The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I am not laughing at Rare, Rare were my third favourite company and my first favourite company kicked 'em out to you guys. Oh no I'm laughing at the fact that Microsoft expect Rare to release 5 games in 2 years....
Trust me it won't happen.
Trust me it won't happen.
Page:
Maverick42 wrote:
> It's all relative, you see. Nintendo have brought the price of the
> Game Boy Advance down to £39.99 now, after releasing it at
> £74.99 and working hard to bring the price down as quickly as
> possible. They also discovered a way of making GBA games a lot more
> cheaper.
Since when has the GBA been £39.99 ? I thought it was still in the £65 region. I know the old Gameboy Colour has come down to £39.99, but not the GBA.
> It's all relative, you see. Nintendo have brought the price of the
> Game Boy Advance down to £39.99 now, after releasing it at
> £74.99 and working hard to bring the price down as quickly as
> possible. They also discovered a way of making GBA games a lot more
> cheaper.
Since when has the GBA been £39.99 ? I thought it was still in the £65 region. I know the old Gameboy Colour has come down to £39.99, but not the GBA.
Maverick42 wrote:
> Well, if that's how you want to refer to complete fact, as complete
> bull, then that's your problem. People should be a lot more
> trusting..
You appear to have read the comment wrong. I was noting how Ninties attitudes change when Nintendo say something and another company does.
> During my time with the N64 (about two years before the final game was
> released) I NEVER bought a game over £49.99. This included
> classics such as OOT, Majora's Mask, CBFD, Banjo Kazooie and many
> more.
Please introduce me to this shop - CBFD was £59.99 when it came out. I think the others you mentioned were £49.99.
While I owned an N64 (shortly after its launch), I paid these prices for the following games...
Mario 64 £49.99
Turok £69.99
F-Zero X £44.99
Killer Instinct £59.99
Conker's £59.99
Turok 2 £59.99 (maybe £69.99 again)
Mario Kart £49.99
Goldeneye £59.99
Perfect Dark £59.99
South Park £59.99 (yes I fell for this joke as well)
Shadows Of The Empire £59.99
Mario Party £49.99
Zelda OOT £49.99
There were other games too, but I don't remember them right now. Stupid prices to pay for a lot of those considering it was on top of a £250 console that did nothing but read the cartridges.
Then of course, that poxy memory card. Oh and of course the expansion pack for another £30 if you wanted to fully enjoy some of the later titles.
> Well, if that's how you want to refer to complete fact, as complete
> bull, then that's your problem. People should be a lot more
> trusting..
You appear to have read the comment wrong. I was noting how Ninties attitudes change when Nintendo say something and another company does.
> During my time with the N64 (about two years before the final game was
> released) I NEVER bought a game over £49.99. This included
> classics such as OOT, Majora's Mask, CBFD, Banjo Kazooie and many
> more.
Please introduce me to this shop - CBFD was £59.99 when it came out. I think the others you mentioned were £49.99.
While I owned an N64 (shortly after its launch), I paid these prices for the following games...
Mario 64 £49.99
Turok £69.99
F-Zero X £44.99
Killer Instinct £59.99
Conker's £59.99
Turok 2 £59.99 (maybe £69.99 again)
Mario Kart £49.99
Goldeneye £59.99
Perfect Dark £59.99
South Park £59.99 (yes I fell for this joke as well)
Shadows Of The Empire £59.99
Mario Party £49.99
Zelda OOT £49.99
There were other games too, but I don't remember them right now. Stupid prices to pay for a lot of those considering it was on top of a £250 console that did nothing but read the cartridges.
Then of course, that poxy memory card. Oh and of course the expansion pack for another £30 if you wanted to fully enjoy some of the later titles.
Maverick42 wrote:
> The Mario Party series has combined excellent multiplayer with
> fantastic mini games, and just because it bears Mario's named, it
> shouldn't be deemed 'just another Mario game'. Those other games you
> mentioned are also arguably the best in their genre, so why should
> they be put down for having the most imaginative line up of characters
> ever?
But then with Mario Party, its a very weak one player game. It has a short term appeal to it, but its not long before you're left looking elsewhere. But those characters don't seem so imaginative when you see them again and again and again and again and again and again.
> I'm not sure about networking, but so few people do it, it doesn't
> really matter at all.
Well when others in your group have the same console with this capability, it can lead to excellent multiplayers. The likes of 8 player - 16 player Halo games beat the hell out of being limited to 4 players on past games such as Goldeneye.
> Actually it makes use of a new technology - radio waves, and is very
> impressive. Have any other consoles done this? No. So in my opinion
> it's a good move. The controller is arguably one of the most important
> things when buying a console, and so it does take a lot of innovation.
> Nintendo have, time and time again revolutionised controllers, and
> that shouldn't be taken lightly. There's also the GBA connectivity
> that will provide a new twist in games. I think you were over the top
> in saying Nintendo's console displayed no innovation, it's just as
> imaginative as the other two, if not more.
Thing is with Nintendo, its like I said - anything risky, they won't have a part of. Anyone can sit down and come up with a new controller. Ultimately, things such as the X-Box's hard drive and online play, affect the actual game a lot more. After all these controllers they've done, Nintendo still can't seem to work out a decent cable length on their controllers. One little feature that tends to go unmentioned about the X-Box controller is not just that it has an excellent length of cable so you can sit back, but also that it is detachable. what I mean by that is that a little down the cable, you'll notice theres a plastic part. This actually seperates so if someone walks through the cable (a nightmare plenty of us have been through), instead of pulling your console off the shelf onto the floor, the cable seperates and saves you a lot of moments where you watch in what seems like slow motion as your console crashes to the floor.
I wouldn't say the GC is as innovative as the other consoles - especially the X-Box. Microsoft have looked into covering the different aspects of gaming, not just the ones they care about. FPS multiplayers can be excellent when you can't see your opponents screens. Not only does the link up cable allow this, but it allows larger scale multiplayers too. Look at Timesplitters 2 - 2 X-Box's connected will allow 8 players instead of 4. If I remember right, I think there are various options to use link up wise in this game.
X-Box owners can enjoy 4 player games just like GC owners - and theres plenty of support in terms of 4 player games as well.
Then theres X-Box Live which I doubt I need to explain by now. To make sure its a different experience, Microsoft has insisted that all games be headset supported so that everyone can communicate no matter what they're playing.
People have moaned about the X-Box controller, so they released a smaller one which is more suited to that particular crowd. The wave bird is nice, but its not pushing gaming forward is it. The gameboy link is a nice little idea, but what it will be able to do remains to be seen.
> I agree, and this is what Nintendo will be looking into. In their true
> style, they'll once again be making something that EVERYONE can
> play.
Yeah but thats not an attitude everyone shares. Some see games like Pokemon and feel alienated. Especially when kids are swamping for merchandise of the game. I know the game and merchandise are 2 seperate things, but I doubt in all honesty that you'd buy a Power Rangers game or even something like Digimon which has a similar basis to it. Of course Pokemon is an addictive game, but older players might not see the attraction in playing it - especially when its been a past kids craze.
> Mario is very different. It's a new place, storyline and puzzle. All
> it takes is a few screenshots to prove that - as it really has loads
> of new ideas and little touches. You could be forgiven for thinking
> that it's a clone of Mario 64 with a waterpack thrown in, as you don't
> know much about the game. But if you can be bothered to do some
> research on it, you'll find it's very new.
It doesn't look all that different to whats been in past Mario games. Plus I'm sure I saw that someone said that the Princess has been kidnapped again. Its like bloody groundhog day in Mario's world. At best, from the screenshots and footage I've seen, its like Mario 64 with touches of Mario World on the Snes thrown in (such as the wire fences you climb up). Other than that, the waterpack is about the only really new thing about it.
> Don't forget that any screenshots of Zelda you've seen are just
> screenshots, and it really takes in game footage to see how good a
> cell shaded game is (I've noticed this with XIII, JSRF, etc). Zelda
> was early in development when any pictures were released, and it's
> becoming a very anticipated game.
I've seen in game footage of Zelda and although the backgrounds look nice enough, the Link character just ruins it. I've seen XIII as well and it doesn't look all that good. Not because it cell shaded, more that the style is just a bit lame looking.
> Fresh? I suppose it's still fairly new, but not exactly original. Yes,
> Blinx looks good (though from some reviews I've read I'm unsure) but
> it just seems to build a bit on what The Legend Of Zelda: Majora's
> Mask has done.
Not exactly original ? What games have given you the ability to mess around with time like Blinx does ? Plus I really don't see any connection between the looks of Blinx and Zelda.
> I've not seen much on Project Ego, but from what I'm told, it seems
> like an Animal Crossing/Harvest Moon clone.
Not really no. Its an adventure RPG where you get the freedom to make decisions which affect the game. Harvest Moon is basically an RPG where you run a little farm and Animal Crossing looks like a more interactive kids version of The Sims.
> Whether or not the discs are cheaper to make or not, it doesn't stop
> Nintendo releasing games at smaller prices than it's two competitors.
> Sod all? It has graphics and speed to rival the X-Box and leave the
> PS2 in a trail of dust, but please, lets not get into a specs war. The
> cost to the gamer is something Nintendo always have in mind, and if
> they do bring out extra hardware, I'm sure it will be affordable.
Thing is, at the usual RRP's, the GC games aren't really different in price to its competitors. Places like SR bring prices down, but if you goto shops such as GAME, you'll see the likes of Resident Evil with a £44.99 price tag. X-Box's games are between £40 and £45 too. PS2 has some better deals thanks to its head start. Even at the more expensive shops you can find fairly recent titles for around £35.
As for the cost to the gamer, Nintendo have only really recently put that into consideration. Overall they're probably more guilty of stupid prices in the past than any other company with their consoles.
And the reason Nintendo are so thoughtful is cause they have to be.
> Maybe so, but if I remember right, SEGA had nothing to do with it.
Well I find the idea of Sega stepping in a lot more plausible - seeing as they're attitude toward online gaming has been little more than a sneer.
> The Mario Party series has combined excellent multiplayer with
> fantastic mini games, and just because it bears Mario's named, it
> shouldn't be deemed 'just another Mario game'. Those other games you
> mentioned are also arguably the best in their genre, so why should
> they be put down for having the most imaginative line up of characters
> ever?
But then with Mario Party, its a very weak one player game. It has a short term appeal to it, but its not long before you're left looking elsewhere. But those characters don't seem so imaginative when you see them again and again and again and again and again and again.
> I'm not sure about networking, but so few people do it, it doesn't
> really matter at all.
Well when others in your group have the same console with this capability, it can lead to excellent multiplayers. The likes of 8 player - 16 player Halo games beat the hell out of being limited to 4 players on past games such as Goldeneye.
> Actually it makes use of a new technology - radio waves, and is very
> impressive. Have any other consoles done this? No. So in my opinion
> it's a good move. The controller is arguably one of the most important
> things when buying a console, and so it does take a lot of innovation.
> Nintendo have, time and time again revolutionised controllers, and
> that shouldn't be taken lightly. There's also the GBA connectivity
> that will provide a new twist in games. I think you were over the top
> in saying Nintendo's console displayed no innovation, it's just as
> imaginative as the other two, if not more.
Thing is with Nintendo, its like I said - anything risky, they won't have a part of. Anyone can sit down and come up with a new controller. Ultimately, things such as the X-Box's hard drive and online play, affect the actual game a lot more. After all these controllers they've done, Nintendo still can't seem to work out a decent cable length on their controllers. One little feature that tends to go unmentioned about the X-Box controller is not just that it has an excellent length of cable so you can sit back, but also that it is detachable. what I mean by that is that a little down the cable, you'll notice theres a plastic part. This actually seperates so if someone walks through the cable (a nightmare plenty of us have been through), instead of pulling your console off the shelf onto the floor, the cable seperates and saves you a lot of moments where you watch in what seems like slow motion as your console crashes to the floor.
I wouldn't say the GC is as innovative as the other consoles - especially the X-Box. Microsoft have looked into covering the different aspects of gaming, not just the ones they care about. FPS multiplayers can be excellent when you can't see your opponents screens. Not only does the link up cable allow this, but it allows larger scale multiplayers too. Look at Timesplitters 2 - 2 X-Box's connected will allow 8 players instead of 4. If I remember right, I think there are various options to use link up wise in this game.
X-Box owners can enjoy 4 player games just like GC owners - and theres plenty of support in terms of 4 player games as well.
Then theres X-Box Live which I doubt I need to explain by now. To make sure its a different experience, Microsoft has insisted that all games be headset supported so that everyone can communicate no matter what they're playing.
People have moaned about the X-Box controller, so they released a smaller one which is more suited to that particular crowd. The wave bird is nice, but its not pushing gaming forward is it. The gameboy link is a nice little idea, but what it will be able to do remains to be seen.
> I agree, and this is what Nintendo will be looking into. In their true
> style, they'll once again be making something that EVERYONE can
> play.
Yeah but thats not an attitude everyone shares. Some see games like Pokemon and feel alienated. Especially when kids are swamping for merchandise of the game. I know the game and merchandise are 2 seperate things, but I doubt in all honesty that you'd buy a Power Rangers game or even something like Digimon which has a similar basis to it. Of course Pokemon is an addictive game, but older players might not see the attraction in playing it - especially when its been a past kids craze.
> Mario is very different. It's a new place, storyline and puzzle. All
> it takes is a few screenshots to prove that - as it really has loads
> of new ideas and little touches. You could be forgiven for thinking
> that it's a clone of Mario 64 with a waterpack thrown in, as you don't
> know much about the game. But if you can be bothered to do some
> research on it, you'll find it's very new.
It doesn't look all that different to whats been in past Mario games. Plus I'm sure I saw that someone said that the Princess has been kidnapped again. Its like bloody groundhog day in Mario's world. At best, from the screenshots and footage I've seen, its like Mario 64 with touches of Mario World on the Snes thrown in (such as the wire fences you climb up). Other than that, the waterpack is about the only really new thing about it.
> Don't forget that any screenshots of Zelda you've seen are just
> screenshots, and it really takes in game footage to see how good a
> cell shaded game is (I've noticed this with XIII, JSRF, etc). Zelda
> was early in development when any pictures were released, and it's
> becoming a very anticipated game.
I've seen in game footage of Zelda and although the backgrounds look nice enough, the Link character just ruins it. I've seen XIII as well and it doesn't look all that good. Not because it cell shaded, more that the style is just a bit lame looking.
> Fresh? I suppose it's still fairly new, but not exactly original. Yes,
> Blinx looks good (though from some reviews I've read I'm unsure) but
> it just seems to build a bit on what The Legend Of Zelda: Majora's
> Mask has done.
Not exactly original ? What games have given you the ability to mess around with time like Blinx does ? Plus I really don't see any connection between the looks of Blinx and Zelda.
> I've not seen much on Project Ego, but from what I'm told, it seems
> like an Animal Crossing/Harvest Moon clone.
Not really no. Its an adventure RPG where you get the freedom to make decisions which affect the game. Harvest Moon is basically an RPG where you run a little farm and Animal Crossing looks like a more interactive kids version of The Sims.
> Whether or not the discs are cheaper to make or not, it doesn't stop
> Nintendo releasing games at smaller prices than it's two competitors.
> Sod all? It has graphics and speed to rival the X-Box and leave the
> PS2 in a trail of dust, but please, lets not get into a specs war. The
> cost to the gamer is something Nintendo always have in mind, and if
> they do bring out extra hardware, I'm sure it will be affordable.
Thing is, at the usual RRP's, the GC games aren't really different in price to its competitors. Places like SR bring prices down, but if you goto shops such as GAME, you'll see the likes of Resident Evil with a £44.99 price tag. X-Box's games are between £40 and £45 too. PS2 has some better deals thanks to its head start. Even at the more expensive shops you can find fairly recent titles for around £35.
As for the cost to the gamer, Nintendo have only really recently put that into consideration. Overall they're probably more guilty of stupid prices in the past than any other company with their consoles.
And the reason Nintendo are so thoughtful is cause they have to be.
> Maybe so, but if I remember right, SEGA had nothing to do with it.
Well I find the idea of Sega stepping in a lot more plausible - seeing as they're attitude toward online gaming has been little more than a sneer.
SEGA didn't push Nintendo into online gaming.
While Nintendo were designing and devolping the GC, including builing in spaces for future modems and BB adaptors, SEGA were still selling their Dreamcast, and I doubt someone from SEGA went over to Nintendo and told them to include online options in case they happened to go out of the console industry.
What SEGA did do was ask Nintendo to release the modem and BB adaptor before they were planning on, as they want to release PSO this year.
Wavebird uses Radio Waves, it's not another pathetic infra red attempt.
And for the last time, Zelda storylines do not involve Zelda getting kidnapped, bar two. She isn't even in two thirds of them! Zelda GC is by far the best looking cell shaded game to date. And if you think Blinx will be better than Sunshine...pfttt..
Pokemon Online. I don't care much for online gaming, as you probably already know. The reason I think it's good online is that Pokemon games rank as some of my favourites ever. However being as old as I am, not many people are particulary into Pokemon, so I'll finally have some people to compete against. Plus of course they'll become the chance to be one of *the* best Pokemon players across the world. Thats one of the only things about online gaming I like, big contests/tournaments where you can show your the best :)
As for the headset, again, there will be a lot of idiots and trash talkers, which you'll end up muting. I reckon you'll probably end up playing against the same people again and again anyway.
Multi-player is still better offline. Especially when most of your friends have a Gamecube as well. We already have regular sessions of AUF, SMB, SSBM, Waverace etc. I can't wait for the christmas holidays, we'll have TSP2 tournaments, SMB2 competitions, and of course, the ultimate party game, Mario Party 4. Online gaming just can't compete.
Anyway I'm bored now, I've been meaning to play Fallout for about 45 minutes and I keep getting side tracked.
While Nintendo were designing and devolping the GC, including builing in spaces for future modems and BB adaptors, SEGA were still selling their Dreamcast, and I doubt someone from SEGA went over to Nintendo and told them to include online options in case they happened to go out of the console industry.
What SEGA did do was ask Nintendo to release the modem and BB adaptor before they were planning on, as they want to release PSO this year.
Wavebird uses Radio Waves, it's not another pathetic infra red attempt.
And for the last time, Zelda storylines do not involve Zelda getting kidnapped, bar two. She isn't even in two thirds of them! Zelda GC is by far the best looking cell shaded game to date. And if you think Blinx will be better than Sunshine...pfttt..
Pokemon Online. I don't care much for online gaming, as you probably already know. The reason I think it's good online is that Pokemon games rank as some of my favourites ever. However being as old as I am, not many people are particulary into Pokemon, so I'll finally have some people to compete against. Plus of course they'll become the chance to be one of *the* best Pokemon players across the world. Thats one of the only things about online gaming I like, big contests/tournaments where you can show your the best :)
As for the headset, again, there will be a lot of idiots and trash talkers, which you'll end up muting. I reckon you'll probably end up playing against the same people again and again anyway.
Multi-player is still better offline. Especially when most of your friends have a Gamecube as well. We already have regular sessions of AUF, SMB, SSBM, Waverace etc. I can't wait for the christmas holidays, we'll have TSP2 tournaments, SMB2 competitions, and of course, the ultimate party game, Mario Party 4. Online gaming just can't compete.
Anyway I'm bored now, I've been meaning to play Fallout for about 45 minutes and I keep getting side tracked.
Savatt78 wrote:
> But then it would be a bit ridiuclous if their hand held console was
> as much as or more than the GC wouldn't it. Especially with one being
> 32bit while the other is 128bit.
It's all relative, you see. Nintendo have brought the price of the Game Boy Advance down to £39.99 now, after releasing it at £74.99 and working hard to bring the price down as quickly as possible. They also discovered a way of making GBA games a lot more cheaper.
> But then it would be a bit ridiuclous if their hand held console was
> as much as or more than the GC wouldn't it. Especially with one being
> 32bit while the other is 128bit.
It's all relative, you see. Nintendo have brought the price of the Game Boy Advance down to £39.99 now, after releasing it at £74.99 and working hard to bring the price down as quickly as possible. They also discovered a way of making GBA games a lot more cheaper.
Savatt78 wrote:
> Of course they'd say that. Funny thing is, Ninties will follow this
> like gospel while if another company such as Microsoft do a similar
> thing, its laughed off as complete bull.
Well, if that's how you want to refer to complete fact, as complete bull, then that's your problem. People should be a lot more trusting..
> Well the crap games were £45, most of the decent games were at
> least £50 when they came out. Cartridge is more expensive than
> CD to produce, but then other cartridge based systems never rocketed
> up prices like that.
During my time with the N64 (about two years before the final game was released) I NEVER bought a game over £49.99. This included classics such as OOT, Majora's Mask, CBFD, Banjo Kazooie and many more.
> Of course they'd say that. Funny thing is, Ninties will follow this
> like gospel while if another company such as Microsoft do a similar
> thing, its laughed off as complete bull.
Well, if that's how you want to refer to complete fact, as complete bull, then that's your problem. People should be a lot more trusting..
> Well the crap games were £45, most of the decent games were at
> least £50 when they came out. Cartridge is more expensive than
> CD to produce, but then other cartridge based systems never rocketed
> up prices like that.
During my time with the N64 (about two years before the final game was released) I NEVER bought a game over £49.99. This included classics such as OOT, Majora's Mask, CBFD, Banjo Kazooie and many more.
What is it with you two and writing long hard to follow posts?
Savatt78 wrote:
> So far, but with things such as Mario Party 4, Mario Golf, Mario
> Tennis, Mario Kart etc on the way, the number soon increases. When I
> say Mario, I mean the caharcters from that game series such as Luigi,
> Toad, etc as well. X-Box has 4 controller ports too, Sony not having
> that is one of its downsides. As for networking capabilities, I don't
> think GC has it as Nintendo were not interested.
The Mario Party series has combined excellent multiplayer with fantastic mini games, and just because it bears Mario's named, it shouldn't be deemed 'just another Mario game'. Those other games you mentioned are also arguably the best in their genre, so why should they be put down for having the most imaginative line up of characters ever?
I'm not sure about networking, but so few people do it, it doesn't really matter at all.
> My point is that innovation is more about pushing gaming forward, not
> releasing a new hand controller. I mean peripherals such as the light
> gun awhile back, the steering wheel and the new Capcom mech controller
> have innovation in them, but hand controllers are hardly a huge step
> nowadays - even infra red ones.
Actually it makes use of a new technology - radio waves, and is very impressive. Have any other consoles done this? No. So in my opinion it's a good move. The controller is arguably one of the most important things when buying a console, and so it does take a lot of innovation. Nintendo have, time and time again revolutionised controllers, and that shouldn't be taken lightly. There's also the GBA connectivity that will provide a new twist in games. I think you were over the top in saying Nintendo's console displayed no innovation, it's just as imaginative as the other two, if not more.
> Online only games are all well and nice, but I think games that can be
> played both on and offline are better.
I agree, and this is what Nintendo will be looking into. In their true style, they'll once again be making something that EVERYONE can play.
> Whats so innovative about the new Mario and Zelda games? Mario has a
> waterpack and Zelda is cell shaded - not exactly anything amazingly
> different other than Zelda doesn't look right now. Cell shading is
> good when done right, but I don't think Nintendo have on this one.
> Link basically looks like a kids crayon drawing thrown into a well
> done world.
Mario is very different. It's a new place, storyline and puzzle. All it takes is a few screenshots to prove that - as it really has loads of new ideas and little touches. You could be forgiven for thinking that it's a clone of Mario 64 with a waterpack thrown in, as you don't know much about the game. But if you can be bothered to do some research on it, you'll find it's very new.
Don't forget that any screenshots of Zelda you've seen are just screenshots, and it really takes in game footage to see how good a cell shaded game is (I've noticed this with XIII, JSRF, etc). Zelda was early in development when any pictures were released, and it's becoming a very anticipated game.
> I think Blinx looks a better game than Mario because it uses the fresh
> idea of time in the game.
Fresh? I suppose it's still fairly new, but not exactly original. Yes, Blinx looks good (though from some reviews I've read I'm unsure) but it just seems to build a bit on what The Legend Of Zelda: Majora's Mask has done.
> As for a better adventure than Zelda, although I can't say for
> definate right now, I think Project Ego could turn out to be better.
I've not seen much on Project Ego, but from what I'm told, it seems like an Animal Crossing/Harvest Moon clone.
> A new controller and graphics go without saying. The discs don't make
> the games much cheaper (if at all) than other formats. Plus I heard
> it was more expensive for developers to purchase the smaller discs
> from Nintendo. As for the intricate design, its cheaper cause it
> basically has sod all in it compared to the other 2 consoles. It
> might have expansion ports, but how much they will consider the cost
> to the gamer when throwing out these expansions is yet to be seen.
Whether or not the discs are cheaper to make or not, it doesn't stop Nintendo releasing games at smaller prices than it's two competitors. Sod all? It has graphics and speed to rival the X-Box and leave the PS2 in a trail of dust, but please, lets not get into a specs war. The cost to the gamer is something Nintendo always have in mind, and if they do bring out extra hardware, I'm sure it will be affordable.
> If I remember right - the online capability was a very late throw in.
Maybe so, but if I remember right, SEGA had nothing to do with it.
> So far, but with things such as Mario Party 4, Mario Golf, Mario
> Tennis, Mario Kart etc on the way, the number soon increases. When I
> say Mario, I mean the caharcters from that game series such as Luigi,
> Toad, etc as well. X-Box has 4 controller ports too, Sony not having
> that is one of its downsides. As for networking capabilities, I don't
> think GC has it as Nintendo were not interested.
The Mario Party series has combined excellent multiplayer with fantastic mini games, and just because it bears Mario's named, it shouldn't be deemed 'just another Mario game'. Those other games you mentioned are also arguably the best in their genre, so why should they be put down for having the most imaginative line up of characters ever?
I'm not sure about networking, but so few people do it, it doesn't really matter at all.
> My point is that innovation is more about pushing gaming forward, not
> releasing a new hand controller. I mean peripherals such as the light
> gun awhile back, the steering wheel and the new Capcom mech controller
> have innovation in them, but hand controllers are hardly a huge step
> nowadays - even infra red ones.
Actually it makes use of a new technology - radio waves, and is very impressive. Have any other consoles done this? No. So in my opinion it's a good move. The controller is arguably one of the most important things when buying a console, and so it does take a lot of innovation. Nintendo have, time and time again revolutionised controllers, and that shouldn't be taken lightly. There's also the GBA connectivity that will provide a new twist in games. I think you were over the top in saying Nintendo's console displayed no innovation, it's just as imaginative as the other two, if not more.
> Online only games are all well and nice, but I think games that can be
> played both on and offline are better.
I agree, and this is what Nintendo will be looking into. In their true style, they'll once again be making something that EVERYONE can play.
> Whats so innovative about the new Mario and Zelda games? Mario has a
> waterpack and Zelda is cell shaded - not exactly anything amazingly
> different other than Zelda doesn't look right now. Cell shading is
> good when done right, but I don't think Nintendo have on this one.
> Link basically looks like a kids crayon drawing thrown into a well
> done world.
Mario is very different. It's a new place, storyline and puzzle. All it takes is a few screenshots to prove that - as it really has loads of new ideas and little touches. You could be forgiven for thinking that it's a clone of Mario 64 with a waterpack thrown in, as you don't know much about the game. But if you can be bothered to do some research on it, you'll find it's very new.
Don't forget that any screenshots of Zelda you've seen are just screenshots, and it really takes in game footage to see how good a cell shaded game is (I've noticed this with XIII, JSRF, etc). Zelda was early in development when any pictures were released, and it's becoming a very anticipated game.
> I think Blinx looks a better game than Mario because it uses the fresh
> idea of time in the game.
Fresh? I suppose it's still fairly new, but not exactly original. Yes, Blinx looks good (though from some reviews I've read I'm unsure) but it just seems to build a bit on what The Legend Of Zelda: Majora's Mask has done.
> As for a better adventure than Zelda, although I can't say for
> definate right now, I think Project Ego could turn out to be better.
I've not seen much on Project Ego, but from what I'm told, it seems like an Animal Crossing/Harvest Moon clone.
> A new controller and graphics go without saying. The discs don't make
> the games much cheaper (if at all) than other formats. Plus I heard
> it was more expensive for developers to purchase the smaller discs
> from Nintendo. As for the intricate design, its cheaper cause it
> basically has sod all in it compared to the other 2 consoles. It
> might have expansion ports, but how much they will consider the cost
> to the gamer when throwing out these expansions is yet to be seen.
Whether or not the discs are cheaper to make or not, it doesn't stop Nintendo releasing games at smaller prices than it's two competitors. Sod all? It has graphics and speed to rival the X-Box and leave the PS2 in a trail of dust, but please, lets not get into a specs war. The cost to the gamer is something Nintendo always have in mind, and if they do bring out extra hardware, I'm sure it will be affordable.
> If I remember right - the online capability was a very late throw in.
Maybe so, but if I remember right, SEGA had nothing to do with it.
Maverick42 wrote:
> But as technology progresses, it also gets cheaper. DVD and Mini-Disks
> are much cheaper to make than cartridges, and some X-Box and PS2 games
> come out at the same price as N64 ones.
But then the N64 didn't lower prices till it was basically dying out. The only titles that match prices with the N64 on X-Box, PS2 and even GC are the best titles with the N64's worst.
> Without competition, you don't really know what's expensive and what's
> not. It was only when Macs and Linuxes started to become more popular
> that people released Microsoft were ripping off their customers. I
> doubt Nintendo would do the same, just look at the Game Boy Advance.
> It's portable, it's graphics rival the PSOne's and has some classic
> games on it. It has no competition, and still Nintendo are researching
> and working to make it as cheap as possible.
But then it would be a bit ridiuclous if their hand held console was as much as or more than the GC wouldn't it. Especially with one being 32bit while the other is 128bit.
> But as technology progresses, it also gets cheaper. DVD and Mini-Disks
> are much cheaper to make than cartridges, and some X-Box and PS2 games
> come out at the same price as N64 ones.
But then the N64 didn't lower prices till it was basically dying out. The only titles that match prices with the N64 on X-Box, PS2 and even GC are the best titles with the N64's worst.
> Without competition, you don't really know what's expensive and what's
> not. It was only when Macs and Linuxes started to become more popular
> that people released Microsoft were ripping off their customers. I
> doubt Nintendo would do the same, just look at the Game Boy Advance.
> It's portable, it's graphics rival the PSOne's and has some classic
> games on it. It has no competition, and still Nintendo are researching
> and working to make it as cheap as possible.
But then it would be a bit ridiuclous if their hand held console was as much as or more than the GC wouldn't it. Especially with one being 32bit while the other is 128bit.
Whitestripes wrote:
> The only problem Nintendo had with Europe in that past is that for
> some reason they didn't think westeners liked RPGs, hence no UK
> release of Mario RPG or Earthbound.
>
> They were only released in America because there is such a big
> audience.
I just put this in a post to Mav - so just read that rather than me repeating it again. ;-)
> As for the money hungry thing, unlike Sony (esspeccialy) and Microsft
> they will, and do, hold back games for quite a long while to make sure
> they are as good as they can be, instead of just releasing it at a set
> date, of course this does cost them more money. It's not a huge thing
> but it does show they're commitment to high quality games and they're
> willingness to sacrifice a bit of extra money in the process.
> Esspecially when you consider that just as many people would buy the
> games even if they were released without having the extra few
> touches.
Microsoft don't mind holding titles back either. Buffy was delayed god knows how many times - it was supposed to be a launch day title. Overall though, the wait really paid off and Buffy ended up being an excellent title.
Bungie and Big Blue Box are taking as much time as they want on Halo 2 and Project Ego in order to make them top quality. Games like Yager have been put back too in order to make sure they're done right.
Of course crap games get through, but thats no different on any console.
> As for being 'limited' to 4 player modes, well I can only say you've
> obviously never played a decent multi-player game. Go and buy a second
> hand N64, Goldeneye, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Snowboard Kids etc. and
> four controllers. Invite three mates round, have plenty of drinks and
> food, and it's the most fun you will *ever* have on a console. Instead
> of setting there by yourself playing against people with no
> personality, no people to joke and mess around with, and listening to
> morons talking trash over the headset. Online gaming is far too
> impersonnal to be any decent amount of fun.
I've owned all the games you mentioned and although fun, at the end of the day I was caining the same people over and over again. Out of all the multiplayers on the N64, it was probably Mario Kart and Fifa 98 that me and my friends had the best laugh on.
Don't think its too fair to say that knowone online has a personality. Plus unlike other online systems, X-Box Live keeps a profile on all players and all players go by one online identity.
This means that if someone wants to be a complete gonad and stir trouble, other players can report them - this avoids the online experience being spoilt by idiots while still allowing players to have a good laugh together. Even using the keyboard on the DC, I had a few laughs online - like going to the lobby desk on PSO and trying to order a big mac and fries. I got a few laughs from people on that. ;-)
With the headset, it'll be a lot better with much more communication and whereas some close friends might not play the game so much, the people you meet online will be playing the games just as much as you, so its nice not to have one friend moaning about the controls while in another game, your opponents are too inexperienced to ever give you a challenge.
If theres anything I hated about multiplayer Goldeneye, it was going over the controls with a couple of friends over and over again.
> I've only just become excited at the prospect of online gaming with
> Pokemon. I love the Pokemon games and the chance to beat the pants of
> a bunch of lippy 10 year olds is just too good to pass up.
So thanks to Pokemon going online, online play isn't a pile of impersonnal bore anymore ? I think Pokemon online would need to be more than an online stadium game to be really good - it would really need support with a headset, otherwise that IS a game where it'll be no different to facing the CPU.
> The only problem Nintendo had with Europe in that past is that for
> some reason they didn't think westeners liked RPGs, hence no UK
> release of Mario RPG or Earthbound.
>
> They were only released in America because there is such a big
> audience.
I just put this in a post to Mav - so just read that rather than me repeating it again. ;-)
> As for the money hungry thing, unlike Sony (esspeccialy) and Microsft
> they will, and do, hold back games for quite a long while to make sure
> they are as good as they can be, instead of just releasing it at a set
> date, of course this does cost them more money. It's not a huge thing
> but it does show they're commitment to high quality games and they're
> willingness to sacrifice a bit of extra money in the process.
> Esspecially when you consider that just as many people would buy the
> games even if they were released without having the extra few
> touches.
Microsoft don't mind holding titles back either. Buffy was delayed god knows how many times - it was supposed to be a launch day title. Overall though, the wait really paid off and Buffy ended up being an excellent title.
Bungie and Big Blue Box are taking as much time as they want on Halo 2 and Project Ego in order to make them top quality. Games like Yager have been put back too in order to make sure they're done right.
Of course crap games get through, but thats no different on any console.
> As for being 'limited' to 4 player modes, well I can only say you've
> obviously never played a decent multi-player game. Go and buy a second
> hand N64, Goldeneye, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Snowboard Kids etc. and
> four controllers. Invite three mates round, have plenty of drinks and
> food, and it's the most fun you will *ever* have on a console. Instead
> of setting there by yourself playing against people with no
> personality, no people to joke and mess around with, and listening to
> morons talking trash over the headset. Online gaming is far too
> impersonnal to be any decent amount of fun.
I've owned all the games you mentioned and although fun, at the end of the day I was caining the same people over and over again. Out of all the multiplayers on the N64, it was probably Mario Kart and Fifa 98 that me and my friends had the best laugh on.
Don't think its too fair to say that knowone online has a personality. Plus unlike other online systems, X-Box Live keeps a profile on all players and all players go by one online identity.
This means that if someone wants to be a complete gonad and stir trouble, other players can report them - this avoids the online experience being spoilt by idiots while still allowing players to have a good laugh together. Even using the keyboard on the DC, I had a few laughs online - like going to the lobby desk on PSO and trying to order a big mac and fries. I got a few laughs from people on that. ;-)
With the headset, it'll be a lot better with much more communication and whereas some close friends might not play the game so much, the people you meet online will be playing the games just as much as you, so its nice not to have one friend moaning about the controls while in another game, your opponents are too inexperienced to ever give you a challenge.
If theres anything I hated about multiplayer Goldeneye, it was going over the controls with a couple of friends over and over again.
> I've only just become excited at the prospect of online gaming with
> Pokemon. I love the Pokemon games and the chance to beat the pants of
> a bunch of lippy 10 year olds is just too good to pass up.
So thanks to Pokemon going online, online play isn't a pile of impersonnal bore anymore ? I think Pokemon online would need to be more than an online stadium game to be really good - it would really need support with a headset, otherwise that IS a game where it'll be no different to facing the CPU.
Page: