The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Playing a GBA demonstration model in Curry's the other day I could not help, but laugh at what people class as a good hand-held the GBA is rubbish when playing yet another Mario game it appeared to me that the screen was exactly the same quality as my Gamegear infact take away the Ninty badge and you would not be able to tell the difference.
I mean are Ninty really saying that this a a next gen hand-held when the screen technology is a decade old, if you had a modern PDA with a screen like that you would take it back for a refund.
Then there are the games they look like SNES games not the PSone games we were promised. What a rip-off, and they expect you to pay £34.99 for a GBA game.
I mean are Ninty really saying that this a a next gen hand-held when the screen technology is a decade old, if you had a modern PDA with a screen like that you would take it back for a refund.
Then there are the games they look like SNES games not the PSone games we were promised. What a rip-off, and they expect you to pay £34.99 for a GBA game.
Page:
Also is it just your gamegear that is better or is everyones the same??
first of all some one said what if halo was re-released on xbox 2 with better graphics.
Well first resi evil has been and all i heard was good points from it, and before you say its because people didnt play it before whos to say that everyone played the first halo.
secondly its a completely diffrent thing, snes home console and GBA handheld.
Well first resi evil has been and all i heard was good points from it, and before you say its because people didnt play it before whos to say that everyone played the first halo.
secondly its a completely diffrent thing, snes home console and GBA handheld.
Gabbo wrote:
> First we had the NES, they brought out Super Mario World 1, Super
> Mario World 2 and Super Mario World 3. That's fair enough, different
> games, and all have there own unique attributes which make them
> special.
Actually, they were Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 2, and Super Mario Bros. 3... Also, you had the Lost Levels (the origianl seuel to Super Mario Bros., only released in Japan...) No. 2 was a totally different game seeing as it was only changed to a Mario game at the last minute to bring something fresh to the Mazza series, and so the game itself would sell better. No.2 wasn't seen as a 'true' sequel by some Mario fans... Mario 3 was the kind of 'true' sequel to the original, introducing new innovations like a world map screen, lots of new power ups and storing items for later.
> Then the SNES came along, they brought out Super Mario World 1, Super
> Mario World 2, Super Mario World 3 and Super Mario World, each
> seperate. Slight graphic change, but the same game. THEN, they
> released Super Mario All Stars. Why didn't they do this at the
> start?
Actually, the SNES had Super Mario World which was the sequel to Mario 3, and built upon it, and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, which was a totally different style of game where you controlled Yoshi who had baby Mario on his back. It had many classic Mario elements in it, but was also very different to previous Mario games too. The NES originals were never released on the SNES seperately. Mario 1, 2 and 3 as well as the Lost Levels were all released on one cart, Mario AllStars, they were never released on the SNES as seperate games.
> Now the GBA has released Super Mario World 2 under the name 'Mario
> Advance'. Firstly, it's the worst out of the series and secondly, why
> have they released the exact same game on three different consoles?
Well, strictly, it's not the exact same game, the GBA version does have a few extras. But basically yeah it is the same game. So far Nintendo haven't made any new 2D Mario games since the SNES. They've made the Wario Land games, and then just re-released proper Mario games from the SNES/NES era. I don't really think this is excusable... if Sega can manage to release a brand new Sonic title on the GBA, why can't Ninty release a new Mario game for it...?
> First we had the NES, they brought out Super Mario World 1, Super
> Mario World 2 and Super Mario World 3. That's fair enough, different
> games, and all have there own unique attributes which make them
> special.
Actually, they were Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 2, and Super Mario Bros. 3... Also, you had the Lost Levels (the origianl seuel to Super Mario Bros., only released in Japan...) No. 2 was a totally different game seeing as it was only changed to a Mario game at the last minute to bring something fresh to the Mazza series, and so the game itself would sell better. No.2 wasn't seen as a 'true' sequel by some Mario fans... Mario 3 was the kind of 'true' sequel to the original, introducing new innovations like a world map screen, lots of new power ups and storing items for later.
> Then the SNES came along, they brought out Super Mario World 1, Super
> Mario World 2, Super Mario World 3 and Super Mario World, each
> seperate. Slight graphic change, but the same game. THEN, they
> released Super Mario All Stars. Why didn't they do this at the
> start?
