The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Project Reality, as you may or may not know, was the working title for the N64.
Funny then that now Yamauchi says that too much emphasis on reality is leading to too many similar games, that aren't much fun.
A realistic looking Zelda, as seen Spaceworld 2000, was scrapped, as it didn't fit in with the image of the game, apparently. Forget rumours that the realistic look is returning for now, we can only asume that what we have seen is what we shall get - but where did it stop being project reality, and start being project fun?
Technical demos for the N64 involved such dazzling visuals as a car and a helicopter going around a town. It looked great.
So called technical demos of the Gamecube concentrated on fun. Luigi's Mansion, 128 Marios, Mieowth's Party.
Rather than looking at what the machine can do, it seems that Nintendo were looking at what type of fun games thay can create.
With this information I propose that Nintendo are a generation ahead of the competition in terms of their aims for their console.
Both the Xbox and PS2 have had games that display incredible levels of realism in play. Sometimes this is great fun, others it can deter from gameplay.
Nintendo's games seem to throw reality out of the window, just look at Pikmin.
That said 'Project Reality' didn't exactly bring us realistic games, did it?
Clunky development kits meant that developers that had seen the promise of the technical demos were never able to realise their visions - not on the N64.
In fact, the best games on the N64 were the games set in fantasy. Mario64, Banjo, Conker. The only developers that achieved anything with an impressive, realistic look, were Rare, with Perfect Dark and Goldeneye.
Nintendo's lack of output on the platform seems to be an indication of scrapped projects aplenty, maybe projects that were supposed to deliver this so called reality?
Could the words of Mr Yamauchi be more representative of Nintendo's failing in this department, rather than real disillusion at the number of realistic games on the market?
Funny then that now Yamauchi says that too much emphasis on reality is leading to too many similar games, that aren't much fun.
A realistic looking Zelda, as seen Spaceworld 2000, was scrapped, as it didn't fit in with the image of the game, apparently. Forget rumours that the realistic look is returning for now, we can only asume that what we have seen is what we shall get - but where did it stop being project reality, and start being project fun?
Technical demos for the N64 involved such dazzling visuals as a car and a helicopter going around a town. It looked great.
So called technical demos of the Gamecube concentrated on fun. Luigi's Mansion, 128 Marios, Mieowth's Party.
Rather than looking at what the machine can do, it seems that Nintendo were looking at what type of fun games thay can create.
With this information I propose that Nintendo are a generation ahead of the competition in terms of their aims for their console.
Both the Xbox and PS2 have had games that display incredible levels of realism in play. Sometimes this is great fun, others it can deter from gameplay.
Nintendo's games seem to throw reality out of the window, just look at Pikmin.
That said 'Project Reality' didn't exactly bring us realistic games, did it?
Clunky development kits meant that developers that had seen the promise of the technical demos were never able to realise their visions - not on the N64.
In fact, the best games on the N64 were the games set in fantasy. Mario64, Banjo, Conker. The only developers that achieved anything with an impressive, realistic look, were Rare, with Perfect Dark and Goldeneye.
Nintendo's lack of output on the platform seems to be an indication of scrapped projects aplenty, maybe projects that were supposed to deliver this so called reality?
Could the words of Mr Yamauchi be more representative of Nintendo's failing in this department, rather than real disillusion at the number of realistic games on the market?
Page:
*Turbonutter gets out his spade*
I think Nintendo are showing cowardice towards realism. Realism can be immense fun when pulled of properly, just look at Dropship, GT3 (for some), Burnout (ish), WipEout Fusion, Metal Gear Solid 2, TimeSplitters, Silent Hill 2, Pro Evolution Soccer, SSX, Airblade, blah blah blah you know the drill. Of course, not many of these have realistc scenarios, but they do obey realism in terms of graphics, physics, conventions etc., and they are all great games. It takes great skill to make a good realistic game, for proof all you need to do is look at all the pap ones.
If you can pull it off, realism is a great thing because it immerses you in the task you have to do. Half-Life and Duex Ex wouldn;t be half the games they are now if they were in a different style.
It seems to me that Nintendo is falling back on its 16bit experience. In those days, games were "fun" in the way you put it because the technology couldn;t produce anything near realism, and when people tried they failed. It seeems to me that Nintendo are scared to delve into realistic games, maybe because they're harder to pull off than the alternative. Now, I'm not saying that Nintendo shouldn't make fun games, but instead of making games that hark back to 16bit days with a third dimension, they should be pushing gaming boundaries forwards by making great games while living up to today's technologies.
Anyway, feel free to disagree with me, that's what I'm here for!
I think Nintendo are showing cowardice towards realism. Realism can be immense fun when pulled of properly, just look at Dropship, GT3 (for some), Burnout (ish), WipEout Fusion, Metal Gear Solid 2, TimeSplitters, Silent Hill 2, Pro Evolution Soccer, SSX, Airblade, blah blah blah you know the drill. Of course, not many of these have realistc scenarios, but they do obey realism in terms of graphics, physics, conventions etc., and they are all great games. It takes great skill to make a good realistic game, for proof all you need to do is look at all the pap ones.
If you can pull it off, realism is a great thing because it immerses you in the task you have to do. Half-Life and Duex Ex wouldn;t be half the games they are now if they were in a different style.
It seems to me that Nintendo is falling back on its 16bit experience. In those days, games were "fun" in the way you put it because the technology couldn;t produce anything near realism, and when people tried they failed. It seeems to me that Nintendo are scared to delve into realistic games, maybe because they're harder to pull off than the alternative. Now, I'm not saying that Nintendo shouldn't make fun games, but instead of making games that hark back to 16bit days with a third dimension, they should be pushing gaming boundaries forwards by making great games while living up to today's technologies.
Anyway, feel free to disagree with me, that's what I'm here for!
Are realistic games necessarily better than those that aren't? No, of course not. However, there are realistic games going to GC, e.g eternal darkness, res evil, Perfect Dark Zero. And anyway, what is the point of games? To get ever closer to beinfg photo realistic? Or to have fun?
Touché, I say.
Project Reality, as you may or may not know, was the working title for the N64.
Funny then that now Yamauchi says that too much emphasis on reality is leading to too many similar games, that aren't much fun.
A realistic looking Zelda, as seen Spaceworld 2000, was scrapped, as it didn't fit in with the image of the game, apparently. Forget rumours that the realistic look is returning for now, we can only asume that what we have seen is what we shall get - but where did it stop being project reality, and start being project fun?
Technical demos for the N64 involved such dazzling visuals as a car and a helicopter going around a town. It looked great.
So called technical demos of the Gamecube concentrated on fun. Luigi's Mansion, 128 Marios, Mieowth's Party.
Rather than looking at what the machine can do, it seems that Nintendo were looking at what type of fun games thay can create.
With this information I propose that Nintendo are a generation ahead of the competition in terms of their aims for their console.
Both the Xbox and PS2 have had games that display incredible levels of realism in play. Sometimes this is great fun, others it can deter from gameplay.
Nintendo's games seem to throw reality out of the window, just look at Pikmin.
That said 'Project Reality' didn't exactly bring us realistic games, did it?
Clunky development kits meant that developers that had seen the promise of the technical demos were never able to realise their visions - not on the N64.
In fact, the best games on the N64 were the games set in fantasy. Mario64, Banjo, Conker. The only developers that achieved anything with an impressive, realistic look, were Rare, with Perfect Dark and Goldeneye.
Nintendo's lack of output on the platform seems to be an indication of scrapped projects aplenty, maybe projects that were supposed to deliver this so called reality?
Could the words of Mr Yamauchi be more representative of Nintendo's failing in this department, rather than real disillusion at the number of realistic games on the market?
Funny then that now Yamauchi says that too much emphasis on reality is leading to too many similar games, that aren't much fun.
A realistic looking Zelda, as seen Spaceworld 2000, was scrapped, as it didn't fit in with the image of the game, apparently. Forget rumours that the realistic look is returning for now, we can only asume that what we have seen is what we shall get - but where did it stop being project reality, and start being project fun?
Technical demos for the N64 involved such dazzling visuals as a car and a helicopter going around a town. It looked great.
So called technical demos of the Gamecube concentrated on fun. Luigi's Mansion, 128 Marios, Mieowth's Party.
Rather than looking at what the machine can do, it seems that Nintendo were looking at what type of fun games thay can create.
With this information I propose that Nintendo are a generation ahead of the competition in terms of their aims for their console.
Both the Xbox and PS2 have had games that display incredible levels of realism in play. Sometimes this is great fun, others it can deter from gameplay.
Nintendo's games seem to throw reality out of the window, just look at Pikmin.
That said 'Project Reality' didn't exactly bring us realistic games, did it?
Clunky development kits meant that developers that had seen the promise of the technical demos were never able to realise their visions - not on the N64.
In fact, the best games on the N64 were the games set in fantasy. Mario64, Banjo, Conker. The only developers that achieved anything with an impressive, realistic look, were Rare, with Perfect Dark and Goldeneye.
Nintendo's lack of output on the platform seems to be an indication of scrapped projects aplenty, maybe projects that were supposed to deliver this so called reality?
Could the words of Mr Yamauchi be more representative of Nintendo's failing in this department, rather than real disillusion at the number of realistic games on the market?
Page: