The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I bet most of you have heard by now.
Nintendo apparently have a new policy of making all their games short and easy for casual gamers and kids.
I hate the policy although some others seem to like it.
I don't mind the odd shorty like Pikmin or Luigi's Mansion but I'd hate it if Mario or Zelda went the same way.
If they do follow this policy, it'll be their undoing.
In the past (N64 past, that is), Nintendo have given us games which were either large and epic (say, Zelda or Mario) or based around multiplayer (Mario Kart and Smash Brothers, for example).
It was the perfect combination and you can see why Goldeneye was so highly appraised when it had both.
These games always lasted a long time, either through adventure, or because you'd play your friends, time and time again.
Now go to a magazine/website and look at the reviews.
Notice how games like Monkey Ball and Smash Brothers are being raved over and getting huge scores, while other titles were getting a "nice but not impressive" 7 out of 10.
That's 70%.
It's not a coincidence that Smash Brothers and Monkey Ball are both multiplayer based master pieces and so we have a pattern, the multiplayer games getting the higher scores.
"So these mags are biased towards multiplayer!"
I hear you say.
But no.
You're wrong.
These are the same magazines that say Mario 64 and Zelda 64 are better than Goldeneye. And seeing as Goldeneye's single player mode was almost as good as theirs, and that it sported a ground braking multiplayer with it, I'd say that they're more biased towards single player adventures than multiplayer games.
So why is it that it's now the multiplayer games that are getting the big scores.
Putting it simply, Nintendo's other titles are frankly underwhelming.
Sure, they're neat little games that you'll enjoy while they last but they're not exactly the almighty PS2 blasters everyone wanted.
They're short and shallow.
They're designed to be rented for a weekend, not bought for a month's play.
After waiting so long for a PS2 beating Nintendo machine, they give us short mini games which have neat ideas and are very cleverly done, but at the end of the day, they're not really that impressive and people prefer the longer lasting adventures on the PS2.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
Perhaps Luigi's Mansion and PIkmin were just done quickly in time for the launch.
Maybe Nintendo have got something big planned in the way of Zelda and Mario.
But if Mario and Zelda do turn out to be cheap 15 hour mini games then a lot people will be disappointed. I will still love my Gamecube for multiplayer, and get a fair bit of decent solo player games from Rare and other second/third party devellopers, but Nintendo will lose their reputation for having depth in their games and lose much of what made them so special and gave them such a strong hardcore croud.
Let's hope that it doesn't turn out like that.
Nintendo apparently have a new policy of making all their games short and easy for casual gamers and kids.
I hate the policy although some others seem to like it.
I don't mind the odd shorty like Pikmin or Luigi's Mansion but I'd hate it if Mario or Zelda went the same way.
If they do follow this policy, it'll be their undoing.
In the past (N64 past, that is), Nintendo have given us games which were either large and epic (say, Zelda or Mario) or based around multiplayer (Mario Kart and Smash Brothers, for example).
It was the perfect combination and you can see why Goldeneye was so highly appraised when it had both.
These games always lasted a long time, either through adventure, or because you'd play your friends, time and time again.
Now go to a magazine/website and look at the reviews.
Notice how games like Monkey Ball and Smash Brothers are being raved over and getting huge scores, while other titles were getting a "nice but not impressive" 7 out of 10.
That's 70%.
It's not a coincidence that Smash Brothers and Monkey Ball are both multiplayer based master pieces and so we have a pattern, the multiplayer games getting the higher scores.
"So these mags are biased towards multiplayer!"
I hear you say.
But no.
You're wrong.
These are the same magazines that say Mario 64 and Zelda 64 are better than Goldeneye. And seeing as Goldeneye's single player mode was almost as good as theirs, and that it sported a ground braking multiplayer with it, I'd say that they're more biased towards single player adventures than multiplayer games.
So why is it that it's now the multiplayer games that are getting the big scores.
Putting it simply, Nintendo's other titles are frankly underwhelming.
Sure, they're neat little games that you'll enjoy while they last but they're not exactly the almighty PS2 blasters everyone wanted.
They're short and shallow.
They're designed to be rented for a weekend, not bought for a month's play.
After waiting so long for a PS2 beating Nintendo machine, they give us short mini games which have neat ideas and are very cleverly done, but at the end of the day, they're not really that impressive and people prefer the longer lasting adventures on the PS2.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
Perhaps Luigi's Mansion and PIkmin were just done quickly in time for the launch.
Maybe Nintendo have got something big planned in the way of Zelda and Mario.
But if Mario and Zelda do turn out to be cheap 15 hour mini games then a lot people will be disappointed. I will still love my Gamecube for multiplayer, and get a fair bit of decent solo player games from Rare and other second/third party devellopers, but Nintendo will lose their reputation for having depth in their games and lose much of what made them so special and gave them such a strong hardcore croud.
Let's hope that it doesn't turn out like that.
Page:
That also makes you, myself and Starlight right!
Joe Dark wrote:
> I agree with you, I don't mind a few short games, I'm really looking forward to
> Pikmin, but I want a long Mario game on the GameCube.
That makes you, myself and Starlight.
Anyone else agree with me?
