The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Happy with your game cube? I am, whilst waiting to begin an adventure of the Nintendo class.
Right the point. Nintendo's new way of making games is worrying me. All these pure nintendo games like Luigi and Pikmin have the nintendo dynamite. By this I mean the rush of gaming pleasure expected. However the new short life span I feel is bad.
Nintendo have commented that they put a lot of effort into their games, which include later levels which a percentage of gamers never get to. Whether its down to them not being good at games or having a short attention span is questionable. So Nintendo feel it is a waste of time making games long (as you may have noticed).
My problems with this are..
1/ At university I am studying Computer Games Design BA and at a poll the most inportant part of a game (choices include graphics, sound, originality etc.) Longevity came clear top over gameplay. This surprised me but clearly shows what the public wants for its £40.
2/ I feel I am a good and experienced game player and getting far or completing hard/long games is satisfying and an accomplishment which I think other game players should not lose out on.
3/ If the games are not as long surely this should reflet the price as we are getting less game time for the same amount of money.
4/ More levels is never a bad thing. Of course I appriciate replay value which Nintendo give but I expect this anyway and should not comprimise the game length.
5/ Super Mario World had 96 levels, some of which you had to find. It appealed to all ages as Nintendo can do with flare! The excuse of including younger players in these games cannot be an excuse as even they put up with huge games.
6/ The best short adventure I have played is Conker's bad fur day. But again more levels would have been welcome and I really hope nintendo are not playing on sequels rather than polished classic titles.
And think about it, if Zelda Ocarina of Time was 9 hours long would it still be a classic?
Oh well at least these short adventures still beat the pants of the competition! (What was I moaning about?)
Right the point. Nintendo's new way of making games is worrying me. All these pure nintendo games like Luigi and Pikmin have the nintendo dynamite. By this I mean the rush of gaming pleasure expected. However the new short life span I feel is bad.
Nintendo have commented that they put a lot of effort into their games, which include later levels which a percentage of gamers never get to. Whether its down to them not being good at games or having a short attention span is questionable. So Nintendo feel it is a waste of time making games long (as you may have noticed).
My problems with this are..
1/ At university I am studying Computer Games Design BA and at a poll the most inportant part of a game (choices include graphics, sound, originality etc.) Longevity came clear top over gameplay. This surprised me but clearly shows what the public wants for its £40.
2/ I feel I am a good and experienced game player and getting far or completing hard/long games is satisfying and an accomplishment which I think other game players should not lose out on.
3/ If the games are not as long surely this should reflet the price as we are getting less game time for the same amount of money.
4/ More levels is never a bad thing. Of course I appriciate replay value which Nintendo give but I expect this anyway and should not comprimise the game length.
5/ Super Mario World had 96 levels, some of which you had to find. It appealed to all ages as Nintendo can do with flare! The excuse of including younger players in these games cannot be an excuse as even they put up with huge games.
6/ The best short adventure I have played is Conker's bad fur day. But again more levels would have been welcome and I really hope nintendo are not playing on sequels rather than polished classic titles.
And think about it, if Zelda Ocarina of Time was 9 hours long would it still be a classic?
Oh well at least these short adventures still beat the pants of the competition! (What was I moaning about?)
Mario and Zelda are gonna be at least as big as their N64 counterparts. Animal Crossing is apparently over 4 times larger than Zelda OOT, Eternal Darkness though not directly made by Nintendo has at least 50 hours of gameplay in it. Infact I can't think of any other releases other than Luigi and Pikmin that are gonna be short.
Hope they don't make Wario short, i'm really lookin forward to that.
Hope they don't make Wario short, i'm really lookin forward to that.
I've had 37 hours of play on Pikmin so far, and I've just started a new game...
And Super Mario Sunshine has been confirmed to be roughly the same length as Super Mario 64!! Yay!!! :D
And Super Mario Sunshine has been confirmed to be roughly the same length as Super Mario 64!! Yay!!! :D
pikmin's not that short!
this short game policy is purely experimental so hopefully LOZ and mario shouldn't be following it!
*crosses fingers*
*crosses fingers*
I like games. me.
Happy with your game cube? I am, whilst waiting to begin an adventure of the Nintendo class.
Right the point. Nintendo's new way of making games is worrying me. All these pure nintendo games like Luigi and Pikmin have the nintendo dynamite. By this I mean the rush of gaming pleasure expected. However the new short life span I feel is bad.
Nintendo have commented that they put a lot of effort into their games, which include later levels which a percentage of gamers never get to. Whether its down to them not being good at games or having a short attention span is questionable. So Nintendo feel it is a waste of time making games long (as you may have noticed).
My problems with this are..
1/ At university I am studying Computer Games Design BA and at a poll the most inportant part of a game (choices include graphics, sound, originality etc.) Longevity came clear top over gameplay. This surprised me but clearly shows what the public wants for its £40.
2/ I feel I am a good and experienced game player and getting far or completing hard/long games is satisfying and an accomplishment which I think other game players should not lose out on.
3/ If the games are not as long surely this should reflet the price as we are getting less game time for the same amount of money.
4/ More levels is never a bad thing. Of course I appriciate replay value which Nintendo give but I expect this anyway and should not comprimise the game length.
5/ Super Mario World had 96 levels, some of which you had to find. It appealed to all ages as Nintendo can do with flare! The excuse of including younger players in these games cannot be an excuse as even they put up with huge games.
6/ The best short adventure I have played is Conker's bad fur day. But again more levels would have been welcome and I really hope nintendo are not playing on sequels rather than polished classic titles.
And think about it, if Zelda Ocarina of Time was 9 hours long would it still be a classic?
Oh well at least these short adventures still beat the pants of the competition! (What was I moaning about?)
Right the point. Nintendo's new way of making games is worrying me. All these pure nintendo games like Luigi and Pikmin have the nintendo dynamite. By this I mean the rush of gaming pleasure expected. However the new short life span I feel is bad.
Nintendo have commented that they put a lot of effort into their games, which include later levels which a percentage of gamers never get to. Whether its down to them not being good at games or having a short attention span is questionable. So Nintendo feel it is a waste of time making games long (as you may have noticed).
My problems with this are..
1/ At university I am studying Computer Games Design BA and at a poll the most inportant part of a game (choices include graphics, sound, originality etc.) Longevity came clear top over gameplay. This surprised me but clearly shows what the public wants for its £40.
2/ I feel I am a good and experienced game player and getting far or completing hard/long games is satisfying and an accomplishment which I think other game players should not lose out on.
3/ If the games are not as long surely this should reflet the price as we are getting less game time for the same amount of money.
4/ More levels is never a bad thing. Of course I appriciate replay value which Nintendo give but I expect this anyway and should not comprimise the game length.
5/ Super Mario World had 96 levels, some of which you had to find. It appealed to all ages as Nintendo can do with flare! The excuse of including younger players in these games cannot be an excuse as even they put up with huge games.
6/ The best short adventure I have played is Conker's bad fur day. But again more levels would have been welcome and I really hope nintendo are not playing on sequels rather than polished classic titles.
And think about it, if Zelda Ocarina of Time was 9 hours long would it still be a classic?
Oh well at least these short adventures still beat the pants of the competition! (What was I moaning about?)