Actually, the SNES had Super Mario World which was the sequel to Mario 3, and built upon it, and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, which was a totally different style of game where you controlled Yoshi who had baby Mario on his back. It had many classic Mario elements in it, but was also very different to previous Mario games too. The NES originals were never released on the SNES seperately. Mario 1, 2 and 3 as well as the Lost Levels were all released on one cart, Mario AllStars, they were never released on the SNES as seperate games.
> Now the GBA has released Super Mario World 2 under the name 'Mario
> Advance'. Firstly, it's the worst out of the series and secondly, why
> have they released the exact same game on three different consoles?
Well, strictly, it's not the exact same game, the GBA version does have a few extras. But basically yeah it is the same game. So far Nintendo haven't made any new 2D Mario games since the SNES. They've made the Wario Land games, and then just re-released proper Mario games from the SNES/NES era. I don't really think this is excusable... if Sega can manage to release a brand new Sonic title on the GBA, why can't Ninty release a new Mario game for it...?
Techno freak wrote:
> Playing a GBA demonstration model in Curry's the other day I could not
> help, but laugh at what people class as a good hand-held the GBA is
> rubbish when playing yet another Mario game it appeared to me that the
> screen was exactly the same quality as my Gamegear infact take away
> the Ninty badge and you would not be able to tell the difference.
You would be able to tell the difference, the Game Gear is a heck of a lot bigger than the GBA. And 'yet another Mario game'? What do you mean, the Mario series is widely recognized as the best platforming series around. Even if they are old SNES/NES ports they remain classic games.
> I mean are Ninty really saying that this a a next gen hand-held when
> the screen technology is a decade old, if you had a modern PDA with a
> screen like that you would take it back for a refund.
PDA? You'll have to excuse me, I have no idea what one of those is... do they play games...? Anyway, why do you think the Game Gear failed in the wake of the original Game Boy? Tetris was probably a large part of this, but also I have a Game Gear still. It takes 6 batteries. 3 times as many as the Game Boy. And it has a battery life of somehting like 3, maybe 4 hours. I remember playing it on a plane journey, the plane journey was something like a ten hour flight, so we'd bought bew batteries for the Game Boy and Game Gear. Less than half way through the flight the GG ran out of juice. Basically, the GBA screen is fine to play games on, the backlight is the only lacking feature. But as we've seen with the GG, a backlight drains batteries quicker than an annoying fanboy posts spam...
> Then there are the games they look like SNES games not the PSone games
> we were promised. What a rip-off, and they expect you to pay
> £34.99 for a GBA game.
They never promised PSX games. They actually always maintained you could not do 3D on the GBA arcitecture. Go do your research. However, some clever developers managed to get some 3D games (Doom, Wolfenstein, ECKS Vs. SEVER) running on the GBA hardware. Nintendo however always maintained it was designed to run 2D games. The only comparison made with the PSX was that the GameBoy was 32Bit machine as was the PSX. You seem to be basing what Nintendo 'promised' on one snippet of technical info that means booger all in real terms. Oh, by the way, many of the games on the GBA are ports from SNES games, or sequels to SNES games, because the SNES/MegaDrive were the last of the 2D era, and GBA is primarily a 2D machine... so some games are bound to look like SNES games...
> Playing a GBA demonstration model in Curry's the other day I could not
> help, but laugh at what people class as a good hand-held the GBA is
> rubbish when playing yet another Mario game it appeared to me that the
> screen was exactly the same quality as my Gamegear infact take away
> the Ninty badge and you would not be able to tell the difference.
You would be able to tell the difference, the Game Gear is a heck of a lot bigger than the GBA. And 'yet another Mario game'? What do you mean, the Mario series is widely recognized as the best platforming series around. Even if they are old SNES/NES ports they remain classic games.
> I mean are Ninty really saying that this a a next gen hand-held when
> the screen technology is a decade old, if you had a modern PDA with a
> screen like that you would take it back for a refund.
PDA? You'll have to excuse me, I have no idea what one of those is... do they play games...? Anyway, why do you think the Game Gear failed in the wake of the original Game Boy? Tetris was probably a large part of this, but also I have a Game Gear still. It takes 6 batteries. 3 times as many as the Game Boy. And it has a battery life of somehting like 3, maybe 4 hours. I remember playing it on a plane journey, the plane journey was something like a ten hour flight, so we'd bought bew batteries for the Game Boy and Game Gear. Less than half way through the flight the GG ran out of juice. Basically, the GBA screen is fine to play games on, the backlight is the only lacking feature. But as we've seen with the GG, a backlight drains batteries quicker than an annoying fanboy posts spam...
> Then there are the games they look like SNES games not the PSone games
> we were promised. What a rip-off, and they expect you to pay
> £34.99 for a GBA game.
They never promised PSX games. They actually always maintained you could not do 3D on the GBA arcitecture. Go do your research. However, some clever developers managed to get some 3D games (Doom, Wolfenstein, ECKS Vs. SEVER) running on the GBA hardware. Nintendo however always maintained it was designed to run 2D games. The only comparison made with the PSX was that the GameBoy was 32Bit machine as was the PSX. You seem to be basing what Nintendo 'promised' on one snippet of technical info that means booger all in real terms. Oh, by the way, many of the games on the GBA are ports from SNES games, or sequels to SNES games, because the SNES/MegaDrive were the last of the 2D era, and GBA is primarily a 2D machine... so some games are bound to look like SNES games...
Techno freak wrote:
> I am sorry in this age of PS2 and GC the GBA graphics and in
> particular screen do not cut the mustard.
>
So dipstick, would you rather carry a portable PS2 around with you that weighed ten times more and was ten times larger.
The screen is better than any handheld on the market, has more colours than your crappy gamegear and lasts ten times as long.
The graphics are far better than your Gamegear, in fact, do you own either of these to make a comparison?
dipstick fanboy
> I am sorry in this age of PS2 and GC the GBA graphics and in
> particular screen do not cut the mustard.
>
So dipstick, would you rather carry a portable PS2 around with you that weighed ten times more and was ten times larger.
The screen is better than any handheld on the market, has more colours than your crappy gamegear and lasts ten times as long.
The graphics are far better than your Gamegear, in fact, do you own either of these to make a comparison?
dipstick fanboy
Gabbo wrote:
> I've sorta felt that way ever since they released Mario Kart 64. Fair
> enough, do up a game that was extremely popular on an earlier console,
> but what don't do is just think that sprucing the graphics up a tad
> will keep everyone happy. I played that game in Comet I think, and it
> was the sole reason why I decided not to buy an N64.
You based your decision not to buy the console on one game? hmmmmm
Although Mario Kart 64 and Super Mario Kart for the Snes involve the same characters in the same karts, the actual handeling of the karts is very very very different. Almost like a completely different game.
> I've sorta felt that way ever since they released Mario Kart 64. Fair
> enough, do up a game that was extremely popular on an earlier console,
> but what don't do is just think that sprucing the graphics up a tad
> will keep everyone happy. I played that game in Comet I think, and it
> was the sole reason why I decided not to buy an N64.
You based your decision not to buy the console on one game? hmmmmm
Although Mario Kart 64 and Super Mario Kart for the Snes involve the same characters in the same karts, the actual handeling of the karts is very very very different. Almost like a completely different game.
"My Gamegear has just as good a screen as the GBA."
What do you want? A cookie?!
What do you want? A cookie?!
Meh, you're right and you're wrong if you know what I mean. I understand what you mean about Nintendo just aiming to please their fans. It's what all companies do really, but the other companies achieve this by being original. Look at it this way. Imagine if Microsoft bought out the Xbox2 and re-released something like Halo with a bit better graphics. Would they get away with it like Nintendo have?
But theres also orginal games coming out like advance wars, and pikmin on the 'cube.
The thing is nintendo do aim for the younger people which might just be starting and leave the rest of the gae groups to have fun with rare and 3rd party developers games that they are making.
Microsoft and Sony appeal to the same age group when nintendo doesnt.
Sure i know your not pleased with remakes but there are other games out there not just remakes.
The thing is nintendo do aim for the younger people which might just be starting and leave the rest of the gae groups to have fun with rare and 3rd party developers games that they are making.
Microsoft and Sony appeal to the same age group when nintendo doesnt.
Sure i know your not pleased with remakes but there are other games out there not just remakes.
I couldn't really care about the power of my PS2. It could 128k like my trusty spectrum for all I care, but what I do care about is having original games which are fun to play. What you're saying is that Nintendo are putting the new gamers first, before the ones that purchased the earlier consoles. You think that's right?
Saying that releasing the same game on three different consoles so younger gamers get to play it is just a load of crap. Open your eyes.
Saying that releasing the same game on three different consoles so younger gamers get to play it is just a load of crap. Open your eyes.
Page: