’s really ‘new’ for a new console release, and try to make things different in new tactics.
On the other hand, maybe pd, for example, was almost the ideal fps. Maybe the only way to improve on it now is minor polishing of things like graphics, options and controls. So the only way to successfully extend the franchise would be change. The same kind of thing could be true for zelda (though the changes still remain to be seen) – though personally more 64 clones with new puzzles, items and plots would keep me happy for a very long time!
Opinions?
Strafex wrote:
The only thing that's now, stopping me from
> seriously considering a PS2 or Xbox is Rare.
I only hope that they don't follow
> Ninty's suit...
Despite Rare being part owned by Nintendo I don't think that they will follow suit, well lets hope not and anyway it dosn't seem that way, after all it said that Nintendo are changing some of their ways so it's probably just games like Mario and so on that will be of any difference.
I'm glad though that Sega ave jumped on the Nintendo bandwagon as now we have wide area internet access immediantly available (as long as our Gamecubes have a modem that is) with Segas own servers and Sega along with other game developers will still make some great long games. So I suppose the only reason Nintendo are shall we say 'changing' a few things with their popular titles is because they have so much third party support and great games that they can afford to.
I still wish it wasn't happening to Mario and Zelda though, other pap fine but not two such recognised games.
Looks like were set for another argument over Nintendo being childish with the upcoming Mario and Zelda changes being the focus point.
The only thing that's now, stopping me from
> seriously considering a PS2 or Xbox is Rare.
I only hope that they don't follow
> Ninty's suit...
Despite Rare being part owned by Nintendo I don't think that they will follow suit, well lets hope not and anyway it dosn't seem that way, after all it said that Nintendo are changing some of their ways so it's probably just games like Mario and so on that will be of any difference.
I'm glad though that Sega ave jumped on the Nintendo bandwagon as now we have wide area internet access immediantly available (as long as our Gamecubes have a modem that is) with Segas own servers and Sega along with other game developers will still make some great long games. So I suppose the only reason Nintendo are shall we say 'changing' a few things with their popular titles is because they have so much third party support and great games that they can afford to.
I still wish it wasn't happening to Mario and Zelda though, other pap fine but not two such recognised games.
Looks like were set for another argument over Nintendo being childish with the upcoming Mario and Zelda changes being the focus point.
Starlight wrote:
> I'm more worries about that Nintendo are focusing more on cildren with their
> games and are making games shorter and easier.
My thoughts exactly.
I've not read the NGC article but Dringo's prime topic pretty much did the damage...
The only thing that's now, stopping me from seriously considering a PS2 or Xbox is Rare.
I only hope that they don't follow Ninty's suit...
> I'm more worries about that Nintendo are focusing more on cildren with their
> games and are making games shorter and easier.
My thoughts exactly.
I've not read the NGC article but Dringo's prime topic pretty much did the damage...
The only thing that's now, stopping me from seriously considering a PS2 or Xbox is Rare.
I only hope that they don't follow Ninty's suit...
I think Nintendo are trying to keep their shall we say popularity for being the company who like to try new ideas and be original and letting gamers get new experiences etc. Remember one of the old Zelda games? The one that was 2D a flat side scrolling Zelda adventure, it obviously wasn't as well greeted and Nintendo reverted back to the top down way of things and I suppose that with the new Zelda they are doing the same thing and I can see many mixed views of this and before the end of Gamecubes life there will be one more Zelda game which is graphically wonderful and everyone is happy.
The same goes with Perfect Dark, Mario and Luigi they are just tyring to be different and experiment so to speak, I'm more worries about that Nintendo are focusing more on cildren with their games and are making games shorter and easier.
The same goes with Perfect Dark, Mario and Luigi they are just tyring to be different and experiment so to speak, I'm more worries about that Nintendo are focusing more on cildren with their games and are making games shorter and easier.
Whoa, nicly Said :) Hmmm...Nintendo, its Turning to use a techiqune that i don't like,
they are Expanding In Every way, (By the way, Perfect dark is a Rare Title, Not a Nintendo 1) They try and go in different Styles of gaming, Zedla, Its had Many Changes, Alot of them! is it that we don't Notice them? Are nintendo Just Doing Something They Always do? E.g. Zelda, on The SNES it was from above kinda game, We loved it. Still N64 Came out. It was a 3rd person game. We didn't mind, now come the gamecube, Are they just changing it because its something they always do? Change the Style of the Game into a other way? into a game that Zelda is a cartoon World it Still even may be a serious game, nintendo Are Always looking for new ideas, new Stlyes, And some reasons. i don't think anyone can Stop nintendo's Strong on going Imaginary mind.
they are Expanding In Every way, (By the way, Perfect dark is a Rare Title, Not a Nintendo 1) They try and go in different Styles of gaming, Zedla, Its had Many Changes, Alot of them! is it that we don't Notice them? Are nintendo Just Doing Something They Always do? E.g. Zelda, on The SNES it was from above kinda game, We loved it. Still N64 Came out. It was a 3rd person game. We didn't mind, now come the gamecube, Are they just changing it because its something they always do? Change the Style of the Game into a other way? into a game that Zelda is a cartoon World it Still even may be a serious game, nintendo Are Always looking for new ideas, new Stlyes, And some reasons. i don't think anyone can Stop nintendo's Strong on going Imaginary mind.
Things sure are changing these days.
Mario makes way for luigi in the flagship launch title.
Zelda’s look is radically re-worked.
Perfect dark goes third person, if rumors are to be believed.
Fox leaves his arwing to stretch his legs with the dinosaurs.
Why?
The view on perfect dark seems to be that the only way to better it as a first person game would be graphically.
Since that doesn’t seem like much of a new game, things get changed.
Does the same thing apply to all the others? –It’s harder to compare the sequel if its different enough.
But how much do things change in the larger picture? It looks like dinosaur planet will be very similar to the n64 zeldas in some aspects. PD like operation winback, maybe mgs? It wouldn’t surprise me.
Meanwhile the new zelda will (hopefully) only change its format on the graphical front.
So are we out of fresh ideas? Is there anything new to do? Almost certainly, but we just haven’t thought of it yet. So in the meantime the question I’m asking is has nintendo run out of innovation? Are they producing graphical updates of the old games, and trying to throw us off the scent by switching around the characters and settings?
Maybe, but how much would we expect things to change? Have we ever seen anything really new arrive in big steps? I’d have to say that it seems to come a little at a time. Maybe nintendo’s reputation for innovation and the expectations of their followers has just gotten too great, we all expect miracles from them, because they’ve pulled it off in the past.
So they feel they don’t have enough that’s really ‘new’ for a new console release, and try to make things different in new tactics.
On the other hand, maybe pd, for example, was almost the ideal fps. Maybe the only way to improve on it now is minor polishing of things like graphics, options and controls. So the only way to successfully extend the franchise would be change. The same kind of thing could be true for zelda (though the changes still remain to be seen) – though personally more 64 clones with new puzzles, items and plots would keep me happy for a very long time!
Opinions?
Mario makes way for luigi in the flagship launch title.
Zelda’s look is radically re-worked.
Perfect dark goes third person, if rumors are to be believed.
Fox leaves his arwing to stretch his legs with the dinosaurs.
Why?
The view on perfect dark seems to be that the only way to better it as a first person game would be graphically.
Since that doesn’t seem like much of a new game, things get changed.
Does the same thing apply to all the others? –It’s harder to compare the sequel if its different enough.
But how much do things change in the larger picture? It looks like dinosaur planet will be very similar to the n64 zeldas in some aspects. PD like operation winback, maybe mgs? It wouldn’t surprise me.
Meanwhile the new zelda will (hopefully) only change its format on the graphical front.
So are we out of fresh ideas? Is there anything new to do? Almost certainly, but we just haven’t thought of it yet. So in the meantime the question I’m asking is has nintendo run out of innovation? Are they producing graphical updates of the old games, and trying to throw us off the scent by switching around the characters and settings?
Maybe, but how much would we expect things to change? Have we ever seen anything really new arrive in big steps? I’d have to say that it seems to come a little at a time. Maybe nintendo’s reputation for innovation and the expectations of their followers has just gotten too great, we all expect miracles from them, because they’ve pulled it off in the past.
So they feel they don’t have enough that’s really ‘new’ for a new console release, and try to make things different in new tactics.
On the other hand, maybe pd, for example, was almost the ideal fps. Maybe the only way to improve on it now is minor polishing of things like graphics, options and controls. So the only way to successfully extend the franchise would be change. The same kind of thing could be true for zelda (though the changes still remain to be seen) – though personally more 64 clones with new puzzles, items and plots would keep me happy for a very long time!
Opinions?