> I agree with you, I don't mind a few short games, I'm really looking forward to
> Pikmin, but I want a long Mario game on the GameCube.
That makes you, myself and Starlight.
Anyone else agree with me?
like NGC gave every game under 90% Pikmin is not a 90% game
I agree with you, I don't mind a few short games, I'm really looking forward to Pikmin, but I want a long Mario game on the GameCube.
I bet most of you have heard by now.
Nintendo apparently have a new policy of making all their games short and easy for casual gamers and kids.
I hate the policy although some others seem to like it.
I don't mind the odd shorty like Pikmin or Luigi's Mansion but I'd hate it if Mario or Zelda went the same way.
If they do follow this policy, it'll be their undoing.
In the past (N64 past, that is), Nintendo have given us games which were either large and epic (say, Zelda or Mario) or based around multiplayer (Mario Kart and Smash Brothers, for example).
It was the perfect combination and you can see why Goldeneye was so highly appraised when it had both.
These games always lasted a long time, either through adventure, or because you'd play your friends, time and time again.
Now go to a magazine/website and look at the reviews.
Notice how games like Monkey Ball and Smash Brothers are being raved over and getting huge scores, while other titles were getting a "nice but not impressive" 7 out of 10.
That's 70%.
It's not a coincidence that Smash Brothers and Monkey Ball are both multiplayer based master pieces and so we have a pattern, the multiplayer games getting the higher scores.
"So these mags are biased towards multiplayer!"
I hear you say.
But no.
You're wrong.
These are the same magazines that say Mario 64 and Zelda 64 are better than Goldeneye. And seeing as Goldeneye's single player mode was almost as good as theirs, and that it sported a ground braking multiplayer with it, I'd say that they're more biased towards single player adventures than multiplayer games.
So why is it that it's now the multiplayer games that are getting the big scores.
Putting it simply, Nintendo's other titles are frankly underwhelming.
Sure, they're neat little games that you'll enjoy while they last but they're not exactly the almighty PS2 blasters everyone wanted.
They're short and shallow.
They're designed to be rented for a weekend, not bought for a month's play.
After waiting so long for a PS2 beating Nintendo machine, they give us short mini games which have neat ideas and are very cleverly done, but at the end of the day, they're not really that impressive and people prefer the longer lasting adventures on the PS2.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
Perhaps Luigi's Mansion and PIkmin were just done quickly in time for the launch.
Maybe Nintendo have got something big planned in the way of Zelda and Mario.
But if Mario and Zelda do turn out to be cheap 15 hour mini games then a lot people will be disappointed. I will still love my Gamecube for multiplayer, and get a fair bit of decent solo player games from Rare and other second/third party devellopers, but Nintendo will lose their reputation for having depth in their games and lose much of what made them so special and gave them such a strong hardcore croud.
Let's hope that it doesn't turn out like that.
Nintendo apparently have a new policy of making all their games short and easy for casual gamers and kids.
I hate the policy although some others seem to like it.
I don't mind the odd shorty like Pikmin or Luigi's Mansion but I'd hate it if Mario or Zelda went the same way.
If they do follow this policy, it'll be their undoing.
In the past (N64 past, that is), Nintendo have given us games which were either large and epic (say, Zelda or Mario) or based around multiplayer (Mario Kart and Smash Brothers, for example).
It was the perfect combination and you can see why Goldeneye was so highly appraised when it had both.
These games always lasted a long time, either through adventure, or because you'd play your friends, time and time again.
Now go to a magazine/website and look at the reviews.
Notice how games like Monkey Ball and Smash Brothers are being raved over and getting huge scores, while other titles were getting a "nice but not impressive" 7 out of 10.
That's 70%.
It's not a coincidence that Smash Brothers and Monkey Ball are both multiplayer based master pieces and so we have a pattern, the multiplayer games getting the higher scores.
"So these mags are biased towards multiplayer!"
I hear you say.
But no.
You're wrong.
These are the same magazines that say Mario 64 and Zelda 64 are better than Goldeneye. And seeing as Goldeneye's single player mode was almost as good as theirs, and that it sported a ground braking multiplayer with it, I'd say that they're more biased towards single player adventures than multiplayer games.
So why is it that it's now the multiplayer games that are getting the big scores.
Putting it simply, Nintendo's other titles are frankly underwhelming.
Sure, they're neat little games that you'll enjoy while they last but they're not exactly the almighty PS2 blasters everyone wanted.
They're short and shallow.
They're designed to be rented for a weekend, not bought for a month's play.
After waiting so long for a PS2 beating Nintendo machine, they give us short mini games which have neat ideas and are very cleverly done, but at the end of the day, they're not really that impressive and people prefer the longer lasting adventures on the PS2.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
Perhaps Luigi's Mansion and PIkmin were just done quickly in time for the launch.
Maybe Nintendo have got something big planned in the way of Zelda and Mario.
But if Mario and Zelda do turn out to be cheap 15 hour mini games then a lot people will be disappointed. I will still love my Gamecube for multiplayer, and get a fair bit of decent solo player games from Rare and other second/third party devellopers, but Nintendo will lose their reputation for having depth in their games and lose much of what made them so special and gave them such a strong hardcore croud.
Let's hope that it doesn't turn out like that.
Page: