The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Thought you guys would be intrested in this if you haven't already see it
Please not that none of this article has been confirmed yet, and it's all just rumour.
Activision didn't have enough money, but Bill 'Richie Rich' Gates's company was willing to knock down 350 million for them. This is about 500 million Euro/dollar.
Microsoft is said to have held a meeting recently with Rare in a hotel near Twycross, the developer's base. A deal was made, and Microsoft will make make a big announcement at their X02 event in Seville later this month, where the company will showcase new exclusive Xbox titles.
The rumour continues. Perfect Dar Zero will be developed exclusively for Xbox. That would also be the reason why we haven't heard from it anymore since last year's E3.
Hmmmmm is this true, you guess is as good as mine.
Please not that none of this article has been confirmed yet, and it's all just rumour.
Activision didn't have enough money, but Bill 'Richie Rich' Gates's company was willing to knock down 350 million for them. This is about 500 million Euro/dollar.
Microsoft is said to have held a meeting recently with Rare in a hotel near Twycross, the developer's base. A deal was made, and Microsoft will make make a big announcement at their X02 event in Seville later this month, where the company will showcase new exclusive Xbox titles.
The rumour continues. Perfect Dar Zero will be developed exclusively for Xbox. That would also be the reason why we haven't heard from it anymore since last year's E3.
Hmmmmm is this true, you guess is as good as mine.
Page:
Savatt78 wrote:
> Boz wrote:
> Someone was going on about nintys changeing their veiws on rare
> that
> kept N64 alive.
>
> Well we are not they arnt the same rare, most good ones left to
> radicla design.
>
> Anyone who has PD go and play on the last few levels and most would
> see why it isnt such a big thing.
>
>
> Its just interesting to see this point now when a few months back, we
> were getting comments along the line of "we have Rare so up your
> spout".
It was just our way of saying you may have thousands of awesome 3rd party developers but we have Rare, and I know very few who ever actually said we have Rare so up your spout. We used to say we have Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, those games and Conker is why I liked Rare and Timesplitters 2 is very much Goldeneye.
> Boz wrote:
> Someone was going on about nintys changeing their veiws on rare
> that
> kept N64 alive.
>
> Well we are not they arnt the same rare, most good ones left to
> radicla design.
>
> Anyone who has PD go and play on the last few levels and most would
> see why it isnt such a big thing.
>
>
> Its just interesting to see this point now when a few months back, we
> were getting comments along the line of "we have Rare so up your
> spout".
It was just our way of saying you may have thousands of awesome 3rd party developers but we have Rare, and I know very few who ever actually said we have Rare so up your spout. We used to say we have Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, those games and Conker is why I liked Rare and Timesplitters 2 is very much Goldeneye.
Yes - or you'll wake up with a GC on your pillow. ;-)
Savatt78 wrote:
> ~Res~ wrote:
> and yeah i can read just couldn't be bothered, it's only a sav post
> :)
>
> Shut it you 2 sentance skankboy. ;-)
no
> ~Res~ wrote:
> and yeah i can read just couldn't be bothered, it's only a sav post
> :)
>
> Shut it you 2 sentance skankboy. ;-)
no
~Res~ wrote:
> and yeah i can read just couldn't be bothered, it's only a sav post :)
Shut it you 2 sentance skankboy. ;-)
> and yeah i can read just couldn't be bothered, it's only a sav post :)
Shut it you 2 sentance skankboy. ;-)
Strafex wrote:
> If I'd played the game and it was very fun and playable then I
> would.
I think your telling porky pies there mate. Unless a player is young, I really don't see them buying the likes of a Muppets game. Not without people worrying about them anyway.
> Understandable, but it's not like Nintendo are lacking in that
> department either...
I'm not saying Nintendo lack in this area, its their approach. They have their kiddie reputation for a reason and thats because although their games can be played by all ages, they don't appeal to everyone.
In a way I guess their like the Disney of videogames.
> I know, but going on past reputations, Disney games are often aimed
> PURELY at kids - not just down to cutesy graphics but over-simplistic
> gameplay.
> If a great Disney game did come along, we'd hear about it.
Its not just about cutesy graphics, its the atmosphere of the games. A lot of people don't want to play games that feel "kiddie". Conker's had cutesy graphics but it was the atmosphere of it that had people enjoying it. Gameplay is important, but overall its important to enjoy the feel of the game too.
> Starwars games are often hit or miss.
> Besides, there's LOADS of games that look great in screenshots but are
> let down by poor controls/framerate etc.
What I'm saying is that these people have tastes in games. Despite getting crap results, theres always hope that Star Wars will deliver because people love the Star Wars universe.
> So at the end of the day, people love Starwars and want a great
> Starwars game. Does that mean they should dismiss everything that
> isn't Starwars?
I'm not saying they should dismiss everything, but if a game doesn't appeal then they won't play it. There are loads of highly playable games around and if they don't want to control a fluffy bear then why should they feel they have to ?
If one of your friends said "lets watch muppet babies" you'd probably worry about him. Just cause something is playable doesn't mean it has to appeal to everyone.
> Dismissing a game purely on it's plot and graphics style?
> I think it does.
So why don't we all watch saturday morning cartoons ? People have tastes in games and many don't want to play Nintendo games because a lot of the time they feel like the story isn't aimed at them.
For me, games have developed to a point where its like films and TV. Your into action or your not, your into romance or your not - sometimes you might try something different.
People see Nintendo games and think of cartoons, etc and of course a lot of people think cartoons, cutsey graphics, storybook style storyline = kiddie.
Then they'll look at another game and think, group of SAS soldiers, stuck over enemy lines, realistic graphics = thats for me.
As I said, theres loads of playable games around beyond Nintendo, the fact you say Nintendo is the best for playability is down to your opinion - at the same time, others are entitled to theirs.
I agree Nintendo are very good for making games, but a lot of their games don't appeal to me much now as my tastes have changed. I don't strictly kick away Nintendo games, but I wouldn't have many listed nowadays as must haves because I enjoy other types of games more.
This makes me no less a gamer, in fact I'm probably more of a gamer than most in that Nintendo forum as I've played games for years, I've spent ridiculous amounts of money on games because I enjoy them so much and god only knows how much time I spend playing them. I have the habit of caining games when I get them hence why I had MGS2 beaten in like 8 hours of buying it and Turok beaten within a couple of days.
I've been known to get an RPG at like 9am and not stop playing till 6am the following morning except maybe a 20 minute break to eat my dinner.
I even got up at like 5am and did an hour bike ride to a shop to pick up MGS2 when it opened early for the game. Combine this too with midnight openings for console releases and I don't think you get much more of a hardcore gamer.
Of course many will say thats sad and in all honesty, I couldn't argue that, because it is. But at the same time I enjoy playing games and I always have. I'd much rather be sat in front of a console all night playing games online than standing in a club, drinking till I puke.
One thing that has changed over time though is my taste in games, wether its my age or other interests that have influenced my tastes. Either way, a lot of Nintendo games don't appeal to me so much, but knowone can tell me I'm not a gamer or know nothing about games.
I think a lot of Ninties think that liking Nintendo gives them some sort of gaming guru status and puts their tastes above eveyone elses.
And just in case - I'm not saying thats you.
> I think you'll find that people like Nintendo because Zelda and Mario
> are great. They don't simply love Mario and Zelda because they love
> Nintendo.
> You're basing this purey on zealotism.
> Yes, a lot of do go by Nintendo's reputation, but after their past
> games, can you really blame us?
Nintendo's past reputation isn't something to be sneered at, but at the same time, it doesn't make all of Nintendo's competitors evil pigs who are out to ruin gaming while Nintendo are apparently some kind of saint.
Mario and Zelda are also great characters and as everyone knows, they generated a lot of money for Nintendo. But I think like their favourite cartoons, a lot of people have left them behind or just gotten bored of the overfamilier storylines of them.
The difference is, before Sony came along, gaming was seen as more for kids and there were no real "adult orientated" plots and characters around. I mean, look at the stink Mortal Kombat kicked up when it came out - Nintendo even had their version severely censored.
With the games around now, people have the choice to leave Nintendo characters behind and look into games they feel they'll enjoy more. Awhile back, leaving cutesy cartoon style games just wasn't an option, hence why the games industry was seen as "just for kids".
> But if they slated it as kiddie and went on to rave on abut South
> Park...
Again, it comes back to the plot and atmosphere. Transformers is aimed at kids to enjoy. South Park is a badly animated comedy series thats aimed at late teens/adults. The fact that kids watch it is down to the fault of the parents not paying attention to the content. Overall, South Park has never tried to be anything but what it is and knowones ever tried to put it on at the likes of 5pm.
> Mario is more playable than Conker.
> Conker was great, but a lot of it's fun was down to gimmicks rather
> than the actual gameplay itself, which was often slow and sluggish in
> places.
>
> Mario takes all the best from Conkers gameplay and makes it better.
>
> You enjoyed Conker's gameplay, well Mario might not have the childish
> humour (Conker was VERY childish and that is NOT point against it),
> but it still has that gameplay that you say you enjoyed so much!
Thats a matter of opinion. I've played Mario games, I've also played Banjo and Donkey Kong. Conker's, for me, was no worse than any of these to play. The one thing it did have an advantage for me personally was that its humour drew me in and made me want to carry on playing a lot more than the others did.
With Mario, although the worlds would look nice, I was like a zombie going through it thinking "must save princes.......again". With Conker's, it was more a case of thinking "this games hilarious ! I wanna see the next bit !"
> We basically play games for how good they are.
> Nintendo have a strong reputation for these good games.
>
> Also, you seem to have this impression that we blindly follow, just
> because a game is made by Nintendo. That's not true.
> Mario Party and Mario Golf didn't impress me, and I'm not especially
> excited about them.
> But that's not down to their setting. It was down to their gameplay.
>
> Conker's best gameplay parts were often based on Mario.
> So if you enjoyed Conker, you shouldn't dismiss Mario so easily.
>
> Now I might've gotten the wrong end of the stick here.
> I've not played Banjo but I've played DK64.
> Despite being a big DK fan (as anyone who's played DKC on the Snes
> would be), I didn't enjoy DK64's general gameplay as much as I thought
> I would.
> It was nothing to do with it's style, setting and characters.
> Is that why you didn't like Banjo?
I've pretty much answered this above. ;-)
> Not just Nintendo fans.
> Sega also release quirky games.
> Most of the people who bought Monkey Ball might've ignored it if they
> didn't like Sega.
> JSR also looks weird - again, people trusted Sega and, from what I've
> heard, rightly so.
>
> If I slated JSR as a stupid looking 2D game, I think I'd get a whole
> lot of flak from Sega fans who would tell me about how playable it
> is.
>
> It's similar with Nintendo fans.
Thing is with Sega, they're games don't stick strictly to the same style. Monkeyball has a different style to the looks and feel of say the Crazy Taxi series or the Sports games Sega do.
All Sega games have that special Sega feel to them, but while someone might like JSRF, they might not like Monkeyball too much as again, they might feel that Monkeyball isn't really aimed at them much. Not that I feel that way, I tried out Monkeyball and just didn't like it much for other reasons. But for other people, they may feel this way.
Basically Sega seem to have various styles with their games whereas Nintendo tend to stick more to one style (although games such as F-Zero and Metroid are an exception). Its hard to explain, you might get what I'm saying or you won't.
> This isn't because Nintendo is aimed at kids.
> Nintendo games are aimed at gamers for all ages, shapes and sizes.
>
> The fact that they can't advertise properly is irrelevant!
Yes they make their games suitable for all ages. But theres a thin line between family and kiddie. Thing is, I don't think Nintendo have too much trouble advertising - they've had years of experience.
Over here, you can see they were trying to attract the crowd that usually turn to Sony by trying to give off this cool image. Only problem is, how do you attach that cool image to Luigi's Mansion ?
In the U.S, the advertising is blatently kiddie and I think thats what Ninties hate.
Afterall, they spend all this time defending Nintendo against these kiddie comments, only for the company to underline what the critics are saying.
> If I'd played the game and it was very fun and playable then I
> would.
I think your telling porky pies there mate. Unless a player is young, I really don't see them buying the likes of a Muppets game. Not without people worrying about them anyway.
> Understandable, but it's not like Nintendo are lacking in that
> department either...
I'm not saying Nintendo lack in this area, its their approach. They have their kiddie reputation for a reason and thats because although their games can be played by all ages, they don't appeal to everyone.
In a way I guess their like the Disney of videogames.
> I know, but going on past reputations, Disney games are often aimed
> PURELY at kids - not just down to cutesy graphics but over-simplistic
> gameplay.
> If a great Disney game did come along, we'd hear about it.
Its not just about cutesy graphics, its the atmosphere of the games. A lot of people don't want to play games that feel "kiddie". Conker's had cutesy graphics but it was the atmosphere of it that had people enjoying it. Gameplay is important, but overall its important to enjoy the feel of the game too.
> Starwars games are often hit or miss.
> Besides, there's LOADS of games that look great in screenshots but are
> let down by poor controls/framerate etc.
What I'm saying is that these people have tastes in games. Despite getting crap results, theres always hope that Star Wars will deliver because people love the Star Wars universe.
> So at the end of the day, people love Starwars and want a great
> Starwars game. Does that mean they should dismiss everything that
> isn't Starwars?
I'm not saying they should dismiss everything, but if a game doesn't appeal then they won't play it. There are loads of highly playable games around and if they don't want to control a fluffy bear then why should they feel they have to ?
If one of your friends said "lets watch muppet babies" you'd probably worry about him. Just cause something is playable doesn't mean it has to appeal to everyone.
> Dismissing a game purely on it's plot and graphics style?
> I think it does.
So why don't we all watch saturday morning cartoons ? People have tastes in games and many don't want to play Nintendo games because a lot of the time they feel like the story isn't aimed at them.
For me, games have developed to a point where its like films and TV. Your into action or your not, your into romance or your not - sometimes you might try something different.
People see Nintendo games and think of cartoons, etc and of course a lot of people think cartoons, cutsey graphics, storybook style storyline = kiddie.
Then they'll look at another game and think, group of SAS soldiers, stuck over enemy lines, realistic graphics = thats for me.
As I said, theres loads of playable games around beyond Nintendo, the fact you say Nintendo is the best for playability is down to your opinion - at the same time, others are entitled to theirs.
I agree Nintendo are very good for making games, but a lot of their games don't appeal to me much now as my tastes have changed. I don't strictly kick away Nintendo games, but I wouldn't have many listed nowadays as must haves because I enjoy other types of games more.
This makes me no less a gamer, in fact I'm probably more of a gamer than most in that Nintendo forum as I've played games for years, I've spent ridiculous amounts of money on games because I enjoy them so much and god only knows how much time I spend playing them. I have the habit of caining games when I get them hence why I had MGS2 beaten in like 8 hours of buying it and Turok beaten within a couple of days.
I've been known to get an RPG at like 9am and not stop playing till 6am the following morning except maybe a 20 minute break to eat my dinner.
I even got up at like 5am and did an hour bike ride to a shop to pick up MGS2 when it opened early for the game. Combine this too with midnight openings for console releases and I don't think you get much more of a hardcore gamer.
Of course many will say thats sad and in all honesty, I couldn't argue that, because it is. But at the same time I enjoy playing games and I always have. I'd much rather be sat in front of a console all night playing games online than standing in a club, drinking till I puke.
One thing that has changed over time though is my taste in games, wether its my age or other interests that have influenced my tastes. Either way, a lot of Nintendo games don't appeal to me so much, but knowone can tell me I'm not a gamer or know nothing about games.
I think a lot of Ninties think that liking Nintendo gives them some sort of gaming guru status and puts their tastes above eveyone elses.
And just in case - I'm not saying thats you.
> I think you'll find that people like Nintendo because Zelda and Mario
> are great. They don't simply love Mario and Zelda because they love
> Nintendo.
> You're basing this purey on zealotism.
> Yes, a lot of do go by Nintendo's reputation, but after their past
> games, can you really blame us?
Nintendo's past reputation isn't something to be sneered at, but at the same time, it doesn't make all of Nintendo's competitors evil pigs who are out to ruin gaming while Nintendo are apparently some kind of saint.
Mario and Zelda are also great characters and as everyone knows, they generated a lot of money for Nintendo. But I think like their favourite cartoons, a lot of people have left them behind or just gotten bored of the overfamilier storylines of them.
The difference is, before Sony came along, gaming was seen as more for kids and there were no real "adult orientated" plots and characters around. I mean, look at the stink Mortal Kombat kicked up when it came out - Nintendo even had their version severely censored.
With the games around now, people have the choice to leave Nintendo characters behind and look into games they feel they'll enjoy more. Awhile back, leaving cutesy cartoon style games just wasn't an option, hence why the games industry was seen as "just for kids".
> But if they slated it as kiddie and went on to rave on abut South
> Park...
Again, it comes back to the plot and atmosphere. Transformers is aimed at kids to enjoy. South Park is a badly animated comedy series thats aimed at late teens/adults. The fact that kids watch it is down to the fault of the parents not paying attention to the content. Overall, South Park has never tried to be anything but what it is and knowones ever tried to put it on at the likes of 5pm.
> Mario is more playable than Conker.
> Conker was great, but a lot of it's fun was down to gimmicks rather
> than the actual gameplay itself, which was often slow and sluggish in
> places.
>
> Mario takes all the best from Conkers gameplay and makes it better.
>
> You enjoyed Conker's gameplay, well Mario might not have the childish
> humour (Conker was VERY childish and that is NOT point against it),
> but it still has that gameplay that you say you enjoyed so much!
Thats a matter of opinion. I've played Mario games, I've also played Banjo and Donkey Kong. Conker's, for me, was no worse than any of these to play. The one thing it did have an advantage for me personally was that its humour drew me in and made me want to carry on playing a lot more than the others did.
With Mario, although the worlds would look nice, I was like a zombie going through it thinking "must save princes.......again". With Conker's, it was more a case of thinking "this games hilarious ! I wanna see the next bit !"
> We basically play games for how good they are.
> Nintendo have a strong reputation for these good games.
>
> Also, you seem to have this impression that we blindly follow, just
> because a game is made by Nintendo. That's not true.
> Mario Party and Mario Golf didn't impress me, and I'm not especially
> excited about them.
> But that's not down to their setting. It was down to their gameplay.
>
> Conker's best gameplay parts were often based on Mario.
> So if you enjoyed Conker, you shouldn't dismiss Mario so easily.
>
> Now I might've gotten the wrong end of the stick here.
> I've not played Banjo but I've played DK64.
> Despite being a big DK fan (as anyone who's played DKC on the Snes
> would be), I didn't enjoy DK64's general gameplay as much as I thought
> I would.
> It was nothing to do with it's style, setting and characters.
> Is that why you didn't like Banjo?
I've pretty much answered this above. ;-)
> Not just Nintendo fans.
> Sega also release quirky games.
> Most of the people who bought Monkey Ball might've ignored it if they
> didn't like Sega.
> JSR also looks weird - again, people trusted Sega and, from what I've
> heard, rightly so.
>
> If I slated JSR as a stupid looking 2D game, I think I'd get a whole
> lot of flak from Sega fans who would tell me about how playable it
> is.
>
> It's similar with Nintendo fans.
Thing is with Sega, they're games don't stick strictly to the same style. Monkeyball has a different style to the looks and feel of say the Crazy Taxi series or the Sports games Sega do.
All Sega games have that special Sega feel to them, but while someone might like JSRF, they might not like Monkeyball too much as again, they might feel that Monkeyball isn't really aimed at them much. Not that I feel that way, I tried out Monkeyball and just didn't like it much for other reasons. But for other people, they may feel this way.
Basically Sega seem to have various styles with their games whereas Nintendo tend to stick more to one style (although games such as F-Zero and Metroid are an exception). Its hard to explain, you might get what I'm saying or you won't.
> This isn't because Nintendo is aimed at kids.
> Nintendo games are aimed at gamers for all ages, shapes and sizes.
>
> The fact that they can't advertise properly is irrelevant!
Yes they make their games suitable for all ages. But theres a thin line between family and kiddie. Thing is, I don't think Nintendo have too much trouble advertising - they've had years of experience.
Over here, you can see they were trying to attract the crowd that usually turn to Sony by trying to give off this cool image. Only problem is, how do you attach that cool image to Luigi's Mansion ?
In the U.S, the advertising is blatently kiddie and I think thats what Ninties hate.
Afterall, they spend all this time defending Nintendo against these kiddie comments, only for the company to underline what the critics are saying.
phi11ip wrote:
> ~Res~ wrote:
> ah i said ninty not x box wannabe's and PS2 owners like meself :)
>
> and yeah i can read just couldn't be bothered, it's only a sav post
> :)
>
> What?!?!
>
> I don't want an Xbox... I don't want a PS2...
>
> (Actually I would have both but it costs too much money!)
>
> Anyway, you've got 3 years more experience at writing than me yet you
> still can't write properly!
>
> You got problems!
i got problems hey i'm sitting in an IT room at £6 an hour for doing nothing so errrr my bad typing and spelling oh and grammer don't matter hehe.
and your the one with the game cube so it's you with the prob.
when i said PS2 and x box wannabe's i ment moi
> ~Res~ wrote:
> ah i said ninty not x box wannabe's and PS2 owners like meself :)
>
> and yeah i can read just couldn't be bothered, it's only a sav post
> :)
>
> What?!?!
>
> I don't want an Xbox... I don't want a PS2...
>
> (Actually I would have both but it costs too much money!)
>
> Anyway, you've got 3 years more experience at writing than me yet you
> still can't write properly!
>
> You got problems!
i got problems hey i'm sitting in an IT room at £6 an hour for doing nothing so errrr my bad typing and spelling oh and grammer don't matter hehe.
and your the one with the game cube so it's you with the prob.
when i said PS2 and x box wannabe's i ment moi
Savatt78 wrote:
> But again - would you buy games if they were excellent in playability
> but had characters such as Mickey Mouse, Seasame Street or the Muppets
> ?
If I'd played the game and it was very fun and playable then I would.
> A game can be playable, but in the end the imagination of the game can
> be just as important as it can make certain games stand out from the
> rest in its genre.
Understandable, but it's not like Nintendo are lacking in that department either...
Everytime a release list comes out, everyone tends
> to condemn certain titles on the name (i.e Disney games), despite the
> fact that they could end up being good games playability wise.
I know, but going on past reputations, Disney games are often aimed PURELY at kids - not just down to cutesy graphics but over-simplistic gameplay.
If a great Disney game did come along, we'd hear about it.
> At the same time people will say "Disney games are always
> shat" which may or may not be true because I don't play them and
> can't say which way. But then, these people will say "Wow, can't
> wait for that Star Wars game !" and most of the time, you end up
> with a crap result when it comes to that license.
Starwars games are often hit or miss.
Besides, there's LOADS of games that look great in screenshots but are let down by poor controls/framerate etc.
> Most of the time, a Star Wars game will be a big disappointment, but
> people carry on looking forward to games with that license as they
> love the Star Wars story.
So at the end of the day, people love Starwars and want a great Starwars game. Does that mean they should dismiss everything that isn't Starwars?
> At the end of the day, just because people don't want to play as a
> fluffy bear whose saving the wibbly wobblies from certain destruction
> in a hugely playable game doesn't make them ar5eholes and doesn't make
> them any less of a gamer.
Dismissing a game purely on it's plot and graphics style?
I think it does.
> A gamer is a person who plays games and enjoys them - not someone who
> follows Nintendo everywhere no matter what they do and loves playing
> as the fluffy bear.
I think you'll find that people like Nintendo because Zelda and Mario are great. They don't simply love Mario and Zelda because they love Nintendo.
You're basing this purey on zealotism.
Yes, a lot of do go by Nintendo's reputation, but after their past games, can you really blame us?
> Its like films and TV - just because a Transformers cartoon might have
> an immersive storyline, doesn't mean everyone should sit down and
> watch it, otherwise they're not real TV watchers.
But if they slated it as kiddie and went on to rave on abut South Park...
> Mario doesn't appeal to me as much anymore, F-Zero on the otherhand
> does. I tend to lean towards action games, mech games and Star Wars,
> etc. At one time I would have picked up the likes of Banjo or Mario
> anytime, but those characters and stories don't really appeal to me
> much now.
> As I said, Conker's was different for me cause it made me laugh - not
> cause it made me feel grown up. It was a hugely playable game just
> like Banjo and Mario, but it also had a story and setting that drew me
> in.
Mario is more playable than Conker.
Conker was great, but a lot of it's fun was down to gimmicks rather than the actual gameplay itself, which was often slow and sluggish in places.
Mario takes all the best from Conkers gameplay and makes it better.
You enjoyed Conker's gameplay, well Mario might not have the childish humour (Conker was VERY childish and that is NOT point against it), but it still has that gameplay that you say you enjoyed so much!
> I know what you said wasn't aimed at me Strafex, but I still think its
> a point that needs to be made because too many Ninties seem to think
> that they're in some god like gamer status because they're playing
> games purely on their playability no matter what the characters and
> yet they shove aside things just like everyone else.
We basically play games for how good they are.
Nintendo have a strong reputation for these good games.
Also, you seem to have this impression that we blindly follow, just because a game is made by Nintendo. That's not true.
Mario Party and Mario Golf didn't impress me, and I'm not especially excited about them.
But that's not down to their setting. It was down to their gameplay.
Conker's best gameplay parts were often based on Mario.
So if you enjoyed Conker, you shouldn't dismiss Mario so easily.
Now I might've gotten the wrong end of the stick here.
I've not played Banjo but I've played DK64.
Despite being a big DK fan (as anyone who's played DKC on the Snes would be), I didn't enjoy DK64's general gameplay as much as I thought I would.
It was nothing to do with it's style, setting and characters.
Is that why you didn't like Banjo?
> The difference is that they don't like it when people have that
> attitude towards the games they love playing and throw their nut at
> people over it.
Not just Nintendo fans.
Sega also release quirky games.
Most of the people who bought Monkey Ball might've ignored it if they didn't like Sega.
JSR also looks weird - again, people trusted Sega and, from what I've heard, rightly so.
If I slated JSR as a stupid looking 2D game, I think I'd get a whole lot of flak from Sega fans who would tell me about how playable it is.
It's similar with Nintendo fans.
> I mean look at the advertising campaigns of Nintendo - things like the
> Mario Sunshine advert in the States. Nintendo know their core
> audience and you can't tell me for one second that that advert is
> aiming to portray the game as a great game for everyone.
Probably trying to... Advertising never was Nintendo's strong point...
> This "Adults get scared too" campaign for Resi Evil looks a
> bit dodgy too. Kind of tells you where Luigi's Mansion was aimed.
This isn't because Nintendo is aimed at kids.
Nintendo games are aimed at gamers for all ages, shapes and sizes.
The fact that they can't advertise properly is irrelevant!
> But again - would you buy games if they were excellent in playability
> but had characters such as Mickey Mouse, Seasame Street or the Muppets
> ?
If I'd played the game and it was very fun and playable then I would.
> A game can be playable, but in the end the imagination of the game can
> be just as important as it can make certain games stand out from the
> rest in its genre.
Understandable, but it's not like Nintendo are lacking in that department either...
Everytime a release list comes out, everyone tends
> to condemn certain titles on the name (i.e Disney games), despite the
> fact that they could end up being good games playability wise.
I know, but going on past reputations, Disney games are often aimed PURELY at kids - not just down to cutesy graphics but over-simplistic gameplay.
If a great Disney game did come along, we'd hear about it.
> At the same time people will say "Disney games are always
> shat" which may or may not be true because I don't play them and
> can't say which way. But then, these people will say "Wow, can't
> wait for that Star Wars game !" and most of the time, you end up
> with a crap result when it comes to that license.
Starwars games are often hit or miss.
Besides, there's LOADS of games that look great in screenshots but are let down by poor controls/framerate etc.
> Most of the time, a Star Wars game will be a big disappointment, but
> people carry on looking forward to games with that license as they
> love the Star Wars story.
So at the end of the day, people love Starwars and want a great Starwars game. Does that mean they should dismiss everything that isn't Starwars?
> At the end of the day, just because people don't want to play as a
> fluffy bear whose saving the wibbly wobblies from certain destruction
> in a hugely playable game doesn't make them ar5eholes and doesn't make
> them any less of a gamer.
Dismissing a game purely on it's plot and graphics style?
I think it does.
> A gamer is a person who plays games and enjoys them - not someone who
> follows Nintendo everywhere no matter what they do and loves playing
> as the fluffy bear.
I think you'll find that people like Nintendo because Zelda and Mario are great. They don't simply love Mario and Zelda because they love Nintendo.
You're basing this purey on zealotism.
Yes, a lot of do go by Nintendo's reputation, but after their past games, can you really blame us?
> Its like films and TV - just because a Transformers cartoon might have
> an immersive storyline, doesn't mean everyone should sit down and
> watch it, otherwise they're not real TV watchers.
But if they slated it as kiddie and went on to rave on abut South Park...
> Mario doesn't appeal to me as much anymore, F-Zero on the otherhand
> does. I tend to lean towards action games, mech games and Star Wars,
> etc. At one time I would have picked up the likes of Banjo or Mario
> anytime, but those characters and stories don't really appeal to me
> much now.
> As I said, Conker's was different for me cause it made me laugh - not
> cause it made me feel grown up. It was a hugely playable game just
> like Banjo and Mario, but it also had a story and setting that drew me
> in.
Mario is more playable than Conker.
Conker was great, but a lot of it's fun was down to gimmicks rather than the actual gameplay itself, which was often slow and sluggish in places.
Mario takes all the best from Conkers gameplay and makes it better.
You enjoyed Conker's gameplay, well Mario might not have the childish humour (Conker was VERY childish and that is NOT point against it), but it still has that gameplay that you say you enjoyed so much!
> I know what you said wasn't aimed at me Strafex, but I still think its
> a point that needs to be made because too many Ninties seem to think
> that they're in some god like gamer status because they're playing
> games purely on their playability no matter what the characters and
> yet they shove aside things just like everyone else.
We basically play games for how good they are.
Nintendo have a strong reputation for these good games.
Also, you seem to have this impression that we blindly follow, just because a game is made by Nintendo. That's not true.
Mario Party and Mario Golf didn't impress me, and I'm not especially excited about them.
But that's not down to their setting. It was down to their gameplay.
Conker's best gameplay parts were often based on Mario.
So if you enjoyed Conker, you shouldn't dismiss Mario so easily.
Now I might've gotten the wrong end of the stick here.
I've not played Banjo but I've played DK64.
Despite being a big DK fan (as anyone who's played DKC on the Snes would be), I didn't enjoy DK64's general gameplay as much as I thought I would.
It was nothing to do with it's style, setting and characters.
Is that why you didn't like Banjo?
> The difference is that they don't like it when people have that
> attitude towards the games they love playing and throw their nut at
> people over it.
Not just Nintendo fans.
Sega also release quirky games.
Most of the people who bought Monkey Ball might've ignored it if they didn't like Sega.
JSR also looks weird - again, people trusted Sega and, from what I've heard, rightly so.
If I slated JSR as a stupid looking 2D game, I think I'd get a whole lot of flak from Sega fans who would tell me about how playable it is.
It's similar with Nintendo fans.
> I mean look at the advertising campaigns of Nintendo - things like the
> Mario Sunshine advert in the States. Nintendo know their core
> audience and you can't tell me for one second that that advert is
> aiming to portray the game as a great game for everyone.
Probably trying to... Advertising never was Nintendo's strong point...
> This "Adults get scared too" campaign for Resi Evil looks a
> bit dodgy too. Kind of tells you where Luigi's Mansion was aimed.
This isn't because Nintendo is aimed at kids.
Nintendo games are aimed at gamers for all ages, shapes and sizes.
The fact that they can't advertise properly is irrelevant!
~Res~ wrote:
> ah i said ninty not x box wannabe's and PS2 owners like meself :)
>
> and yeah i can read just couldn't be bothered, it's only a sav post :)
What?!?!
I don't want an Xbox... I don't want a PS2...
(Actually I would have both but it costs too much money!)
Anyway, you've got 3 years more experience at writing than me yet you still can't write properly!
You got problems!
> ah i said ninty not x box wannabe's and PS2 owners like meself :)
>
> and yeah i can read just couldn't be bothered, it's only a sav post :)
What?!?!
I don't want an Xbox... I don't want a PS2...
(Actually I would have both but it costs too much money!)
Anyway, you've got 3 years more experience at writing than me yet you still can't write properly!
You got problems!
phi11ip wrote:
> ~Res~ wrote:
> bloody hell sav make a point while don't you. do you think your
> average ninty can read all that?
>
> I can...
>
> Then again, by the way you talk I seriously doubt you can read it!
ah i said ninty not x box wannabe's and PS2 owners like meself :)
and yeah i can read just couldn't be bothered, it's only a sav post :)
> ~Res~ wrote:
> bloody hell sav make a point while don't you. do you think your
> average ninty can read all that?
>
> I can...
>
> Then again, by the way you talk I seriously doubt you can read it!
ah i said ninty not x box wannabe's and PS2 owners like meself :)
and yeah i can read just couldn't be bothered, it's only a sav post :)
Page: