Viewing Thread:
"Favourite Game Ever?"

Mario Kart for SNES.

gerrid wrote:
> The combo system is different, although the basic mechanics are
> obviously the same (lock on, shield, sword). The new counter attack
> move makes a big difference, and the fact that you don't have to have
> your 3 swipe combo all in the same direction as before makes fighting
> multiple enemies a bit easier. Then add to that the fact that you can
> pick up weapons from the floor and throw them/use them on enemies.

So it wasn't completely overhauled and isn't all that different, they just added a couple of things :-).

gerrid wrote:
> I would, definitely. It's platformers and stuff like that mostly, or
> the old FPSs, or poor quality fighting games, or sports games. Play
> Fifa 2001 or PES 1 or MGS or Crash Bandicoot and tell me the gameplay
> hasn't aged.

Fifa and PES are exception due to them being sports games which have gone under constant reworking, not everything about them has been improved, just generally made better and that's owing to the nature of sports games and the demand they place upon the processor in terms of AI.

MGS, I do not feel has particularly aged compared to the newer version, just graphical improvements. Hence why the remake of the PS MGS on the Cube was a very good game.

The Tomb Raider series hasn't aged, particularly from last generation to the current, again, just graphical and animation improvements.

Racing games haven't improved, Double Dash isn't any different to play to Mario Kart 64, same goes with the Gran Turismo series.

The combo system is different, although the basic mechanics are obviously the same (lock on, shield, sword). The new counter attack move makes a big difference, and the fact that you don't have to have your 3 swipe combo all in the same direction as before makes fighting multiple enemies a bit easier. Then add to that the fact that you can pick up weapons from the floor and throw them/use them on enemies.

I don't care enough to argue with you

Someone fancy saying to me why the combat system is all that different. And then go on to further explain why this counts as a reworking of the engine..........

I'd appreciate some explanations of why you're shooting down what I say rather than two word retorts and expecting me to fall over in extreme enlightenment at your words :).

Bonus wrote:
> I haven't played EVERY other game, but in terms of a jump between PS1
> or N64 to Cube, PS2 or Xbox, I wouldn't say ANY game had aged in terms
> of it's actualy gameplay mechanics.

I would, definitely. It's platformers and stuff like that mostly, or the old FPSs, or poor quality fighting games, or sports games. Play Fifa 2001 or PES 1 or MGS or Crash Bandicoot and tell me the gameplay hasn't aged.

Bonus wrote:
> Dr Duck The Stampede wrote:
> gerrid wrote:
> Bonus wrote:
> The only reson it hasn't aged in terms of gameplay is because
> Nintendo used the same engine for Wind Waker and didn't improve on
> it
> at all.
>
> Yeah, that would make sense if Wind Waker was the only game released
> since OOT. But it's not. So it doesn't.
>
>
> Or if he was actually right. But I think he's just fishing for
> attention anyway.
>
> I am right, if you know otherwise, explain, if not don't :-).

Combat system.

gerrid wrote:
> Bonus wrote:
> I was disagreeing with the fact that it hadn't aged in terms of
> gameplay, so I don't know what you're getting at.......
>
> Oh jeez. You said the only reason it might not have aged is because
> Nintendo's next Zelda game was the same. But it hasn't aged in terms
> of gameplay compared to EVERY game that's been released since OOT,
> not just the Zelda ones, so what you said didn't make any sense and
> was just a poor quality dig at WW and Nintendo.
>
> What hea meant was that it doesn't feel archaic to play, like MGS or
> something would. It's just the graphics that have aged.

Ah right, well, none of that was apprent from your other post, but I'll let you off for explaining properly now :).

I haven't played EVERY other game, but in terms of a jump between PS1 or N64 to Cube, PS2 or Xbox, I wouldn't say ANY game had aged in terms of it's actualy gameplay mechanics. That's why so many games being released now are feeling as though they're offering nothing new.

It wasn't a dig at WW either. The egnine in general is good, the camera is good, the controls are good. The animation is excellent, so I don't know why it was taken as a dig.

Dr Duck The Stampede wrote:
> gerrid wrote:
> Bonus wrote:
> The only reson it hasn't aged in terms of gameplay is because
> Nintendo used the same engine for Wind Waker and didn't improve on
> it
> at all.
>
> Yeah, that would make sense if Wind Waker was the only game released
> since OOT. But it's not. So it doesn't.
>
>
> Or if he was actually right. But I think he's just fishing for
> attention anyway.

I am right, if you know otherwise, explain, if not don't :-).

Bonus wrote:
> I was disagreeing with the fact that it hadn't aged in terms of
> gameplay, so I don't know what you're getting at.......

Oh jeez. You said the only reason it might not have aged is because Nintendo's next Zelda game was the same. But it hasn't aged in terms of gameplay compared to EVERY game that's been released since OOT, not just the Zelda ones, so what you said didn't make any sense and was just a poor quality dig at WW and Nintendo.

What hea meant was that it doesn't feel archaic to play, like MGS or something would. It's just the graphics that have aged.